Romney has a better shot at winning this year than in the past. This year the powers that be were so afraid of Palin that they changed the rules. It used to be the winner of the state gets all the delagates. So many very conservative states fought to get their election date moved up so that they would have more say in the election. So now they have changed the rules and if the primary is held during march will have to divider their delegates proportionally by how the vote went instead of winner take all. This could allow Romney to hang around and still get delegates then later in the cycle once April comes and the primaries go back to winner take all in the more progressive states he could make a run.

In a way that is what McCain did. He won some states, he finished 2nd and 3rd in some states but Huckabee was really giving him a run for his money in the bible belt. He was able to hold out until the race left the bible belt and then he pulled ahead for good. Romney might be able to play that same game.

Then you wouldn't need a gun then since no one would be fighting you. Oh and Americans woudn't kill Americans? There was this thing called the Civil War.

310 million and MILIONS are old, cripple or children. So no they won't be fighting. many those that are most of them won't be fighting either. The Civial War the South was basically on the equal terms with the "evil" northern governent. Who won? Any "citizens army" now is no were near the level of our US military. Oh and if our military can't take care of some under gunned rebels then our military sucks. Now does it suck? Nope.

I never said Americans wouldn't kill Americans, I said "I would hope not many" would. Of course some soldiers are so fucking brainwashed that they would obey any order.

You are still dodging the point that being armed is better than not being armed. I'd rather have a chance than be completely helpless.

I hope our soldiers obey orders because that's what they are supposed to do.

Your chance=ZERO. I however will be there to fuck your widow.

I bet you do. You probably support all of the illegal wars that our military is used as a proxy military to fight.

These polls definitely agree with you...

http://ed.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/0...hts-gop-debate

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...reagan-library

lmfao @ the bar graph in the second link... Romney's bar is same length as Paul's even though they are nowhere close to each other...

nevermind....

Obama gets 100 points for his mess on everyone but himself.

http://www.heraldandnews.com/viewpoi...a_id=103574561

http://antzinpantz.com/kns/images/AUG10/bs2.jpg

no. progressives have an odd fascination with ron paul. i dont know why. But MSNBC does not poll republicans, as repubs do not surf there.

The dumbest part about all that shit is that it really isn't Bush's fault OR Obama's fault... they are both only ONE MAN.

People give the President way too much blame and way too much credit, whichever the situation calls for.

Presidents are just figurehead frontmen for the most part...

How do you know who surfs there?

When you signup for an internet connection do you have to register as a Republican... and then you are automatically blocked from visiting msnbc.com? lmao

Yeah, they tend not to pay any attention to fringe candidates.

no smartass. people surf the sites that agree with their politics. just like black people live with black people by choice, repubs & dems surf sites that tell them what they want to hear.

relying on MSNBC to tell us what repubs think is the biggest joke there is.

How can you say people only surf sites that agree with their politics? That's simply not true.

That's like saying all black people are criminals.

I personally know people who consider themselves either Republican or Democrat (big mistake on their part for participating in the 2-party paradigm) who visit a wide variety of websites, including those that don't "agree with their politics."

He get's to have his pork, and eat it too. And Paultards are OK with this.

the poll itself confirms my point. Repubs dont think ron paul won by a 2-1 margin. Just wait for the media to start polling repubs (see fox news), they are not going to give ron paul the win by 2-1 basis like on MSNBC.

Did you even hear him explain it at the end of the video?

You are supposed to give the money back to your own district, that is the congress' job.

Would you rather the money gets sent to overseas banks like in the bailouts?

Well it's pointless arguing about polls that Ron Paul wins anyways, because everyone ALWAYS has some reason why it's not legit.

i dont know why you put any stock into that poll. Paul barely got any camera time. how can he have won the debate by a big margin. Dudes got a lot of web fans. thats about all the sample that feeds the MSNBC poll. its meaningless.

How about this poll from the Iowa debate? How is this one meaningless?

http://www.topix.com/issue/gop-debate-aug11

Special interest groups will always try to control the position of power that a government essentially is :(

Have you ever looked in detail to where the money went? I have. sure is interesting, and much of it does not fit the bullshit he spews.. that's for sure. Using public funds to build bridges for private railroads, Using public funds to fund public parks, as examples. shit ron paul spends like a democrat. lol

He's polling 3rd. He's raised more money than, I think, all but Romney. He is actually polling around where McCain did at this point in the last election cycle. None of this sounds very "fringe" to me...

You do realize that this "spending" does not increase spending at all, right?

You do realize if he took no money for his district that money would be spent by the Executive Branch, right?

Of course you do.

It's been pointed out to you here many times... yet you continue with this attack again and again.

Go on letting him have his cake and eat it to. Like every other politician that is just like him in Washington. Sheep.:2 cents:

ron paul flip flops enough that he could debate himself and lose.

I will confess that I have not paid enough attention to him to know if he flip flops or not

One thing I take objection to is how politicians and those that support them have turned the changing of a persons mind or amending one's position to be a horribly negative thing

this person flip flops, that person flip flops

I can understand if it is a political tactic where views change in the space of hours depending on the audience (I believe brother Bill Clinton may have been guilty of this). But I rather want to see politicians who are open minded enough that when new facts are presented to them are able to modify their positions to fit the facts. I do not want some ideologue spouting out the party line with no more thought to the subject than if old women in Florida will send money to his campaign.

It seems that the maturity level of the voters hovers at around the junior high school lever and their representatives are racing them lower. No compromise, no changing your views on ANYTHING strikes me as prepubescent and unworthy of any elected office

evolving your position is one thing. taking the exact opposite side because it is has wider support to get you reelected seems a by dishonest.

http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2011/...l-who-is-next/

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspo...evolution.html

http://criminyjicket.wordpress.com/2...ket-flip-flop/

you dont think he is trying to suck up to the conservative republican vote?

+1 :2 cents:

His basic agenda, which has not changed in 20 years, is truly constitutional, smaller federal government. NEITHER party really wants to see that, so he get's pushed aside, no matter what his poll numbers, by both the left and the right wing media.



.


.

I guess you never saw Wolverines.

:thumbsup:winkwink: