Rush Limbaugh blasts Ron Paul as the Conservative Killer:
…the majority of people that voted him were not Republican. And in another poll, the percentage of Ron Paul voters who say they will vote for the Republican nominee is… like 80% of Tea Party voters in New Hampshire said no matter who the Republican nominee is they’re voting for it. The Ron Paul number is 40%. Now, as I say, I’ve gotta double confirm. It’s ostensibly Rasmussen and we’re double-checking this, but what I know so far, or what I’ve been told is that Ron Paul supporters, 40% say they would vote for the Republican nominee, 23% said they’d vote for Obama, and 31% of Ron Paul voters said they would vote third party. So the Ron Paul voters cannot be counted on, and most of Huntsman’s voters and most of Paul’s voters were Democrats who walked into the New Hampshire primary, picked up a Republican ballot, also according to this polling data.
…Here we go. It’s the exit polling data from Fox, and it is on political matters, “Do you consider yourself very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, very conservative?” You go to Ron Paul, 33% of his voters, according to exit polls, were somewhat liberal; 24% were moderate; 0 were very liberal. So 57% of the voters that voted for Ron Paul were not Republican conservatives. And that’s one of the things that I wanted to see because with this big push — what is happening here, the final push now that’s on to get Romney the nomination, Newt and Perry, with their attacks, have made it impossible to defend them. I hate to tell you, folks, but you just can’t put your name to what they’re out there saying, vulture capitalism and so forth.
Romney, however, wants Ron Paul to stay in. Everybody is urging everybody else to get out of this except for Ron Paul. They want Ron Paul to keep pounding away at Santorum and Newt. They want Ron Paul to continue to get big numbers and take away any high second- or third-place finishes from Santorum or Gingrich or Perry or anybody else. So the powers that be realize the monkey wrench that Ron Paul represents. Ron Paul is a conservative killer. Ron Paul kills the conservative vote, and the Romney camp wants him in there, encouraging him to stay in there.
So 40% of Paul voters said they would go on to support the eventual Republican nominee. 40%!
Where’s the other 60% going to go? Apparently Obama.
While 80% of the tea-party voters will support WHOEVER the Republican nominee is.
That should tell us a whole lot about Ron Paul and his supporters. They cannot be counted on to push the Republicans to victory in 2012. The only thing Ron Paul can guarantee is to kill off Santorum and Newt’s chances.
With that I’ll segue into the John Gibson show yesterday in which Gibson asked Ron Paul supporters to call in and give him reasons why he is so awesome: (its 15 minutes well spent?)
[audio:https://floppingaces.net/Audio/gibsonpaul.mp3]And hey, guess who else loves themselves some Ron Paul?
The Iranian regime’s English language propaganda channel, PressTV, has discovered a new American idol: presidential contender Rep. Ron Paul.
PressTV has stepped up its coverage of Paul’s campaign to win the Republican presidential nomination in recent weeks, featuring his anti-Israel rants, his claim that sanctions against Iran are “acts of war,” his approval of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and much more.
The Iranian government channel portrays Ron Paul as an American hero, and brings on conspiracy theorists masquerading as political “analysts” to laud him for “challenging the American establishment” and the “corporate neo-conservative Zionist consensus,” that cabal of Jews, banksters, and Reagan Democrats who in Tehran’s eyes (and in the eyes of these Ron Paul supporters) run the world.
It’s a script taken almost word-for-word from the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
So go ahead Paulbots….vote for Ron Paul, or Obama when RP doesn’t get the nomination but I will never pull the lever for this nut.
See author page
Ron Paul Is Right
I see that you have a great imagination,
not necessary the TRUTH.
you have a cringe against CONSERVATIVES,
BUT YOU’RE IN THE SAME BOX AS OBAMA,
IS RON PAUL IS WITH HIM TO PUT A SCREW WITHIN THE CANDIDATES, JUST LIKE THE DEVIL WOULD DO?
bye
If I’m wrong then by all means show where I am…
As for the rest: I’m for a real conservative….And, sad but true, Ron Paul is the closest thing to that, so he has my support. (Go thought my list on what a modern conservative(aka progressive) is and you will see that it describes all the other candidates to a tee. Romney = RomneyCare, Santorum = pro-life statist, etc)
Ron Paul IS Right
I’m not qualified to tell you if your right or wrong, RON PAUL get a lot of attention, not all on the same side,
I think the most retained argument is the CONSTITUTION ISSUE WHICH IS BEING ALTERED BY OBAMA,
AND THE DEMOCRAT, don’t you think
@Ron Paul Is Right: What I am for is adhering to the Constitution. However, I am also for keeping our word. Millions of retirees have paid into Soc Sec, are depending on it, and need it.
Were it up to you, would you just cut those folks off because it is an entitlement? Do you think that the Federal government shouldn’t keep it’s promise to those folks?
I am for giving young people entering the workforce an alternative to Social Security, to privatize it, in other words.
As a Conservative, I want to get back to the concepts and principles that this country was founded on. I don’t want to hurt millions of people in the process.
As a Conservative, I want a strong national defense and a strong military which backs down from no enemy.
As a Conservative, I want a safe environment for my children and grand children to grow up in. I am all for personal responsibility, but I do not want drugs legalized.
As a Conservative, I want my government to stop spending more money than it brings in.
Do you have a problem with any of what I just said? Or do you just want to call names, insult entire swathes of people and continue to act like a jackass?
.
.
ilovebeeswarzone
When the Republicans come into power they will build off of what Obama and the Democrats have done. (Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same bird of prey)
I figured RPIR would ignore my post. which addressed his comments here.
@anticsrocks
A) Again I point to my list which describes all the GOP candidates, minus Ron Paul, to a tee. They’re not Conservatives, not by a long shot. They’re electable progressives….that Americans want to have a beer with.
B) Everybody but Ron Paul wants to go to war with Iran on their first day in office because it might get shoddy nuclear weapons(poor design, crappy fuel, no long distance delivery device, etc). But if we go to war with Iran, Russia and China have promised to intervene and attack us. So who would make your family safer, Ron Paul who wants more troops securing our interest here at home or Romney and the like who want WW3?
C) Ron Paul also wants a strong national defense and a strong military. Our current policy, which is straight out of Bush’s playbook, is antithetical to both of those.
http://tinyurl.com/2f7cfej
D) Decriminalization drugs would actually lead to less drug use, crime, etc.
http://tinyurl.com/2a928b2
And you would have less of this:
http://tinyurl.com/3t5qfow
Your family would be safer. (And your government would have more money)
E) Ron Paul wants to do exactly what you want on entitlements. On this, you guys are simpatico.
F) Ron Paul has promised to cut more spending than any other candidate. (Hell, most of them are just promising to cap spending at current levels and inflate our way out of our debt)
G) I didn’t call anyone a name….I merely just pointed out the reality we live in. Calm down.
H) No, I didn’t ignore your post. *Throws family and chaotic life under bus*
I’m sorry… *your* list? You originally linked to a Judge Andrew Napolitano article that doesn’t contain a “list” at all… and even if it did, it certainly isn’t *your* list.
Do you have an original thought to contribute, or is it your nature to seize upon the words and phrases of others to claim as your own?
And if you’re talking about your little paragraph mantra, then you don’t know this forum very well. We are not for big government, big debt etal. That you think you hold a monopoly on these beliefs is piously naive. Fact is where we agree on principles, we happen to disagree on how to accomplish those principles of smaller govt, reduced spending etc. Your little personal mantra is as extreme in it’s embellishment as your choice of candidate and his sleazy campaigning. Truth is, Ron Paul is very much like Obama… depending on the “community organizing” of gathering the disgruntled and working them up into a frenzy on extremist solutions that have no chance of coming to fruition.
