US '12 Presidential Update

US '12 Presidential Update

For the benefit of all of those of us in Europe, Asia, Antarctica and elsewhere, that is, for everybody who doesn't hang feverishly on every flash event in the upcoming Presidential election here, those who do will post here from time to time with tidbits that might just well affect your well-being in terms of incineration, etc.

Yeah you have a very valid point there Jaybro but mind you they are always landing in your bailiwick ( ?)so that may explain it?! I mean the poor souls may know about the 'wummin' statue and the "huddled masses" so maybe think they will get the same fairness. Poor sops.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Wilson's actual violations of the 1st Amendment's guarantee of free speech

...

from the article...

The Sedition Act criminalized any expression of opinion that used "disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language" about the U.S. government, flag or armed forces.

Sounds like a less severe version of Bush's Patriot Act

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Wilson's actual violations of the 1st Amendment's guarantee of free speech

...

from the article...

The Sedition Act criminalized any expression of opinion that used "disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language" about the U.S. government, flag or armed forces.

Sounds like a less severe version of Bush's Patriot Act

Does it really matter what party colour the candidate wears if he breaks the rights of the people?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Sounds like a less severe version of Bush's Patriot Act

You mean AMERICA'S Patriot Act.....Here, you see to your amazement, that BOTH parties sided with the Patriot Act (commonly called bi-partisan), so it makes for nice leftist propaganda, but the Patriot Act was agreed to by the overwhelming majority representing ALL Americans.




98 of 100 U.S. Senators voted in favor of the US Patriot Act of 2001 -- Only Two (2) Votes short of UNANIMOUS.

(Senator Landrieu (D-LA) did not vote) Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was the only senator who voted against the Patriot Act on October 24, of 2001.

Now that's a fact.

House Vote Roll Call for the Patriot Act 2001 of October 24, 2001 was:

YEAS..........357
NAYS...........66

Now that's a fact.


So calling it Bush's Patriot Act is just another.......... *ahem* fib.


Senate and House Vote Roll Call on U.S. Patriot Act 2001 & 2006 *

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

that BOTH parties sided with the Patriot Act

...even though it was written and (apparently) read by members from only one party....

SF also knows very well that it was jammed through congress with little time for debate (or reading as you mentioned.

In addition, after it was reauthorized...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers

Oh good. He didn't even want to tell Congress how it worked.

Oh my. Now the GOP is offended on behalf of Latinos for the use of the word chimichanga in tweet by Jim Messina "....The chimichanga? It may be the only thing Republicans have left to offer Latinos." Political correctness gone mad? Of course, "chimichanga" was a reference to a speech given by John McCain...

Meanwhile, the GOP stays on the wrong side of that community of pretty much every issue.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

......it was jammed through congress...

Pawwwwwwleeeeeeeassse! Surely you jest!!?

You know you weren't born yesterday, so don't be so naive to believe that rot you spew.

Even if a feather were to fall to the floor, & it remotely sounded Republican, the democrats would be screaming and bitching up a storm.....look at the votes man....look at the votes....are you saying that the dems, knowing it would probably pass anyway, they didn't even offer a token resistance. Nope,the democrats backed it to the hilt in both Houses of Congress when it was originally put into law!

Senate 98-1 .... House 357-66 ..... there were 50 democrat Senators, & over 210 democrat Representatives in the 107th Congress October 2001....rammed through???

Give me a break, & stop being so retarded developmentally challenged with your Party Line Rhetoric..

Topic closed!

Too much ill will.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Pawwwwwwleeeeeeeassse! Surely you jest!!?

You know you weren't born yesterday, so don't be so naive to believe that rot you spew.

I'm curious. How many days did it take for the Patriot Act to be created and passed into law? How many days between it being released to senators/congressmen for reading and it being passed? How many days does an act of this size and scope normally take to get written up and passed into law?

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Topic closed!

Too much ill will.

No, just to much will contrary to the will you wish to will.

Sorry, ain't rollin' over to satisfy anyone's version of political correctness.....
...........especially when correctness = the democrat way/slant of things (as in small d).

And if you think having contrary positions, or views is ill willed, I can't wait to see your bugger eyes the closer the election comes!



Now, that will be "ill"

You ain't seen nothin' yet!

Lock 'n Load!

Just popped in with a little tip for the GOP, since I'm so helpful

Dear GOP,

If you want to prevent abortions and reduce entitlement spending, make sure people have education and birth control and stop doing the opposite

Your friend,

Raccoon

Originally posted by mexile:

I'm curious. How many days did it take for the Patriot Act to be created and passed into law? How many days between it being released to senators/congressmen for reading and it being passed? How many days does an act of this size and scope normally take to get written up and passed into law?

Indeed. He seems to be the naive one.

Oh, and Smiley, I thought you were constitutional conservative, I guess I was wrong. In the exact words of Ron Paul last year (when the Patriot Act failed to get the 2/4 majority needed for passage and therefore the rules had to be changed) ""Are they truly conservative, and will they vote to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?"

Go back to drinking tea with the rest of the reactionary fake conservatives.

Obama will no longer be able to claim he is the unanimous choice of Sanguinemoon's dEMOCRAT PARTY.

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Barack Obama's victory Tuesday in Oklahoma's Democratic primary was far less emphatic than typical for an incumbent president, and his poor showing in more than a dozen of the state's counties threatened to cost him a unanimous re-nomination.

With all but six of the state's 1,961 precincts reporting, Obama had 57 percent of the vote. An anti-abortion activist, Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry, had 18 percent of the vote and under party rules could lay claim to at least one delegate.

"This shows real dissatisfaction," said Ben Odom, a political strategist and a former vice-chairman of the state Democratic Party. "You had a pro-life activist and three people who didn't mount a campaign get 44 percent of the vote. ... An incumbent president ought to be polling at least 80 percent, particularly against this kind of opposition."

Prior to Tuesday, Obama had claimed all delegates, the Democratic National Committee said last week. Odom said a vote count showing that more than 40 percent of Oklahoma Democrats disapprove of the president's job performance is "a real disaster for the Obama campaign in Oklahoma."

The state is conservative - Oklahoma hasn't given its electoral votes to a Democratic nominee since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 - and Obama likely upset some in the powerful oil and gas industry when he rejected plans for the Keystone oil pipeline from Canada to Texas via a depot at Cushing.

According to Democratic Party rules, Terry is eligible for a delegate since he won more than 15 percent of the statewide vote. Until Tuesday, Obama had won all of the Democratic delegates awarded so far.

Oklahoma Democratic Party Chairman Wallace Collins said he wanted to review party guidelines before pronouncing that Terry had cost Obama a vote at this summer's convention.

"If under the rules he (Terry) is awarded a delegate, we'll be sure he gets one," Collins said.

Terry, meanwhile, said he entered contests here and elsewhere in an effort to upset Obama's re-election bid.

"I beat a sitting president as a voice for the babies that are being killed by Obama's policies," Terry said in an interview from Tulsa, where he was watching election results.

Do you think this is anything more than symbolic at best, or could he really help deny Obama a second term when coupled with Obama's attack on Religious Freedom in America via the Obamacare mandate?

Under a new Obamacare mandate issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the White House is mandating that virtually all religious employers, with the exception of churches, provide health care coverage for contraception — including abortion-inducing drugs — thereby trampling upon their constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion.

The Obama Administration’s actions, though entirely counter to the freedom of religion, should not be surprising given the nature of the President’s health care law. Obamacare has given the federal government broad power over one-sixth of the American economy and thereby purports to grant Washington the power to force religious institutions to take actions contrary to their faith. America’s religious leaders and the faithful have awoken to this wolf at their door and are lashing out in defense of their freedoms.

First they came for our money when they bailed out irresponsible banks, companies and individuals. Our personal and national financial security is now at risk.

Then they took away the ability to choose our own doctors, insurance carriers, and treatments. “It is only fair,” they said as they rammed down our throats the most intrusive legislation ever in our lifetime. Our personal health is now at risk.

And now they come for what drove so many of our founding fathers to America’s shores. They want to mandate religious institutions, schools, and people of faith by forcing them to pay for morally objectionable services that run counter to their religious beliefs.*

What do you think?

Wow. Republicans voting for a Republican in a Democratic primary just for this. The wonders from the GOP never cease.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Obama will no longer be able to claim he is the unanimous choice of Sanguinemoon's dEMOCRAT PARTY.

What do you think?

I think that dEMOCRAT PARTY is muchly akin to rEPUBLICAN POTTY...another juvenile Smileyism.

Do you think?

Alls I got to say is........



In my mind, he's our guy!!!

It's really quite revealing when you think how Obama was put in to change things and he actuually has increased military expenditure and the looking for wars fetish, clandestine ops, and freedom restrictions "for security". Laughable when he was bemoaning GW Bush for much the same thing and he is worse! He was right with bnis sloan "Yes we can." He proved that by doing more of the same - and increasing it (!). And to think how Bush was hounded?

And yet the GOP accuses him of gutting the military...

Originally posted by rjhowie:

It's really quite revealing when you think how Obama was put in to change things and he actuually has increased military expenditure and the looking for wars fetish, clandestine ops, and freedom restrictions "for security". Laughable when he was bemoaning GW Bush for much the same thing and he is worse! He was right with bnis sloan "Yes we can." He proved that by doing more of the same - and increasing it (!). And to think how Bush was hounded?

Yep, rather than slashing the Military where it's actually needed, Obama has chosen to increase expenditures where he will be able to manipulate those expenditures in the future, & funnel them back into his Progressive Programs....Actually its a political shell game which is meant to give the Hawks & Right/Centrists a false sense of security prior to the 2012 Elections. Where he has slashed the Military (deleted future pre-planned increases which in dEMOCREAT Speak is a cut/slash) is in the readiness, & manpower sectors, here to give his Leftist base all the crumbs they need for political backing & support. In a way he's politically playing both ends toward the center, subject to revision after the elections with a hard swerving maneuver to the extreme Left--where he was always meant to be from the get go, but didn't want to make it too too obvious until he was politically safe within his hopeful second term.

So right there Smileyfaze. "Yes we can" seems a trite hollow now?

I think we're in an awful lot of trouble. The link below is a lot closer to the truth than any of us are really comfortable with.

http://www.gocomics.com/badreporter#mutable_762965

At last!

Originally posted by rjhowie:

So right there Smileyfaze.

Nah, he's just making excuses for why the facts and figures don't match the GOP rhetoric about Obama defunding the military.... It must be fun to be Republican. You can just make stuff up and go on Fox News and everybody just pretends you're not just talking out of your hat. It's a childish, yet fun game of make-believe.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I think we're in an awful lot of trouble. The link below is a lot closer to the truth than any of us are really comfortable with.

http://www.gocomics.com/badreporter#mutable_762965

I'm just following your lead with this video I found that was published recently on March 22, 2012.

Would this also be something to be uncomfortable about?

What's real & what's fake?

What does it mean?

I thought this was all resolved?

Are there now more questions needing to be answered?




This video followed on March 25th., 2012



Does "Where There's Smoke, There's Fire" come to mind/fit here?

Surely to goodness, can we really be seeing new information leading to new questions that need answering?

In the end who cares if the Birth Certificate Obama had someone make up looks real or not?

It really doesn't matter anymore.

Obama's policies are reason enough, for me personally, to see his political demise come November.....I don't need a phoney birth certificate to make me surer.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by rjhowie:

So right there Smileyfaze.

Nah, he's just making excuses for why the facts and figures don't match the GOP rhetoric about Obama defunding the military.... It must be fun to be Republican. You can just make stuff up and go on Fox News and everybody just pretends you're not just talking out of your hat. It's a childish, yet fun game of make-believe.

That's 'fair & balanced' for you - deranged lunatics are people too

The 2012 election? Only the naive pay attention to the useless details that the mainstream media presents to the empty headed public.
Why let's examine our choices, which really resemble nothing of a choice what-so-ever.

Originally posted by Macallan:

That's 'fair & balanced' for you - deranged lunatics are people too

Aye, but they report to the asylum like proper, self-respecting deranged lunatics.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Are there now more questions needing to be answered?

For the same reason nobody answers and LSD user when he says "Why was there a one legged, three winged faerie riding an orange and green pegasus /unicorn over an inverted rainbow?" Oh I see "where there's smoke, there's fire?" They found some means of smoking acid, or have they discovered a new, smokable hallucination?

The link from mjsmsprt40 was certainly amusing hence my satirical response. As for lunatics. Women got the vote and they didn't then I realised that the Republican candidate race shows they did. Proof is easier than the Obama thing!

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Obama's policies are reason enough, for me personally, to see his political demise come November.....

Oh that's not gonna happen. Look at the electoral votes The only significant non-southern state even a little in the GOP camp is Indiana. (The rest are those low population states with less people than my city...) Then when you check the gray states, Obama is winning in most those too (in the case of Virginia by 9 points, already and getting better by the poll..so it should be at least light blue).

