addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1light-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Re: [ronpaul-35] ATTN ALL MEMBERS

From: Lloyd Sloan ("The Sloan R.
Sent on: Sunday, April 29, 2012 12:36 PM
It's true. I'm easy.
Abolish the Fed and put Bernanke on trial-- that's all Mitt needs to do and I'll believe he's for real. :-)

Promises? unlikely that's good enough, but if he starts tomorrow and promises every day until November?
who knows?

Mitt is not stupid. He knows what he needs to do to win the Ron Paul vote.
He has the financial means and resources to make a serious and largely successful effort.

Do NOT hold your breath, but let US be the reasonable and open-minded ones.
Of course we have a price, and it is too expensive for even Mitt Romney.
(Also, lest we forget, he's married to Goldman Sachs, and that divorce would get quite ugly.)




From: Patrick Henry <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Sunday, April 29,[masked]:25 AM
Subject: Re: [ronpaul-35] ATTN ALL MEMBERS

Lloyd,

You are really easy.  You slut. ;-)

Truly it is clear that Romney is who he is, he has a record, he will do what his sponsors want.  If we can somehow gain from this, we must not compromise our principles.  Make sure that WE are gaining, not that they are using us. 

These establishment folks have simple goals in negotiation.  While others strive for a win-win solution, that is not "satisfying" to the PTB.  They MUSThave a "we-win-big, you-lose-big" result.

Meanwhile, keep your pants up, big boy! :-P





On 4/29/2012 8:54 AM, Lloyd Sloan ("The Sloan Ranger") wrote:
If Mitt Romney loses to Obama, by their own logic, it was the wrong choice.
To sacrifice one's principles for the white house is one thing--
but you might as well have kept your principles intact as to give them away for a losing presidential race.
This much should be clear. Romney's whole excuse for being is to defeat Obama,
and if he can't even do that? Case closed.

The harder thing to recognize is the mistake if Romney should actually defeat Obama.
Of course, if you actually believe Romney will fix the nation's problems, then you have a true cause for celebration,
and I have no argument with you. Go in peace, and I will merely say I think you're wrong, but do hope you're right.
I think if Mitt Romney were to shrink the government, the most surprised person would be Mitt Romney. :-)

So then, if we agree that Romney will solve nothing, and is at best the lesser evil?--
then what happens in four years when the country is fed up with Romney and turns to yet another donkey Obama.
This is hardly a gain. It further discredits Republicans (remember Bush?) and we then get an even worse donkey?
(Remember when people thought Clinton was the worst possible donkey and Obama was better than Hillary?
 How quaint. How short-sighted.)

In order to justify a (short-term) decision to support a lesser evil--
it is necessary to think more than one move ahead in the game.
We must see a path where a Romney victory leads to ultimate success.
It is arguably the opposite--
A Romney victory undoes all the good that Ron Paul has accomplished building up the whig faction in the party.
It leaves the exact wrong people in charge of the Republicans,
AND it even REWARDS them for screwing the small-government whig types.
(This is EXACTLY how the party lost the promise of Reagan to the disaster of two Bushes.
 The Reagan legacy would be stronger if Bush had LOST, not won.)

Short-term thinking is exactly what keeps people trapped under bad generals.

It is, however, too soon to make these decisions. Let us see what Mr. Romney has in mind.
He is at least a skilled politician, and it ain't easy to get elected a Republican in Massachusetts.
Let's see if Romney is smart enough to recognize the voters he MUST have to win.

At this time, I am willing to date him, certainly not to marry him. (My first love was Ron Paul.)
You want marriage? We need to talk "pre-nup"



From: Robyn Hamlin <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Sunday, April 29,[masked]:46 AM
Subject: Re: [ronpaul-35] ATTN ALL MEMBERS

Do you really think that Romney could beat Obama?  Let's consider that many of RP's supporters are members of the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, Democratic Party, Independents, and Republicans.  The Republicans may fall in line and vote for Romney but the others won't.  They will vote third party or not vote at all for President.  Then the Republicans will blame Ron Paul again because they are unable to draw the votes of the other RP supporters.

Robyn Hamlin
Tired of family dynasties as representatives.
“The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” —Albert Einstein



--- On Fri, 4/27/12, Scott <[address removed]> wrote:

From: Scott <[address removed]>
Subject: Re: [ronpaul-35] ATTN ALL MEMBERS
To: [address removed]
Date: Friday, April 27, 2012, 12:30 PM

You don't have to sell me on Ron Paul being the superior candidate. I understand the flaws of Mitt Romney. I also understand the reality that Ron Paul will probably not have the delegates needed to win the GOP nomination. 

Living in that reality, I know that taking 5-10% of the vote away from Romney will guarantee Obama a second term.  Having a conservative Congress with a moderate Conservative President is a better scenario then an outright Socialist in the White House. 

Again my first choice was Ron Paul but voting in Obama again would be more problematic than Romney. At least slowing down the march to Socialism until we can get Rand Paul elected is a better than a full throttle race to Socialism. 



Scott McGee



On Apr 27, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Chris Clark <[address removed]> wrote:

Greetings Scott!!

With all do respect sir. Voting in Mitt Romney would be a second Barack Obama term. 

Look at the top 10 donors to Obama's campaign in 2008, http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

Then look at the top 10 donors to Romney's campaign in 2012, http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286

See the similarity? Also, don't forget Romneycare constructed the model in which Obamacare is based off of. As a fellow republican, I don't like Obamacare either, so why would we want to put in another "mandate happy" president in Obama's place? Romney will just be more of the same. More than likely he would create a Romneycare/Obamacare hybrid.

Also, look at the top ten contributors to Romney's 2012 campaign, it's all the banks and financial institutions that got bailouts and took advantage of all the quantitative easing. What does that tell you?

Look at Ron Paul's top contributors in 2012, http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00005906&cycle=2012

This is exactly why Ron Paul is the only choice for truly changing the status-quo. I think we need to listen loud and clear to our military men and women. Listen to what they have to say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OVgYCMjr8c

I yield to the next freedom fighter.

-Chris




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Chris Clark ([address removed]) from STL - Ron Paul 2012.
To learn more about Chris Clark, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Scott ([address removed]) from STL - Ron Paul 2012.
To learn more about Scott, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York [masked] | [address removed]




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Robyn Hamlin ([address removed]) from STL - Ron Paul 2012.
To learn more about Robyn Hamlin, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]






--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Lloyd Sloan ("The Sloan Ranger") ([address removed]) from STL - Ron Paul 2012.
To learn more about Lloyd Sloan ("The Sloan Ranger"), visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]





--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Patrick Henry ([address removed]) from STL - Ron Paul 2012.
To learn more about Patrick Henry, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]


People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy