WOW ! The big turnaround ! Pro-Paul site becomes anti-Romney

If you notice the threads are not so much PRO Paul anymore as anti - Romney.

If you cant win by stuffing internet polls and straw votes..you must attack the other person that is winning using the Mighty net.

Then these same sheep/druids have the balls to complain about the superpac money that Romney enjoys.
Paul has enjoyed a MAJORITY superpac on the net for YEARS ..he is un accountable for content and context.
His followers smear any flavor of the month not named Paul and continually bash Romney using The democratic playbook.UNDERGROUND and unaccountable smears and accusations.
Paul remains above it all and says people are entitled to their opinions but decries Romneys attacks as wrong.

Read the anti Romney threads.
Magic underwear.
Mormons this and that.
Pro Obama. For mandates.
Non constitutional.

And now the entire campaign focus is not jobs but his tax returns ?
Newt can win the election with more corruption than a convicted felon...but Santorum is UP with that too...since he enjoys misrepresenting his history while focusing on Romneys.
Romney's business killed jobs they cry as our nation has 25 million under employed.. a record high.
Newt and Santorum Lost THEIR last elections not because the other side was better..it was because they were WORSE.
They lost in friendly districts where they HAD support before but failed to win again because their voters KNEW BETTER .

ETHIC CHARGES STUCK because the voters knew and were convinced of the facts.
Those charges are like a Felons record in the political world...they do not go away with time.

Now how does a MILLIONAIRE only pay 15 % INCOME TAX ?
gee ..Using the lefts idea and the Obama game plan the so called conservatives are using the wealth play card to destroy their front runner.
Without proving a thing..no tax evasion..no history of cheating on taxes like NEWT himself has..and Santorum too..They are creating a mountain where a ant hill doesn't exist.
Is it a conservative principle to attack a republican on his wealth creation ?
Is it a conservative principle to use class war fare on another Republican ?

So stop with this notion that Romney isn't the true conservative.. He created wealth the LEGAL and ethical way..He never cheated.He worked his entire Government life for FREE and you let these idiots dictate the argument on his morality ?
Paulites use this forum daily to trash anybody but Paul ..If you use Paul's words you are mean and wrong..if you use his record you are wrong..you are just wrong.If you use the fact he will be 80 if elected you are using criteria that isn't used elsewhere ? BS..I wouldn't hire him to drive my bus..train or CRUISE SHIP.

I say it shows more about your ability to be led like the sheep to ruin.
Constitution and Conservative principles ...
You wouldn't know them if they hit you on the butt.

 

Do you make this crap up or do you get your taling points from a Mitt the ripper website? I haven't heard Ron say anything about the attacks Romney has been doing. Ron loves Romney's PACs spending their money going after Newt and Santorum. 1v1 Ron and Romney, Ron wins. Ron just wants the social conservative jihadists to drop out and stop splitting the vote between th 4 of them that is keeping Romney in the lead.

We are just stating facts about the history of Mitt for brains, and all you seem to do is spin and spin to try and explain what the serial killer "really means". Wonder if you will jump off a bridge when you figure out that your golden boy is no different than Obama.

 

No ..I dont.. and I haven't heard a thing about PAUL telling his supporters on the net to stop using language about Romney like "serial killer and White Obama " either.
He enjoys that as well..Free stuff for Paul..and he is not accountable for anything.
You're guilty as charged.

 

What did this have to do with my response?

You mean I can't have my oppinion? Seriously, hasn't it been the way you have opporated from the beggining calling Paul and kook, idiot, unelectable? Seriously going to stand there and complain about people who support paul calling Romney out for what he is and not hearing Paul denouce what other people say? Are you seriously becoming butt hurt over the truth?

Paul has denouced personal and untrue attacks, like that one against Huntsman. He even said it should be taken down. But that is only against lies. I have not seen Paul complain about things that are factually true.

 

I'm pretty sure Mitt will be the nominee. I would prefer Newt. Newt would clobber Barry in a debate. We might as well get used to the idea of a president Romney. He will be more like W than Reagan, but that is still better than Barry. Newt is right about a vote for Rick and Perry are votes for Romney. Vote for Newt now if you want to give the anti-Romney votes a chance.

 

Another example of the 'Ron Paul and the left's' partnership to manipulate our language and attempt to defuse words that are exclusively Islamic by applying them elsewhere.

 

Fine, so I don't hurt your feelings, social conservative warmongerers. Better? You only fight for anti-PC labels while you talk about the other side, but heavens for bid you get called out on what you are.

