thegreekdog wrote: Phatscotty wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:There is a difference between campaigning for Ron Paul and agreeing with Ron Paul. You don't actually agree with Ron Paul because all you care about is making the Democrats look bad and the Republicans look good. Ron Paul is interested in shedding light on both parties and how bad they both are. You have no interest in doing this, especially with respect to foreign policy issues. This is clear from this thread and, unfortunately for you, no amount of whining is going to change that.
that's ridiculous. I'm not trying to make Democrats look bad, I am criticizing them for their actions. I don't know where the hell you get your assumptions from, but they are laughable. You think I spent years and years supporting someone I disagree with? That's just ridiculous
You are talking out of your ass now. I agree with Ron Paul, and I'm sorry you can't read my mind better. I am the one who shared his post shedding light on both parties, so I think you are forgetting that when you say I have no interest.
Concerning Benghazi, the Commander in Chief is a Democrat and he lied to the people about the reasons why we were attacked. That is not my fault, that's just the way it is. If you are trying to say I shouldn't hold my leader accountable, because the party that is not in power isn't perfect, I will leave that to you.
All I'm doing is quoting your posts. That's really all I have to do. Your criticism of the Republican Party is non-existent, not just in this thread but in any thread. Not your verbal criticism or your "thought" criticism. I have nothing else to go on other than your posts dude.
Let's look, for example, at the 2012 presidential election and the posts regarding that subject. During the Republican primary you were a vocal supporter of Ron Paul. After Mitt Romney won the primary, you became a vocal supporter of Romney and Ryan without considering any third party candidate. You indicated that it was because you wanted Barack Obama out, but you've voted for third party candidates in the past (at least according to this thread). So why no criticism of Romney?
As another example, you constantly reference Glenn Beck. I ultimately have no problem with the guy because he makes a good living, but he seems anthithetical to what you say you stand for.
So I am Tea Party, and Glenn Beck played a major role in creating the Tea Party, but he is antithetical to what I stand for? I would have to contend you know about as much about Beck as you do the Tea Party then. And as for your whole line of thought on Beck, I don't really operate on "the messenger", I do "the message"
Tell me, how are Republicans involved? Tell me which Republicans I should be criticizing? You may or may not remember that Obama did not even tell Congress we were bombing Libya.
Of course I considered a 3rd party candidate. How you could even know if I did or didn't is beyond me. I asked you and others right here many questions about Gary Johnson. Romney is Liberal ass Republican who drinks his own pee. There, ya happy?
I only ever said Romney was better than Obama, in my opinion. And now we know so much more about Obama (just like I always said, after the election we will all see the REAL OBama), so in hindsight it's looking like ANYBODY would be better than Obama. My vote, as I said many times. and as has obviously been ignored many times, had very little to do with the individual person, and a LOT more to do with who will work with a Tea PArty Congress. Given that we now know the Tea Party was specifically targeted by the IRS, it's pretty safe to say we already knew who would NOT work with a Tea Party Congress.