I think it’s been made clear that Ron Paul has some fiscal positions that we find appealing. But when you combine them with the rest of the package that is Ron Paul, he becomes unacceptable. Ergo, so what if Ron Paul wants to do “exactly what [we] want on entitlements”. He’s not the only guy on the stage that has entitlement reform that is acceptable.
Nor does every one “want to go to war with Iran”. Just because Ron Paul says that doesn’t make it so. What they have said is that Iran should not be ignored… like Ron “Mr Isolationist” wants to do. It’s funny that you echo all the lib/progs during the Bush years, insisting that Dubya was planning on starting a war with Iran before the end of his term when he was always for aiding Iranians in their quest to overthrow their own government. I suggest that your and Dr Paul’s accusations of war mongering would not likely come true under most of the candidates on the state…. but it’s a great liberal tactic, your fearmongering.
Of course, Obama had that opportunity to encourage freedom in Iran after their bogus elections, and “waved at it, as it passed by” (paraphrasing Capt Jack Sparrow, of course…). Ron Paul, with his infamous “non interventionist attitude” would do exactly the same.
Then there’s the laughable promise that Paul could have a zero tax rate. Appealing pie in the sky for the fools that believe him. Just as laughable as your claim that Paul wants a strong military and defense…. right… he’d have a “strong military and defense” on a zero tax rate… how?
Of course, you leave out the inconvenient truth that Paul’s idea of defense is withdrawal from the world by US presence…. and hold up in the US until they once again hit our shores. Then we’ll have a hard time mobilizing a response in the foreign lands where they hold out. That’s assuming we have more than a “few good submarines” in a POTUS Paul’s Navy to mobilize. With a zero tax rate, a few good, aging submarines is about all we could afford to maintain… if that.
Most of us would like the more realistic fiscal proposals of RP included in the platform… and I do mean the more realistic ones. Not all of his fiscal policies are to die for. He’s out there in LaLa land a lot. But this guy is so far fringe on foreign policy that he stands shoulder to shoulder with Maxine Waters, Dennis Kuchinich and Sheila Jackson Lee.
But we’re all happy that you are so insecure that you need to pronounce yourself, and your idol, the only “real” conservatives. Thanks for the laugh.
WOW I just heard CRAIGH JAMES FOR SENAT, REPUBLICAN, HE WILL MAKE WAVES,
The Washington Insider opines that the reason “X” (someone he refuses to name in the White House inner circle) is protecting Ron Paul so as to extend his campaign has to do with the votes from the anti-war crowd.
Those voters will break for Obama if Paul finally drops out.
And, if you listen during the debates, those anti-war Paul-backers are many.
This insider is actually looking to see when that someone did polling on top of that.
He will be able to trace the order for polling back to this person for some hard evidence.
It makes me wonder if that someone in the White House has enough on Paul to force him out IF or WHEN they feel they need his part of their support.
All very ”iffy.”
The interview is here:
http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/01/16/white-house-insider-obama-is-an-atheist/
According to the latest poll of LIKELY Republican voters in South Carolina has
Mitt Romney – 35%
Newt Gingrich – 21%
Rick Santorum – 16%
Ron Paul – 16%
Rick Perry – 5%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2012_south_carolina_republican_primary
Nan G, Rasmussen’s poll figures you quote were from Jan 11 to 16th… pre last night’s debate.
There’s also another debate Thurs by CNN. Even then, will be hard for the polls week to week to catch up to the latest shifts because the primary is Saturday. So from here on out, they are going to be behind the times, and we’ll have to depend upon the only poll that counts… the primary itself.
Please tell me you put any credence in that crazy “insider R.P.” lets have some drinks first interview you ref. in #65? That guy appears wackier than R.P. could ever be. The whir of black -ops helicopters..
Bees Sure nuf Craig James of the S.M.U. Pony Express.
