General discussion

Locked

Is Ron Paul locked out?

By jdclyde ·
With all the hooting and hollering for McCain and his majority wins yesterday, where does that leave the stealth campaign of Ron Paul?

Is he still hoping to get in?

Is he dropping out?

Will he run as an independent?

Looking at some of his websites, they state "Now there are two".

Paul writes to forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/04/election-economy-paul-oped-cx_rp_0304ronpaul.html

What I would like to know from people that are involved in this campaign (you know who you are) is what is next?

Front page of the Detroit Free Press "McCain clinches GOP nod"
http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage

I cannot vote for McCain. Give me hope, someone.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

121 total posts (Page 1 of 13)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

On the bright side

by jdclyde In reply to Is Ron Paul locked out?

With the Hilary Rodham-Clinton surge yesterday, it keeps her and Obama focused on each other instead of moving "the party" forward.

It also keeps the attacks vicious and inward focused.

Collapse -

What did you think

by JamesRL In reply to On the bright side

About the NAFTA brouhaha?

I think what was telling was Obama's assertion that the Canadian Government was plotting to do him in. Oh please what a paranoid assertion. Big hint, if you talk to an embassy official FROM ANY COUNTRY, you must assume that they will tell their government(that is their job after all), and their government may respond. Just how naive is he? That showed me he has no clue about foreign relations, that and the remark about invading Pakistan.

Now, I don't think Bush was that strong on foreign relations, especially before he became president.

But I truly believe both Democrats are pandering when they talk about tearing up NAFTA before they have done their homework.

James

Collapse -

It is giving a ******* to the unions

by jdclyde In reply to What did you think

And after all, it was Bill Clinton that signed NAFTA into law in the first place. The key to Democrats winning is sucking up to two main groups, unions and people on welfare.

It isn't the Canadian side of NAFTA that we have a problem with, it is getting shafted by the Mexican side. When we talk about border security, the average American doesn't even give a second thought about the Canadian border, because it isn't the one that is causing us to flush our economy and security down the drain.

Obama will destroy this country if he gets in office. Not because he is a bad person, I think he WANTS to help and has his heart in the right place, but he is just WRONG on EVERYTHING.

Collapse -

If we had a real economic plan

by TonytheTiger In reply to It is giving a handjob to ...

It wouldn't matter how many Mexicans came across the border... in fact, we'd probably be BEGGING them to!

Unfortunately, both Democrats want to tax the $hit out of businesses... like taking money away from them is going to create more jobs ?

Collapse -

Bill Clinton? Close but no cigar

by IC-IT In reply to It is giving a handjob to ...

Actually signed by Bush (but pushed by Clinton).

NAFTA was initially pursued by corporate interest in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries. In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House of Representatives passed NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by 234-200 vote (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor; 43 Republicans, 156 Democrats, and 1 independent against),[6] and the U.S. Senate passed it on the last day of its 1993 session, November 20, 1993, by 61-38 vote (34 Republicans and 27 Democrats voting in favor; 10 Republicans and 28 Democrats against, with 1 Democrat opponent not voting -- Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), an ardent foe of NAFTA, missed the vote because of an illness in his family).[7]

Collapse -

I didn't say it was his idea or his baby

by jdclyde In reply to Bill Clinton? Close but n ...

just that it came about under HIS watch. HE passed it through.

And yes, it was started before he got in office, but he didn't have to let it go through. He did, so his fingers are in the pie.

Collapse -

You implied as much ...

by PSer In reply to I didn't say it was his i ...

bwilmot, no need for the actual FACTS, it only confuses "them"! Don't you know, EVERYTHING wrong in this country is "Clinton's fault". You must be new ...

So, by the same thought process, GWB is responsible for 9/11 ... right? After all, HE was handed the "Al Qaeda Threat" reports and HE chose to ignore them and it happened on HIS watch, ergo ... it's his fault!

This dog don't hunt JD...

Edit: Because I am an a$$

Collapse -

His fingers in the pie

by jdclyde In reply to You implied as much ...

does not equal "his fault". It means he was part of the problem, even if it wasn't originally a problem of his making.

He could have stopped it, but instead passed it though.

You can twist in the wind all you want, but it won't take his fingerprints off of NAFTA passing under him.

And in case you didn't notice, any mentions of Clinton were not flames, nor did I direct any at you, so your copy/paste to get people worked up isn't working. I so don't care about Republican/Democrat right now. I do know that Obama will be horrible for us if people are dumb enough to vote for someone simply because he is black.

Collapse -

JD

by PSer In reply to You implied as much ...

Dude, it's your M.O. Imply the worst in every discussion when speaking of dems., libs, the"poor, poor", the "Evil Teaher's Union", etc., etc. ... despite the facts. Your original implication here was Bill Clinton=NAFTA, NAFTA=BAD, Bill Clinton=Dem., Dem=Evil, etc., etc. I am curious to see your response below to bwilmot ?

Yeah, I can be an A$$hole. I frequently prove that to others as well as myself. Not ashamed to admit it, it's who I am. I was kind of pocking the chests of all you rabid anti-libs for no other reason than the years of venom you guys spewed (and still do). It does not make it right or me any better. I edited my a$$hole taunting remarks out of both posts not to try and hide my "a$$holyness" (word?) but because it just ain't right, on either side. However, in all due fairness, if anyone feels they need to see my A$$hole remarks I will oblige in anyway asked.

Again, for what it's worth, I somewhat agree with that last statement. But I will add ... I think he will make an excellent President ? with about eight more years of experience.

Edit: name correction and spelling, a 2fer!

Collapse -

again, you are forgetting your own parties history

by DanLM In reply to You implied as much ...

If Clinton didn't want it passed, it never would have been. He wanted it passed, by the article. He made it a major push in early parts of his administration.

Your right, it started under Bush. It ended with Clinton with the influence he used to get it passed.

Own up to your own parties involvement in the things that are wrong and quit being a total twit that has a very selective remembrance in history.

And who the yuk said it was all Clinton's fault.

My favorite from you left wing selective historians is: It's past history, who cares. In other words, you only remember the history of what the republicans did and not your own party.

Again, the moronic attitude of pull the democratic leaver no matter who is running. You are just as guilty of wearing blinders as the far right is. You haven't a clue when it comes to your own parties miss deeds. And again, you are JUST AS GUILTY of miss interpreting the constitution as the far right.

And people wonder why I don't like the far left. They are as evil if not more so then the far right. Your both a bunch of jack boot morons that haven't a clue.

If you gave a crap, which you quite obviously don't. You would look for someone to bridge the gap between the left and the right. No matter what the party they belong to. Which is what I want. But, again. You statements speaks volumes about your way or no way attitude. And your selective history lessons.

I bet you like a divided government as long as the democrats are in power. But if it's the republicans, you always blame them because the government is divided.

What a moron. And you wonder why this nation is so yuked up. It's people like you that are single minded aholes that can't see past their party to view everything in the same light. You should view everyone, including your own party ahole skeptically. Not just the opposite party.

Dan

Back to Windows Forum
121 total posts (Page 1 of 13)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums