LibertyCzar
Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2007
- Messages
- 541
That thread title is merely a hook. No that's not true. I ask it to make a point. Yes, hello, I'm sort of partly back to the forums. It wasn't easy to log on again after my last thread nearly a year ago ... well, actually, it was necessary in order to read certain moved threads, but that's another matter.
I've been reviewing many posts on one particular subject. This subject has ripped me from the anonymous ranks of the forum visitors. Other subjects in recent months have nearly forced me to log on, but not until today have I actually succumbed to the urge. So here is my point that I must make: In grammar these are three tenses, as many people know:
1. Past Tense
2. Present Tense
3. Future Tense
Why do I point out grammar? The answer is simple. It seems some people need a reminder of what each of the three tenses actually mean and the relevance. How are the gramatical tenses relevant? Well, it seems Ron Paul considers then vitally and crucially important. They really do determine the answer to the this Thread's title. Indeed, Ron Paul has been repeatedly asked if he will eventually endorse John McCain, and in the days before it was clear that John McCain would be the Republican nominee, the eventual chosen nominee, should it turn out to be someone other than Ron Paul himself.
I want to ask each and every person reading this thread what Ron Paul has repeatedly and consistently said in response to such a question? What is Ron Paul's response? How does his response revolve around the grammatical tenses? Well, here it is: Ron Paul says "if John McCain changes his policy, if he advocates a noninterventionist foreign policy ..." and so forth. OPERATIVE PHRASE: If [his] views change ... Does anyone really comprehend what this means? Has anyone given this a second thought? Ron Paul would support and endorse Republican John McCain "IF" ...
That "IF" is vital. I say this to make my point. Changes would have to be made to John McCain's platform, but the point is, that with such changes comes the endorsement from Ron Paul of John McCain. It does not matter to Ron Paul that John McCain once thought this or that, which is the past tense that I pointed out. All that matters to Ron Paul is the present tense, or what John McCain thinks now, at the time leading to the endorsement. Ron Paul is quite happy and content that people's minds are changed to his way of thinking. He does not view these so-called flip-floppers with disdain. If anything, I would think Ron Paul would view this with much relief. That's right everyone: Ron Paul would actually be relieved if all of a sudden John McCain came around and his views changed.
Apparently, certain people have posted on this forum of never supporting such a John McCain, even if Ron Paul himself has. These people would rather cling to a delusional fantasy that Ron Paul would prefer to be violently coerced into accepting a write-in candidacy as an independent candidate where in many places the votes won't even be counted toward anything substantive or material.
BOB BARR HATERS HATE BECAUSE OF ... wait for the grammar ... BOB BARR'S PAST TENSE SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN THINGS THEY DON'T AGREE WITH, WHICH INCLUDES CERTAIN VOTES WHILE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. I SAY PAST TENSE BECAUSE THEY ARE PAST TENSE. This means Ron Paul would support Bob Barr. Bob Barr has seen the light and converted. UNLIKE JOHN MCCAIN'S ... wait for the grammar ... PRESENT TENSE SUPPORT FOR NEOCON POLICIES. Therefore, Ron Paul would not, as of today, support John McCain.
Isn't that the point? OR IS THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION A HOAX AND A FRAUD INTENDED MERELY TO PREACH TO THE PROVERBIAL CHOIR OF LIKEMINDED "PURISTS"! Isn't the point to make converts of socialists and neocons and other misguided folk, you know the Democrats and Republicans, and anyone else? THEREFORE, EVERYONE SHOULD BE DANCING IN THE STREETS BECAUSE BOB BARR HAS SEEN THE LIGHT AND PRESENT TENSE COME AROUND.
Granted, Bob Barr is a work in progress, but he is nevertheless advancing toward acceptable positions. Therefore, if Ron Paul's name is not on the ballot, I will consider Bob Barr. He deserves consideration. Chuck Baldwin is another possibility, and I will consider him as well. But the point is that Bob Barr should not be excluded merely because of past tense positions. That is not the vindictive manner in which Ron Paul would conduct himself. And I choose to follow the example that Ron Paul has set. If Ron Paul could endorse John McCain, with mandatory preconditions, I can certainly vote for Bob Barr. Anyone who claims to believe in Ron Paul's cause should be similarly open.
