[Doug Wead] Shocker: Ron Paul and rule 40, the new Romney nightmare

[cheapseats]

all it says is a bunch of people are speculating and Romney says they don't know what they are talking about. Doesn't that go in a different forum? We wouldn't nominate any of those guys, any how. This is about what WE would do.

Understood.

But one of the things that WE will want to be very careful not to do anymore, especially not between now and Tampa, is kindle FALSE HOPE. True, Mitt Romney keeps his cards close to the vest. True, it is all speculation. But it is SIGNIFICANT that the name PAUL is not on the sort list, or indeed in the article.

I do NOT say...I have NEVER said...that Tampa is not rife with possibilities. Tampa's got possibilities IN SPADES...good, bad and WORSE. Tampa has more possibilities than Ron Paul has PLANS, that's what it looks like from where I sit.

But I am not in the Inner Loop, like you. If everything is under control, cool.

 

[sailingaway]

Understood.

One of the things that WE will want to be very sure not to do anymore, especially not between now and Tampa, is ignite and encourage FALSE HOPE.

I do NOT say...I have NEVER said...that Tampa is not rife with possibilities. Tampa has more possibilities than Ron Paul has PLANS, that's what it looks like from here.

But I am not in the Inner Loop, like you. If everything is under control, cool.

I never said I was in the inner loop nor that everything is under control. I gave my opinion on the various options.

 

[Working Poor]

I'd get a 'Ron Paul for VP 2012' bumper sticker made up.

LOL Me too

 

[rockandrollsouls]

So sailingaway just took discussion relevant to this topic and moved it to a different thread because it challenged her logic on voting for mitt romney. A bit of an abuse of forum rules, no?

Disgusting.

I'd like to imagine all of you here are intelligent enough to NOT vote for Romney under any circumstances, even if he attempts to silence your voice by seemingly appeasing you. Dictators never want what's best for you.

 

[sailingaway]

So sailingaway just took discussion relevant to this topic and moved it to a different thread because it challenged her logic on voting for mitt romney. A bit of an abuse of forum rules, no?

Disgusting.

I'd like to imagine all of you here are intelligent enough to NOT vote for Romney under any circumstances, even if he attempts to silence your voice by seemingly appeasing you. Dictators never want what's best for you.

I took it because this thread is about delegate action for Ron in Tampa not about someone some people here want us to vote for in November, who is not relevant to this subforum. I don't actually feel the slightest bit challenged. I would be voting for Ron because I like voting for Ron. I see little difference between Obama and Romney, and no attraction to anyone else running.

 

[TheGrinch]

So sailingaway just took discussion relevant to this topic and moved it to a different thread because it challenged her logic on voting for mitt romney. A bit of an abuse of forum rules, no?

Disgusting.

I'd like to imagine all of you here are intelligent enough to NOT vote for Romney under any circumstances, even if he attempts to silence your voice by seemingly appeasing you. Dictators never want what's best for you.

A moderator is supposed to ensure that topics, stay on-topic. Those posts weren't related to the topic at hand and in the wrong forum, so she put them in the right one... That's what a moderator is supposed to do to ensure that topics don't derail into something that the readers didn't click on the topic to read.

And seriously, the way some here get so butt-hurt over the wya the owners and mods choose to moderate their own forum has become pretty absurd. It's not up to you what flies and what doesn't fly with them, nor should it be. This is private property with very specific goals to advance.

 

[anaconda]

Don't get me wrong, it'd be extremely tough for me not to vote for a ticket that has a Paul on it,

It's a no brainer for me. I won't vote for Romney regardless of who the VP is.

 

[affa]

I'm sort of amazed at the reactionary mentalities amongst some of the many in our movement. There is no reason for some to be so fragile considering we've seen just about everything there is to see in politics. However, we'll mature more as we continue to grow and have more success in the GOP. That is, those of us that stay the course and don't go bonkers at the next surprise which inevitably will happen.

Well, i think you're forgetting your own words -- there are, as you say, "many" in our movement, not to mention it's a liberty minded movement to begin with... a massive group of free thinkers. So with any controversial statement, interview, or what-have-you, someone's going to speak up.
Then you have to account for the hangers on and bandwagoneers that are still learning about the meaning of liberty, and of course, then you have the trolls ready to blow on any spark hoping to create a fire.

The point being, I think most people here are damn level headed. Some get fired up here and there, and with a particularly controversial happening (say, Rand's endorsement, or ANY debate night) it's going to get everyone riled up and excited a bit (and it's when the trolls come out in force)... which creates an illusion of 'reactionary' that i really don't think is there.

Of course, we're also dealing with the future of our world at a critical juncture in history, so a little bit of emotion is to be expected. Especially since we're some of the few who are actually paying attention, in a world full of mainstream media watchers.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

IF Ron Paul were nominated as VP, and HE accepted, then I would vote for them.
But, the only reason I would vote for Romney would be because Ron Paul "accepted" the nomination and ran on the ticket.
That would say all I needed to know, since the only reason I'm in this is to see Ron/Us win this.

But as sailingaway stated, why not nominate him for President, he would get to speak, and who knows, the non-romney delegates just might give him a shot. Even if not, he would get to speak unedited.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Fucking thank you. Glad to see some of us here still remember what liberty is about. You don't get liberty by supporting those who want to take it away.

Of course, those struggling with the idea are those new to the movement. Those of us born with freedom in our blood don't even flinch at the scenario.

It's a no brainer for me. I won't vote for Romney regardless of who the VP is.

 

[sailingaway]

Fucking thank you. Glad to see some of us here still remember what liberty is about. You don't get liberty by supporting those who want to take it away.

Of course, those struggling with the idea are those new to the movement. Those of us born with freedom in our blood don't even flinch at the scenario.

If thinking exactly as you do without variation is 'liberty', I don't want it.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

I have no respect for those that put individuals in power that violate the constitution and my rights. You, yourself, are a turn coat, and this not the first time. You've judged many members, moved threads around to your liking to support your own opinion and agenda, and now you come out and say you'd vote for Romney after all of that.

You should be free to do whatever you want to do, but I'm absolutely not comfortable with someone like yourself moderating these discussions when you've voiced you would support Romney. I've been fighting for years. You just got here, somehow got a moderator position, and you've displayed bias during your abuse of that position.

If thinking exactly as you do without variation is 'liberty', I don't want it.

 

[sailingaway]

I said I'd support Ron. I never spoke of supporting Romney. You want me to support an opposing candidate to Romney and are trying to paint my not wanting to as traitorous. Whatever.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

You just said you'd vote for Romney. It doesn't matter who the VP is. The VP doesn't influence policy. The VP doesn't do a damned thing.

You'd vote to put a man in office that has already done terrible, unconstitutional things. How, in any way, does that support the cause of liberty I've been fighting for my entire life and YOU just joined by joining an internet forum less than 2 years ago.

You would cast your vote for someone that has engaged in illegal activity. The years at Bain, the corporations used to fund his PACs, the support of unconstitutional wars, government mandates, NDAA, internet regulation, and there's so much more. Long story short, no matter who the VP is, you are voting for that person in the end. You are voting to put a serial violator of the Constitution in power.

You should be absolutely ashamed. Liberty is not conditional. Just as those who voted for Obama last year, I'll say the same to you. You are guilty by proxy, utilizing group think to put someone in office that has and will continue to violate written law. You don't deserve ANY respect.

I will not show any kindness to anyone who wants to put someone in office that violates the constitution and individual liberty, regardless of who the VP is. No one else here should tolerate it, either.

I am fighting for my rights, the rights of my children, my country. And you're going to go and undermine all of our work by casting a vote for the opposite just because someone you like might be VP.