The more the TP involves itself in the election, the bluer the final map will be. Michelle Bachmann was saying the other day about how Republicans will unit behind the candidate. Have you considered that maybe, just maybe Romney will not want her and the likes of you campaigning for him? Just sayin'. Of course, he does you to vote for him, but otherwise stay invisible during the course of the campaign. He doesn't want to be crazy by association.

The predications made after the 2008 election that the GOP was going to become a regional is coming true. One time red states are becoming swing states, soon to be blue states. This will continue at least until the GOP changes it's ways. Lately the war against women's rights is alienating 51% of the vote big time. Sandra Fluke (paraphrased) "contraceptives should be covered by insurance because they treat other things. My friend lost her ovary because she was not able to get expensive so-called birth control pills because they weren't covered." GOP (apparently deaf to the real complaint) :You know Georgetown didn't cover contraception their plans! We don't want our tax dollars paying for you to have sex Women:You didn't hear a damn thing she said, did you? And it's not your tax dollars, it's our insurance premiums Yup, we're voting Democratic this time...

You continue to alienate one group after another like this if you continue thinking we're in the Victorian Era. Soon you'll only have a handleful of white/fundamentalist men left (maybe 12% of the population) You can't win an election like that, except in the deep south and those midwestern states where you can drive miles just to get to the next house. (soon not even solidly win in the deep south. Atlanta keeps growing and spreading its blueness)

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Yup, we're voting Democratic this time...

Somehow, when it comes to your vote, that was never in question----even if Dr. Paul were the Republican candidate, you were always going to vote Obama like a good ole dye-in-the-wool dEMOCRAT you always were, but denied being!

I'm still not a Democrat. However, that party collectively doesn't need shrink at this time, unlike the GOP. The GOP forgets that its base doesn't come close to representing the majority; yet it behaves as if white, fundamentalist are the majority. Once you get out of red-neck country in the South, that's not even close to being the case. Playing to your base is good to some extent, but not as good as it used to be. The Republican politician says something outrageous to a TP rally, or Rush, Hannity, etc say something on the radio, it will get tweeted and blogged millions of times and millions of people that were never intended to receive that message out and clear. Once you get passed Sandra Fluke, or whatever controversy of the moment is, patterns of racism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry, disdain for the poor and middle classes emerges. With so many people defending Santorum's idiocy, a pattern of a 19th century (at the latest) mindset is appearing.

I did notice your failure to address the point of my post. With this GOP behavior, Red is disappearing from the map. Good sized sized that could counted on to go GOP (Virginia, Florida, even Colorado and North Carolina) and go either way. Florida is worth Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas combined, you know And yet you play to those little states, while pissing off millions in Florida (or just making them think you're nuts...) Not smart.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

I'm still not a Democrat.

Sure, sure, sure, a-hum, ah-hah......pardon me while I pull up my hip boots....the a-hum "mud" is gettin' mighty deep!!

Pardon me for stating the patently obvious .... You are, always were, & always will be, a dEMOCRAT.

Even a blind man could see that.

Your denials are just as disingenuous as your deceptive claims of being Libertarian.

You were never anything close to being a Libertarian, as noted by two true Libertarian observers (who do not take part in the forums) who have privately messaged me to agree with my premise that your siding with dEMOCRAT policy flies in the face of all that is Libertarian.

So, cut the B.S. ... it's gettin' real tired.

Have the guts to face your convictions. Admit what you are, come clean & tell everyone the truth for once.

It's so sad....you're probably still so hopelessly in denial that you will most likely continue to deny that you're the dEMOCRAT you truly are for reasons unknown.




Then again, upon further reflection & second thought, please forget what I just said..................please, stay in denial.

It suits you. So, if you're more comfortable denying your deepest dEMOCRAT inclination, by all means keep on keeping on.

Anybody who can read can surely see who, & what you really are, so there's no need for you to admit to anything at all.

It's that obvious.

So, now that that's settled, what else is Obama going to do for you to solidify your everlasting Party loyalty?

Please enlighten us.

Originally posted by dEMOCRAT Sanguinemoon:

Once you get passed Sandra Fluke, or whatever controversy of the moment is, patterns of racism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry, disdain for the poor and middle classes emerges..........

PS....I can't wait to see & hear all my predictions come true one by one.

You're already deviously race baiting, slandering on about your pet issue of homophobia, etc...etc...etc... ...yadda, yadda, yadda.......

You know, all those worn out traditional dEMOCRAT mud slinging--red herring issues, that in time always prove out totally false.

A tinge of Chicago Politics at it's dirty defamatory best......ya gotta love it.

I can't wait..... actually you're reading like an old worn book, so we're all expecting it...we've heard it ad nauseum before.

So, by all means bring it on .... we can all use a good chuckle.

Or, are you going to deny that too?

WTF is a dEMOCRAT anyway? A symptom of a bizarre capitalization disorder? How can I affair or deny being something when I don't even know what it is? Seriously, though, why do you capitalize it like that? Is that supposed to mean something? Maybe you're just trying to be annoying since your posts are all heat but no light. If that's the case, just let me know.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

WTF is a dEMOCRAT anyway?

You've never heard of a small-d democrat?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

You know, all those worn out traditional dEMOCRAT mud slinging--red herring issues, that in time always prove out totally false.

Seriously, not debating but asking a question, do you not see GOP politicians and other public figures are doing those things? The racist rhetoric is a continuation of the Nixon "Southern Strategy" of pitting whites against blacks. (denying this? OK, go learn some political history ) All but the blindest of the blind and deafest of the deaf who also happen to live in a cave in the middle of the desert could miss the bizarre attacks on women's rights. As for LGBT rights, guess what? Stop trying to pass constitutional amendments targeted against a specific group of people and you won't have to hear about it anymore. If you think for a moment that GOP can try to win elections by singling out anyone that isn't a male white, heterosexual Christian, you're sadly mistaken. Further I see you still can't answer for why the GOP is close to being a regional party already. No,instead you engaged in personal attacks (with capitalization that makes zero sense, and you still can't explain that choice either )

As far as your accusations of denying goes, this illustrates why Conservatives are cognitively deficient. You guys tend to have primitive, binary thinking. If something's not white, it must be black. Ones and zeroes. Yes, I did say I wasn't a Democrat (do take note of how to capitalize) and clearly, I'm not a Republican. The simple and obvious fact is that I owe no allegiance to either of those parties. Is that so hard?

Oh, one more thing. Once again, don't want to be called a sexist, racist, homophobe? Don't make sexist, racist, homophobic remarks like GOP pols and other public figures have been doing. Otherwise, you will get called out for what you are. Don't like that? Go sit in the corner and cry.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

WTF is a dEMOCRAT anyway?

You've never heard of a small-d democrat?

You mean "an advocate of democracy; adherent of democratic principles"?

Originally posted by jax:

You mean "an advocate of democracy; adherent of democratic principles"?

That's what I took it to mean. But the caps would indicate more, no? Shouting? (Not unusual, from some posters…) Sarcasm? (Always a safe bet!)

Perhaps Smileyfaze was editorializing on the splintered group politics of the Democrat party itself, as well as Sang's leanings. (That appears likely, from the post above.) But who knows?

You mean in amongst all that ramataz that is meant to be a political system there are really, American democrats (with a small 'd'?). Brilliant news! Pity they aren't in the mainstream.....

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Originally posted by jax:

You mean "an advocate of democracy; adherent of democratic principles"?

That's what I took it to mean. But the caps would indicate more, no? Shouting? (Not unusual, from some posters…) Sarcasm? (Always a safe bet!)

Perhaps Smileyfaze was editorializing on the splintered group politics of the Democrat party itself, as well as Sang's leanings. (That appears likely, from the post above.) But who knows?

Excellent perception & observation

Now onto the GOP candidates disconnect with the middle class. Romney's father shutting down a car plant is humorous. I had thought he was one the saner Republicans. Maybe I was mistaken.

One of [the] most humorous I think relates to my father. You may remember my father, George Romney, was president of an automobile company called American Motors. ... They had a factory in Michigan, and they had a factory in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and another one in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. And as the president of the company he decided to close the factory in Michigan and move all the production to Wisconsin. Now later he decided to run for governor of Michigan and so you can imagine that having closed the factory and moved all the production to Wisconsin was a very sensitive issue to him, for his campaign.

On HP poster recalls that time period....

My grandfather was among those laid off from that Detroit plant in '54. It was devastating for family. Repercussions lingered. Grandmother made "ketchup soup" for us when we came to visit, obviously a burden on their diminished resources but we were her grandchildren and I remember her trying to make it like it was normal.. We struggled Mitt. And did not laugh a whole log.

Yeah, very funny Mitt.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Yeah, very funny Mitt.

His first name is Willard.

Why will people not call him by his first name? His full name is Willard Mitt Obamney.
His trademark claim to fame?