Incidently, it is against the law for Ron Paul to endorse Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin in any official manner.
I've been reviewing many posts on one particular subject. This subject has ripped me from the anonymous ranks of the forum visitors. Other subjects in recent months have nearly forced me to log on, but not until today have I actually succumbed to the urge. So here is my point that I must make: In grammar these are three tenses, as many people know:
1. Past Tense
2. Present Tense
3. Future Tense
Why do I point out grammar? The answer is simple. It seems some people need a reminder of what each of the three tenses actually mean and the relevance. How are the gramatical tenses relevant? Well, it seems Ron Paul considers then vitally and crucially important. They really do determine the answer to the this Thread's title. Indeed, Ron Paul has been repeatedly asked if he will eventually endorse John McCain, and in the days before it was clear that John McCain would be the Republican nominee, the eventual chosen nominee, should it turn out to be someone other than Ron Paul himself.
I want to ask each and every person reading this thread what Ron Paul has repeatedly and consistently said in response to such a question? What is Ron Paul's response? How does his response revolve around the grammatical tenses? Well, here it is: Ron Paul says "if John McCain changes his policy, if he advocates a noninterventionist foreign policy ..." and so forth. OPERATIVE PHRASE: If [his] views change ... Does anyone really comprehend what this means? Has anyone given this a second thought? Ron Paul would support and endorse Republican John McCain "IF" ...
That "IF" is vital. I say this to make my point. Changes would have to be made to John McCain's platform, but the point is, that with such changes comes the endorsement from Ron Paul of John McCain. It does not matter to Ron Paul that John McCain once thought this or that, which is the past tense that I pointed out. All that matters to Ron Paul is the present tense, or what John McCain thinks now, at the time leading to the endorsement. Ron Paul is quite happy and content that people's minds are changed to his way of thinking. He does not view these so-called flip-floppers with disdain. If anything, I would think Ron Paul would view this with much relief. That's right everyone: Ron Paul would actually be relieved if all of a sudden John McCain came around and his views changed.
Apparently, certain people have posted on this forum of never supporting such a John McCain, even if Ron Paul himself has. These people would rather cling to a delusional fantasy that Ron Paul would prefer to be violently coerced into accepting a write-in candidacy as an independent candidate where in many places the votes won't even be counted toward anything substantive or material.
BOB BARR HATERS HATE BECAUSE OF ... wait for the grammar ... BOB BARR'S PAST TENSE SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN THINGS THEY DON'T AGREE WITH, WHICH INCLUDES CERTAIN VOTES WHILE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. I SAY PAST TENSE BECAUSE THEY ARE PAST TENSE. This means Ron Paul would support Bob Barr. Bob Barr has seen the light and converted. UNLIKE JOHN MCCAIN'S ... wait for the grammar ... PRESENT TENSE SUPPORT FOR NEOCON POLICIES. Therefore, Ron Paul would not, as of today, support John McCain.
Isn't that the point? OR IS THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION A HOAX AND A FRAUD INTENDED MERELY TO PREACH TO THE PROVERBIAL CHOIR OF LIKEMINDED "PURISTS"! Isn't the point to make converts of socialists and neocons and other misguided folk, you know the Democrats and Republicans, and anyone else? THEREFORE, EVERYONE SHOULD BE DANCING IN THE STREETS BECAUSE BOB BARR HAS SEEN THE LIGHT AND PRESENT TENSE COME AROUND.
Granted, Bob Barr is a work in progress, but he is nevertheless advancing toward acceptable positions. Therefore, if Ron Paul's name is not on the ballot, I will consider Bob Barr. He deserves consideration. Chuck Baldwin is another possibility, and I will consider him as well. But the point is that Bob Barr should not be excluded merely because of past tense positions. That is not the vindictive manner in which Ron Paul would conduct himself. And I choose to follow the example that Ron Paul has set. If Ron Paul could endorse John McCain, with mandatory preconditions, I can certainly vote for Bob Barr. Anyone who claims to believe in Ron Paul's cause should be similarly open.
Incidently, it is against the law for Ron Paul to endorse Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin in any official manner.
Last edited:
