WHy are you still posting in this thread?

Seriously.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/...aul/index.html

Uhhhh (at least up until now), I pretty much was done with the subject. Nittany and company was saying that Paul dropped out, I disagreed pending absolute clarification from the campaign and/or Ron Paul himself due to a heavy use of ambiguous language and the tendency for the MSM to spin stories for their own personal benefit.

Bottom line, we more or less have left this as a (temporary) mutual disagreement.

UPDATE: I have just received an update from Ron Paul himself being interviewed by Fox News that will settle this matter once and for all. I'm waiting on a Youtube clip to upload, and then I'll post it here once it becomes available.

STAY TUNED!!

Seems as if what my friend in the Clinton camp said about John maybe very true; Not a very nice man:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03...nobama-ticket/

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player...News&266&&&new

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

True, and something else he said on that tape could come back and bit him.
"Private VS. Public conversations".

Granted, this isn't a YouTube vid or anything from the official campaign website, but until something more definitive comes in, this'll have to do for now:

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/793/story/207457.html

More to follow as it becomes available.

to be really honest, i don't think anyone really cares about that Paul guy anyway. He has like 19 votes.

It's mathematically impossible for him to be the Republican candidate. And W. already gave his seal of approval for McCain anyway.

Just sayin'.

If that was the case, then why is the MSM and the GOP fighting tooth and nail to keep him from getting the nomination? And yes, they have been fighting HARD.

*snap* And it does not run through my courtoom!

~Judge David Young "Justice, with a snap."

Speaking as one of the 19 votes he has, I care. I care because I think McCain is evvvvvvvillllllllll. OH - and W. giving the seal of approval? If that doesn't scare you, I don't know what could!

Not that I wish anyone ill, but should Jesus decide to take McCain to His bosom - I'd be okay with that!

Lol.


Let us start frome here: if the GOP really is "trying" to marginalize Ron Paul it's because he doesn't fit with the party's beliefs. If he doesn't fit in with the party's platform, than it is unlikely the party will support him. It is even more unlikely that the GOP, however disappointed the religious conservatives are with McCain, will choose Ron Paul at the Convention when he does not fulfill any of the areas for which McCain is roundly criticized. Ron Paul is opposed to an amendment against abortion, he is opposed to defining marriage constitutionally, he wants to repeal the Bush Tax Cuts, etc. He brings other things to the table but he is not the "Anti-McCain." The only people with incentive to "revolt" at the election are likely to choose Huckabee over any other current candidate.

By election, do you mean electing the nominee at the Republican Convention? Cause I got to tell you - I hate Huckabee almost as much as McCain.
I'm just tired of picking the least objectionable candidate. Even though I disagree with some of Paul's platform, I believe in his integrity in a way I don't believe in anyone else's. I do NOT know what I am going to do if it is McCain vs. Clinton/Obama. Shudder.

My feelings exactly! Thank you for speaking up and speaking out for Ron Paul!!

Cosign to the Nth degree, especially on voting for the least objectionable candidate. I am sick and tired of voting for a candidate because the MSM thinks I should because of how "popular" they are, irrespective of whether they are serious on the issues, especially ones that I find to be important.

I would much sooner vote for a candidate who while they aren't as popular, I agree with say, 80% of their stance on the issues rather than voting for candidates that I agree with no more than 25-30% of their stances on the issues. If that means I'm a right-wing kook for doing so, so be it.

This clip from a popular 70s sitcom, where they're talking about the '68 presidential election; this could've been set in 2008 and would still be dead on accurate as far as candidates and issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FqVRxiE8NA

REFUTED

Grounds: Speculation, Begging the question, assumes facts not in evidence, lack of personal or professional knowledge, and unfounded appeal to authority.

*LOL*

SHEEEEEYYOUUUUTTTTT!!! (read: shoot).

You wish.