 

It's one thing to say Paul is NUTS ! as an opinion.
Another to say anybody backing Paul is a serial killer or a nutcase.

So far ..loser is correct.
Paul is wacko in our opinion on national defense and is a fringe candidate.

He is no Conservative Republican party support guy.
If you disagree ..fine..
But I wont label you a magic underwear supporter.
Or claim Paul has 5 Fathers..
as some of what Paul guys do against Romney here.

 

I am very far from a "social conservative". But it's not like facts matter when some people rant and rave like lunatics, do they?

I simply resent the fact that Islamolovers take words that are exclusive to Islamic militants and apply them towards groups they personally dislike. It's an obvious attempt to defuse certain words from having impact, and it's dishonest as well.

 

Definition of JIHAD
1
: a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty; also : a personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual discipline
2
: a crusade for a principle or belief

Notice the 2nd definition.....

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jihad

 

I think those folks who are pretending that Romney isn't conservative are just being realistic. They know by now that a so-called real conservative can't beat Obama, so let the excuses begin. They did the same thing ('he's not a real conservative') after Bush threw the economy into the ditch.

 

Notice the 1st definition. And notice how the word is understood throughout the world. Nobody uses it to describe Christians and whatever other groups the left doesn't like. That's a new strategy. Same thing applies to "Christian Taliban", and "Christian Sharia", and all the other obfuscations they are currently being employed.

No doubt the second definition was added somewhat recently because of the politically correct efforts of those who don't want to single out Muslims in this regard. Apparently their efforts paid off.

 

Prove it was recently added. Or perhaps you were wrong.

 

About people with a soft spot for Islam choosing the non-Islamic definition to use against non-Muslims? Nope. You helped prove that.

 

Nice deflection. First you said the word was for Islamist first then you said it was PC. Now you admit there are two definitions < admitting to being wrong without saying it> and saying its people with "soft spots" for Islam whatever the (*)(*)(*)(*) that means.

Its ok though. Anyone reading this thread can see plain as day that you were wrong. No amount of spinning or deflecting can change that.

 

I think the reason people make the connection is that the only major difference between people like Bachmann and your typical Islamic radical is that one is Christian instead of Muslim.

Bachmann and Santorum are rather theocratic and warmongering. Neither of them really stand for smaller government.

I'll give Santorum credit for speaking against the NDAA, but his social agenda is rather invasive and big government.

 

Sure thing, chief. They'll also see more Ron Paul sycophants doting over the religion of peace. Maybe you'll gain a few more leftist allies in your "jihad" against conservatives.

 

Jump to conclusions much? I dont "love" Islam" and i also dont "hate" Islam.

I'm not trying to get "allies" i just pointed out your error. Dont think you can hide your ignorance by attacking people and deflecting.

 

You seem to love defending it, and hate when others criticize it. I wonder why that is?

No error, at all. As you have demonstrated, there is a substantial push towards taking these words and spreading them over as many topics as possible to try and water down their meaning. It's motivated by an uncontrollable politically correct impulse that runs through the wiring of leftists and Ron Paul libertarians alike. Don't be ashamed of it.

 

You told another poster there usage of a word was incorrect. I corrected you.

Show me trying to use that word and "spreading into as many topics as possible" in an attempt to "water down their meaning".

Dont put words in my mouth. This forum has a quoting feature for a reason.

Just because i dont gleefully attack Arabs on a daily basis doesnt mean i agree with anything to do with radical islam or Jihad. Capice?

 

Why didn't you say so in the first place?

See, when you have a history of doing exactly what I'm accusing you of, it's probably not the best strategy to dare someone to call you out. Chances are, you'll get what you ask for.

Islam is the religion, and Muslims are followers of that religion. Your attempt to limit the argument to "Arabs" is tantamount to playing the race card, which is another common trait between leftists and Ron Paul libertarians.

So you stick with your politically correct definition of the word "jihad", and use it wherever and whenever you feel it is advantageous, while I use the more honest and more historical definition. Fair enough?

 

Those are all quotes in reply to SM who is a self admitted Jihadist. Nice try.

 

Nice deflection. I think the goal posts moved, a little.

 

This isn't a pro-Paul site, it's just that you GOP bootlickers like talking down the only fiscal conservative and constitutionlist that your sorry party has had on stage in decades.

And conservatives have nothing good to tout about the other candidates. It's the same old couple of Paul supporters arguing with the same old (fewer) Romney-Gingrich supporters.

 

Decades? Don't you mean centuries? Even Abraham Lincoln was a statist warmonger according to the Ron Paul litmus test.