Paul/Paul 2016???
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#1 Jan 26, 2014
With Ron Paul hinting he may run for President in 2016... the things Rand Paul has been doing lately are beginning to make sense to me now.

Rand Paul had been leaning left of his fathers views in much of the recent news... but could it all be a plan to appeal to as broad of a base of the Republican Party... as many of the fence sitters and as much of the Left as possible??

It would make sense if a Ron Paul/Rand Paul run was in the works for 2016.

The first father/son president/vice president???

Sounds a lot better than Christie... and might just be the only combination that could beat Hillary.

Cruz is ineligible, he was born in Canada.

Paul/Paul... for us ALL!
2016
Elaine

Houston, TX

#3 Jan 27, 2014
Ron has already said he will not run. But I still like Rand.

From Wiki:There is a strong argument that anyone who acquires United States citizenship at birth, whether by virtue of the 14th Amendment or by operation of federal statute, qualifies as natural born. The Supreme Court, however, has never ruled on the meaning of the natural-born citizenship requirement. In the absence of a definitive Supreme Court ruling—or a constitutional amendment—the parameters of the clause remain uncertain.

Most likely, Cruz will file to get on the ballot. Then the Federal Election Commission will have to challenge it. Of course, the DNC will challenge it and it will go to the Supremes.

That should be interesting. Because if the Supremes rule against Cruz, they have opened the door to negating or voiding actions taken by Obama if he is ever found to be born outside of the US.

So, would I be willing to throw Cruz under the bus to undo Obama's criminal empire? You bet.
Texan

Wichita, KS

#4 Jan 27, 2014
Cruz still holds dual citizenship. Is he an American or a Canadian? I do not like Obama and would like to see him out of office, does he hold dual citizenship? Kenyan or American?
Tommy

Bellville, TX

#5 Jan 27, 2014
That is what it looks like when stupid people try and have intelligent conversation.

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#6 Jan 27, 2014
Tommy wrote:
That is what it looks like when stupid people try and have intelligent conversation.
Amen.
Elaine

Houston, TX

#7 Jan 27, 2014
Tommy wrote:
That is what it looks like when stupid people try TO have intelligent conversationS.
Fixed it for you. Two grammatical errors in one sentence. At least you spelled intelligent right.

Who is stupid now?

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#8 Jan 27, 2014
Elaine wrote:
<quoted text>Fixed it for you. Two grammatical errors in one sentence. At least you spelled intelligent right.

Who is stupid now?
Umm... this is one conversation, Elaine.

I did not see anything wrong with his/her sentence.
Elaine

Houston, TX

#9 Jan 27, 2014
Heavy Fed wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm... this is one conversation, Elaine.
I did not see anything wrong with his/her sentence.
Look more closely. You lack attention to details.
fubar

Corona, CA

#10 Jan 28, 2014
Elaine wrote:
<quoted text>
Fixed it for you. Two grammatical errors in one sentence. At least you spelled intelligent right.
Who is stupid now?
The S was good and the TO was over kill.
Elaine

Houston, TX

#11 Jan 28, 2014
fubar wrote:
<quoted text>The S was good and the TO was over kill.
No. The "and" was wrong. It's clear that you don't know the difference.
Texan

Wichita, KS

#12 Jan 28, 2014
The use of the and was a common grammatical error. It is often used instead of to in some regions of the country. If you look in the Texas dictionary I'm reasonably sure you would find it and a good many amusing ways of saying things in Texas. Kind of like fixin to; not correct English, but often used around the state. Elaine you take yourself entirely too seriously. I guess you do such things when you think you are better than everyone else.
Tommy

Bellville, TX

#13 Jan 28, 2014
Elaine wrote:
<quoted text>
No. The "and" was wrong. It's clear that you don't know the difference.
You are still white trash Elaine. You can speak the queen's English, but you can never scrub that off of you.
fubar

San Jose, CA

#14 Jan 28, 2014
Elaine wrote:
<quoted text>
No. The "and" was wrong. It's clear that you don't know the difference.
I guess I shouldn't have tried to make "a funny".
Elaine

Houston, TX

#15 Jan 29, 2014
Texan wrote:
The use of the and was a common grammatical error. It is often used instead of to in some regions of the country. If you look in the Texas dictionary I'm reasonably sure you would find it and a good many amusing ways of saying things in Texas. Kind of like fixin to; not correct English, but often used around the state. Elaine you take yourself entirely too seriously. I guess you do such things when you think you are better than everyone else.
"Tommy" was calling people stupid. Yet he demonstrated his own stupidity in his post. My criticism was justified.