I’ve been saying the same thing as the “crazy insider” did on on the other threads, when parsing the “why Ron Paul” reasons and looking at those who have spoken up. From what limited feedback we can get… since there is no official poll asking the Paul base their prime issue… the majority of the young (traditionally Obama demographics) are following Paul not for his fiscal policies, but his anti war foreign policy. What is also evident from the NH exit polling is the older a voter, the Paul support declines, indicating that the primary bulk of RP supporters are the younger crowd.
Well pardon me if I don’t believe the young have given up on the social justice indoctrination so easily, and had an epiphany as to fiscal spending (which would negatively effect the entitlement and welfare programs). But the young are generally anti war.
Paul’s supporters can effect the outcome of the race with a disgruntled 3rd party turnout, or write in vote. We just don’t know which way…. pulling more from Dems or more from GOP. Those that genuinely support Paul for fiscal policies are not apt to pull the lever for Obama. But those that support him for his anti war isolationist foreign policy will either write in Paul’s name, or go for Obama as the lesser of the perceived evil, warmongering GOP candidate. This group honestly thinks, thanks to RP’s propaganda, that every one is frothing at the bit to go to war with Iran. You lib/progs tried that with Bush back in his second term, and had to tuck your proverbial tails between your legs with your horse manure predictions.
Therefore it is not “black helicopter” conspiracies to ponder which way RP supporters would go in the general. They are the Indy/swing vote. And what is most likely is that either the GOP candidate or Obama will win, but between 35-45% of the popular vote… as did Clinton with Perot.
I think the youth like his honesty a quality they don’t seem to find in the other candidates.
@Richard Wheeler: You said:
Just letting the irony in that statement sink in…
Ron Paul’s honesty has yet to explain why he wrote:
Ron Paul voted against MLK Day as a holiday, yet he had the nerve to invoke Dr. King’s memory at the Myrtle Beach, SC debate.
Yep, real honesty.
Pardon me, rich… but who are you to determine when a candidate is “honest”? Worse yet, you consider 18-29 year olds experienced enough in life and politics to recognize an “honest politician”? Give me a break…
Ron Paul is just as opportunist (if not more, and the GOP’s version of an Obama “community organizer for the disgruntled), and playing-to-the-audience conscience, as the next candidate. What’s this political canonization you are playing at now? Pushing for the loon in the GOP for your own advantage?
The day the GOP nominates an extremist like Paul as the candidate, I’ll be out of the political chit chat game, and looking for a bunker to live in for the rest of my aluminum years. Between choices of your leftist extremists (Pelosi/Reid/Obama) and the so called “right” extremists (Ron Paul ), the nation and country I grew up in is history, and dead.
MataHarley
Yeah, his competition is now pretending they are on our side, they were just joshing with all that statist big government bs they did before. Kind of reminds me of GB and his conservative rhetoric before he first took office.
Speaking of GB, did he ever stop the North Koreans from getting a nuclear weapon? Or did he back down because he knew any aggression with that meaningless country would have taken us to war with China?
We can play a game of the the meaning of the words ‘is’ is, but if they want to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons then they’re going to have to go to war with them. I take them at their word that they wont allow Iran to get nuclear weapons–no matter what.
Ron Paul isn’t an isolationist. He’s a non-interventionist. There is a big difference.
You got to remember, Ahmadnutjob is a reformer, a large portion of those people you saw protesting in the streets actually support scumbags who make Ahmadnutjob look like Micky Mouse. If they had taken power the blowback would have been really bad for us. (Both sides of this deal want nukes for Iran)
He didn’t say that. He said our Federal income tax rate should be zero percent. We made due for how long without it?
You may find what I want to be laughable, but I find what we’ve been doing under Bush and Obama to be a tragedy. It hasn’t made us safer. (Hell, we’re actually faced with the possibility of a an islamic caliphate being formed again)
So, under his policies we wouldn’t be loaning out our military to Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the like. Countries that can more than afford to defend themselves, but don’t because we’re doing it for them.
We wouldn’t be loaning out our military to Narco Warlords so they can ship drugs to Eurabia.
