lol. I'll be the host for a Ricter/Lucrum beer summit. I've got a skeet machine mounted on the upper deck and you could shoot a few squirrels too. Got an FAA certified heli-pad for quick fly-ins but I don't recall you ever mentioning having a rotary-wing license. Several of my friends have R-44s and one has an R-22. I've got a lot of toys of the 4-wheeled variety, might be fun lol. Out here its the squirrels who are "behaving stupidly".
actually he is being ignored because he is the only candidate that really wants to follow the Constitution as it was intended. He's being ignored even when he comes very close to winning a race. That says a lot about our media. We're voting for a guy that almost wins and he's shut out of the media... Who the f%^k do they think they are? We vote for a candidate but they decide to shut him out? They SUCK!! Boycott the MSM!! Don't advertise with them, don't pay for subscriptions, tell your friends. They can't be sued for malpractice like other professionals but they can be boycotted...
Are you advocating censorship of his popularity (CPAC, Iowa straw poll) just because you disagree with his traditionally Republican, conservative views? That's not mensch - more like unmensch.
He does *not* hold traditional republican or conservative views which is the reason he is being treated like a nutty old coot by conservatives and being embraced by liberals. Voting against rules-of-engagement that protect our troops doesn't seem to trouble you. Maybe you should just admit that you are a liberal and vote accordingly. What I need is a skeet machine that launches liberals into the air like clay pigeons. That would be some great sport. <iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Gs_1Qrq4W_Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Don't forget "racists" and "right wing extremists". It stands to reason that when the far right and the far left come together on something, it's probably a good idea... Oh and btw, he's come in ahead on two major polls so far, that's hardly being treated like a 'nutty old coot'. Further, in reality his plans protect troops more than any "rules of engagement" could possibly hope to: he wants to bring them home... Funny this whole "rules of engagement" fiasco doesn't seem to keep him from getting more donations from active military than all other candidates combined... You need to learn to have more respect for our armed forces. If you gave them their due respect, you'd have more reverence for a candidate which receives more support than all other candidates combined in active service. It's clear that you think very little of our brave military men and women, and have little regard for their opinion. Your true colors are showing very saliently...
I'm just curious. You would vote for obama over Paul based on his vote regarding rules of engagement. What was Obama's position? Was this during obama's presidency, and if so, doesn't that indicate that some felt his approach was endangering our troops? And if it was during the Bush administration, same question? The guy you supported as a real conservative wasn't protecting ur troops so you hold Paul responsible? I get where you're coming from on the ROE and I agree, but there do seem to be some inconsistencies here.
You're mixing and embellishing so much that it is difficult to respond but I'll give it a try. First, I voted for McCain/Palin, with extreme reluctance I might add. I disliked McCain intensely and felt Palin was not qualified or appropriate. Second, I do not like Obama's conduct of the war(s) or his troop ROE but note that he assigned a commander in Afghanistan that overturned the non-defensive ROE and put some good ROE in place (Gen. Petraeus). Some in congress evidently felt the need to interfere by legislating ROE. During the vote on that ROE-interfering legislation I noted that Ron Paul voted against it along with most of the democrats. Third, my opposition to Ron Paul is not based soley on that ROE vote. It is a composite of all of his policies and a perception of him that I developed during the debate and some reading up on him. Fourth, I've never supported Barrack Obama but note that he is killing Islamists at a respectable rate despite his bad war policies and micro-management. Finally, what I said was that I would vote for anyone instead of Ron Paul including Obama in the general election if necessary. I don't feel that he is a stable personality, don't like his war policies, don't like his isolationist policies and frankly think he is a nut, that is, crazy or demented and dangerous. Not someone I think should have access to nuclear weapons. I don't think he is a conservative by any measure and is likely just a divider of republicans like Ross Perot was. Yes, I said I would vote for Obama in the General against Ron Paul if he was nominated. Obama is screwing up almost everything he touches but he isn't going to turn his back on the entire world and hide behind our borders, put us on the gold standard or abandon our allies. The captured bad-guys are still sitting in Guantanamo and we are still killing AQ anywhere we find them. Its just that I don't want to see Ron Paul in the Whitehouse and feel strongly about that. None of the current republican candidates are suitable except, in my opinion, Perry perhaps running with Rubio or maybe Christie who doesn't seem interested in running. The clincher was the debate. Ron Paul was shrill, yelling and vocalizing extreme position after extreme position. We don't need extreme radical change, we need common sense budget reform (reducing government spending), common sense tax reform (reducing and leveling tax rates) and war policies that have an objective (and an end-game). I know most on ET won't read more than the first two sentences of any post so I'm likely wasting my time explaining myself but you asked politely so I've tried to answer fully and politely.