Texan, I suppose you think Ebonics is just a reasonable variation on the language and grammar too. It's acceptable at Walmart. But it's not amusing.

You are too willing to accept laziness and failure.
Texan

Wichita, KS

#16 Jan 30, 2014
Actually I do not think Edonics is reasonable in any way. I do not use the Texas dictionary for anything other than a few chuckles. It's somewhat like Jay-lo for Jenifer Lopez, or A-Rod for Alex Rodreguez, or someone saying " You disrespected me." I call it lazy and incorrect speech. Unfortunatly other than bitch, there isn't a great deal I can do about. That's the same as I feel about your mean, hateful, and better than everyone else attitude. I change the things I can, accept those that I can't, and try to know the diffence. With you and Fed I fear it's a loosing battle.
Elaine

United States

#17 Jan 30, 2014
Texan wrote:
Actually I do not think Edonics is reasonable in any way. I do not use the Texas dictionary for anything other than a few chuckles. It's somewhat like Jay-lo for Jenifer Lopez, or A-Rod for Alex Rodreguez, or someone saying " You disrespected me." I call it lazy and incorrect speech. Unfortunatly other than bitch, there isn't a great deal I can do about. That's the same as I feel about your mean, hateful, and better than everyone else attitude. I change the things I can, accept those that I can't, and try to know the diffence. With you and Fed I fear it's a loosing battle.
So you say Ebonics is lazy and incorrect. But bad grammar is not? I gues you have to believe that if you don't know better.

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#19 Jan 30, 2014
Pretty TV Faces wrote:
Neither Paul is qualified to be president. Their only claim to fame is bitching about how bad someone ideas were. Can you honestly name any meaningful legislation under either man?

Anyone can oppose an idea but that hardy qualifies them to be president. The last major thing these guys did was get mad and shutdown our government.
And I guess Obama was fully qualified.
Texan

Wichita, KS

#20 Jan 31, 2014
Excuse me Elaine, but isn't lazy and incorrect speech much the same as bad grammar?
Elaine

Houston, TX

#21 Jan 31, 2014
Texan wrote:
Excuse me Elaine, but isn't lazy and incorrect speech much the same as bad grammar?
In your post #12, you attempt to justify lazy and incorrect speech as common and acceptable. Face it. You don't know what good grammar is and you don't really care. I'm ok with that. But please don't criticize me for trying to speak well.
Elaine is the new Heavy

Deer Park, TX

#22 Jan 31, 2014
"In your post #12, you attempt to justify lazy and incorrect speech as common and acceptable. Face it. You don't know what good grammar is and you don't really care. I'm ok with that. But please don't criticize me for trying to speak well."

"Face it." This would not be acceptable in an academic setting. MLA, APA, or Chicago would not accept "Face it."

"You don't know what good grammar is and you don't really care."
Typically, outside of Facebook, this would not be correct. It is appropriate to put a comma before the "and" when it separates two independent clauses on this side of the Atlantic. Sorry Miss Marple, that is not the way we write in the States.

"I'm ok with that."
Most style guides do not accept "ok.' It is an abbreviation and should be capitalized.

No one is criticizing you for speaking well. You are criticized for being ignorant, white trash who is trying to sound smart.

You make Charles look like a Rhodes Scholar when you start trying to critique everyone's grammar.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Baytown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Hey Trump Chumps...On inauguration day, Trump m... 3 hr Elaine 3
The election is over 4 hr Texan 42
Job 11 hr Truth is might 50
what are your best sayings 12 hr josh 17
Election Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10) Tue CheeseSniff 1,050
FBI admits Russia did not hack the election! Mon josh 20
Cenikor (Feb '11) Mon JudgeNot67 131

Baytown Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Baytown Mortgages