By all means, please explain to all of us why this is bad? Why is passing new legislation good for the country when we can't even enforce the ones we already have? Not only that, but most of these "great" new laws are just redundant anyway.
I truly believe if more people heard Paul's message , one I personally can find little fault with , that he'd have won this election in a landslide. He never really got the chance.
Because Paul seems to get under your skin for some odd reason. You started a thread, that eventually got locked, about how Paul seemed to be having difficulties with his Congressional race. You seemed to enjoy that wonderful bit of journalism that ended up being total BS.
The media pointed to the "cliff" after only 5% of the delegates were selected in a handfull of early primaries. That's the sad defeatist saga in todays GOP. Too many half assed candidates who never had intentions of staying in the race. Rudy, Fred, Mitt to name a few."A humans instinct to survive will almost always point him towards the popular direction, no matter if it is off a cliff."
Actually, while he has served 10 terms, you can't say that he's been a congressman for decades, because there was never any period of decadeS (plural) during which he was a congressman. He was elected for one term, then lost. He went away for a while. He was elected again in another district for a couple more terms, then retired for about ten years. He was then elected again, and has served since that time.
It's also not true that you "never said anything different" when you consider the title of the thread you started:
Yeah, bars lower and tunes change. Speaking of which, didn't you formerly make fun of Paul and use 5% as your number. When did the bar go up to 10%?
Stage 2 has a lot of people keeping him company eating crow tonight.
I haven't gone back looking for quotes, but the implication about the RP Congressional race that many made, including Stage 2, was he was about to lose, and the reason he was going to lose was because the people in his district had somehow just found out about what RP stood for because of the presidential debates.
There was a sense of glee and jubliation on the part of many who responded in Stage 2's thread about the prospect of Ron Paul losing. Ron Paul supporters were belittled, insulted, and disregarded. There were accusations made that the Republican party didnt need Ron Paul supporters.
Such bravado will, of course, come back to haunt the Republicans when they lose to Obama or Hillary. But at least they got to beat up on an underdog.
About 817,000 people voted for Ron Paul nationwide... I suspect an extra 817,000 votes would have looked good in November to the Republican party.
Yeah, I guess said is the wrong word. It would be more accurate to say that you rejoiced in the prospect of Paul losing, even renaming the title of your thread to "Paul losing" from the more cautious title used in the original article. That sounds a bit different from "Hes been a congressman for decades and its likely that he will continue to be one."STAGE 2 said:I never said that Paul was going to lose the primary election.
and this:When you place your resources behind someone that can't win you don't get anywhere.
"Can't win" and "could likely lose" seem to have morphed into "victory for an incumbent is likely."If talking about Paul ad nauseum for months was a viable discussion (and it was according to you and many others) then talking about how he could likely lose his congressional seat is certianly viable.
Paul, an incumbent, has beaten his opponent (not crushed but beaten) who has no prior experience in running for and federal office
Stage 2 has a lot of people keeping him company eating crow tonight.
Stage2: In your perfect world who's a viable candidate? One that's simply able to win? You and your collective voice have done your share to squelch RP. I guess we must applaud your outcome. You have been bashing RP and his supporters for quite awhile. What is your goal in posting on this thread? To get it locked down?Well, since it was my thread, I'll save you the guesswork. Simply put, the implication was that there has been a wholesale rejection of Paul and his ideas to the point that polls indicated that he could lose his seat in congress.
About 817,000 people voted for Ron Paul nationwide... I suspect an extra 817,000 votes would have looked good in November to the Republican party.
Wholesale rejection...by the Media. Anyone with a thimble full of intelligence should be able to see this bias.