Ron Paul/Gary Johnson or Gary Johnson/Ron Paul 2012

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Why will people not call him by his first name?

In his defense, I'm not sure I'd like to be called Willard, either.
His last name isn't Obamney, though. He's worse than Obama. It just came out that he gave $10,000 to pass Prop 8 in California. WTF business do the Mormons have influencing elections in California (they gave $50M total, so to be fair, Willy's money was only a drop in the bucket.) This is another reason why civil rights should never be put up to a popular vote. You have millions of dollars coming in from the Mormon cult church and other groups from outside the state that have no business getting mixed up in local and state politics. Civil rights is Constitutional issue of equal protection under the law. Hear that constitutional fundamentalists conservatives" that really only know a couple amendments, but not the rest of the document (such like Christian fundies and the Bible, bigots that know a couple passages to bash LGBT people with, but not the "love your neighbor" and "judge not." When Jesus called the Pharisees a generation of vipers, he might as well been talking to you narrow minded, intolerant folks without enough brain power to comprehend a single book.)

Mutt would be better than Mitt for this warmonger. Maybe he will also "out" how rich he is? The only deep thing about him is his secrecy.

Here's 22nd debate. So when is the Republican candidate selected? Does that Santorum guy actually have a chance at winning? How's feeling on common streets about this? Excited, depressed, ignoring, hopeful, fearful?

A sad day..............................Ron Paul Ends His Hunt For Votes..............

Rep. Ron Paul said Monday he will not compete in Republican primaries in any of the states that have not yet voted — essentially ending the 2012 primary season and leaving the path open for Mitt Romney to win the GOP presidential nomination.

Mr. Paul said he will still try to win over delegates in states where the voting is done but where state conventions are still picking representatives to the Republican nominating convention in Tampa, Fla., in August. But the Texas congressman and three-time presidential hopeful said he’s done actively trying to win over voters themselves in the 11 primaries still ahead.

“Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted,” Mr. Paul said in a statement from his campaign. “Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.”...........

......Mr. Paul is retiring at the end of this term in the House. But he has already bequeathed his political movement to his son, freshman Sen. Rand Paul, who rode voter dissatisfaction to victory in a Republican primary and then in the general election in Kentucky in 2010.......

continued..

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

A sad day..............................Ron Paul Ends His Hunt For Votes..............

Rep. Ron Paul said Monday he will not compete in Republican primaries in any of the states that have not yet voted — essentially ending the 2012 primary season and leaving the path open for Mitt Romney to win the GOP presidential nomination.

Mr. Paul said he will still try to win over delegates in states where the voting is done but where state conventions are still picking representatives to the Republican nominating convention in Tampa, Fla., in August. But the Texas congressman and three-time presidential hopeful said he’s done actively trying to win over voters themselves in the 11 primaries still ahead.

“Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted,” Mr. Paul said in a statement from his campaign. “Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.”...........

......Mr. Paul is retiring at the end of this term in the House. But he has already bequeathed his political movement to his son, freshman Sen. Rand Paul, who rode voter dissatisfaction to victory in a Republican primary and then in the general election in Kentucky in 2010.......

continued..

The Paul response?

"Are you there Willard Romney? If so, you are the last man standing. Now perhaps you will succeed in understanding something that your predecessor failed to grasp; you will need the Paul votes to get elected. You think you will walk away with the delegate count un-contested? I promise that the Ron Paul Revolution will continue; that I have ensured with the passing of the torch to my son, Rand. You think it's over just because I refuse to spend money that I don't have? It's not over. The fight for delegates WILL continue. You think it's over just because I am retiring soon? The work I have started will continue and will not falter.

The strategic importance of the voters for Paul is under-appreciated by you, currently, Willard. You seem to fail to grasp that the Republican party is very fractured right now, and if you carry on, on your current path, it will be your own destruction. The party is fragmented as so; the Evangelical wing, the War wing, the Libertarian wing, the Tea Party wing, and the Goldwater wing. Do you have the charisma and backbone to unite those factions Willard?"


^Probably not exactly what Congressman Paul would say, but it should be.

If he opts to not go 3rd Party, Gary Johnson it is for me!

Pity, I thought Dr Paul was a man who knows huis stuff and a change from the other two.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

a man who knows huis stuff

That's the problem, RJ: Ron Paul is a man who "knows huis stuff"… But others have some justifiable difficulty determining what "huis" means.
It may be an obscure Orange Order term… Would you care to explicate?