This just goes to show you don't and never will understand what's going on. There are those of us here who believe the cause of liberty is much bigger than Ron. Your mind has stopped to think it is just Ron. Many of us here believe liberty is not a person. You can't seem to understand that.

I said I'd support Ron. I never spoke of supporting Romney. You want me to support an opposing candidate to Romney and are trying to paint my not wanting to as traitorous. Whatever.

 

[Eisenhower]

Fucking thank you. Glad to see some of us here still remember what liberty is about. You don't get liberty by supporting those who want to take it away.

Of course, those struggling with the idea are those new to the movement. Those of us born with freedom in our blood don't even flinch at the scenario.

NO ONE BUT PAUL (ON THE TOP OF THE TICKET)

 

[sailingaway]

Your hyperbole is not persuasive, given I have clearly advocated Ron Paul be nominated from the floor as PRESIDENT since I can't see Romney supporting Ron as VP so I see no reason to water down the nomination from Pres to VP. As to the rest, I don't think voting for someone who would object every time Romney took a wrong turn is 'voting for Romney', even in the fantasy where that ticket actually existed.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

If anyone else here is as disgusted as I am with SailingAway's blatant bias and support for tyranny, regardless of who the VP is, please join this thread and support my movement to revoke her moderation powers. She should be free to post in the forum as the rest of us are, but we cannot keep those in power that support tyranny in any form.

How can we expect to reclaim our party, and our country, when we don't even have people in power on this forum that understand the concept of liberty?

Please join my fight here http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...way-s-Moderating-Powers&p=4505754#post4505754 and suggest a nomination for an individual that truly understands the concept of liberty and will support only liberty and never tyranny.

 

[Wooden Indian]

Eh... I wouldn't vote for Willard no more than I'd vote for Obama, but let's not be rude to one another.
Instead, have a discussion... you just might change her mind, RnRSouls.
If not, someone else that thinks like her may be swayed.

Blowing your top right away dilutes the message, imo.

 

[TheGrinch]

If anyone else here is as disgusted as I am with SailingAway's blatant bias and support for tyranny, regardless of who the VP is, please join this thread and support my movement to revoke her moderation powers. She should be free to post in the forum as the rest of us are, but we cannot keep those in power that support tyranny in any form.

How can we expect to reclaim our party, and our country, when we don't even have people in power on this forum that understand the concept of liberty?

Please join my fight here http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...way-s-Moderating-Powers&p=4505754#post4505754 and suggest a nomination for an individual that truly understands the concept of liberty and will support only liberty and never tyranny.

Before I can go along with this request, it'd be great if you could fill out this Butthurt report form, so that I can better know what complaints we are rallying against:

Seriously, she supports and trusts Ron if he feels that a VP spot will advance our causes and accepts, as do I. You're free to disagree and vote your conscience, but stop overreacting like anyone is a traitor if they don't completely agree with you on how to best make gains. Liberty means acknowledging that others have a different view of the world than yourself. This idea that "you're either for us or against us" is not only a dangerous and divisive line of thinking, but extremely close-minded.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

No. Someone with such a lack of understanding for the concept of liberty should not be moderating the liberty forums. This forum was created to further the idea of liberty. Though it was created under the moniker of the best fighter for liberty we've ever had, it was never about one person.

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding about what this movement is about. To support tyranny, in any form, simply because someone you like might be VP is not furthering liberty. Supporting an individual that would take away your rights is not supporting liberty, and I am certainly not comfortable having a person okay with that with complete control over the posts and threads in this forum.

This is not personal. This is a plea to keep the flame of liberty alive. We cannot take back our country if we can't even put people in power here that understand liberty.

Eh... I wouldn't vote for Willard no more than I'd vote for Obama, but let's not be rude to one another.
Instead, have a discussion... you just might change her mind, RnRSouls.
If not, someone else that thinks like her may be swayed.

Blowing your top right away dilutes the message, imo.