We wouldn’t be giving insurgents money in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, etc so they can attack us.
Instead of instantly being involved in a conflict, because we’re there, we could have a chance to react in a way that’s favorable to the ->US<-.
Our troops would be free to respond to any and all threats to the ->->US<-<-.
We would be dealing with the fact that we're broke.
I'm sorry, I don't see the problem with any of this.
We’re going to have too massively jack up taxes and draft almost everyone in America if we’re going to be eliminating all the crazy people in the world who both hate the US and who can use box cutters…
Yeah, you’re for small government, small entitlements, and the like here in America…And the opposite in the rest of the world, right?
(The lady doth protest too much)
I never wrote I was a Conservative, do they support legalizing drugs?
I never wrote Ron Paul was a Conservative. I wrote he was the closest thing to a Conservative in the race.
If we go by Mitt, Newt, Rick 1 and 2 have actually done, they’re not Conservatives. (What does it say about Conservatives if these are their candidates?)
Your laughter is nothing more than Abderian laughter. ( :þ J/K)
@Ron Paul Is Right: You said:
The man who authorized the slaughter of the Iranian students/protestors in 2009, the man who ordered his police to kill Iranian citizens is a reformer?
The Guardian in the UK had this to say about Ahmadinejad, RE the 2009 election results in Iran:
By the way, you didn’t answer my questions in comment #59.
I am curious as to your position on this.
I apologize for calling you a jackass.
@Ron Paul Is Right:
My friend, you might as well be banging your head against a wall when it comes to the issue of Ron Paul around here. The headknockers on this site are more concerned with adhering to Conservative rather than Constitutional ideals. Over all it is still a very good site but I doubt that you get some of those here to see that it is just as important to follow the Constitution on issues they don’t agree with as it is on those they do.
So let me get this right – if there is choice between Ron Paul and Obama – several ‘conservatives’ on here would refuse to vote for Paul? Are these the same people who criticise Ron Paul supporters for not being loyal to the Republican cause? lol
anticsrocks
Do We Have Ahmadinejad All Wrong?
WikiLeaks
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: The Reformer
Maybe Obama and Ron Paul are right to want to talk to him?
Mousavi made his bones building Hezbollah. He helped to plan the truck-bombing attacks on the U.S. embassy in April 1983 and the Marine barracks in October of that same year. This isn’t a guy we want in power.
Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Iran’s Radical Turned Reformist
Ahmadinejad is definitely not Atatürk, not by a wide margin, but when it comes to Iran he’s probably the best person we’re going to get to deal with.
We should transition future generations out while keeping our word to these people.
I’m playing devil’s advocate, so my positions are those of Ron Paul. (Wait, that sounds perverted…)
NP, it’s all good.
what I take from the RON PAUL followers, is they are sold to the cause, and can put it to words,
without RON PAUL, they know his policies so well, they will debate it with anyone,
I think the fact that RON PAUL IS UP THERE IN THE GAME, IS ANOTHER PLUS FOR HIM TOO,
IT tell that there is many powerful issues which are so important for his followers that is enough like the CONSTITUTION IS A TOP PRIORITY FOR THEM, AND THE REDUCTION OF THE DEBT, THE REDUCTION OF THE WARS WHICH ARE NOT WON BUT STILL SPILL BLOOD OF AMERICANS, those with roots in the ground, I didn’t hear about RON PAUL CLOSING THE BORDERS, BUT RICK PERRY DID WITH PASSION, I didn’t hear that RON PAUL WOULD PUT AMERICAN AND THE MILLIONS OF AMERICAN FELON INCLUDED ON A WORK GENERATING JOBS FRENZIE FOR ALL AMERICAN FIRST AND ABOVE ANY IMMIGRANT AND ILLEGALS AND OTHER, there is still many other STATES TO GIVE THEIR SUPPORT, THEY WILL BE AS IMPORTANT AND THEY WILL SWING EVERYTHING , BY LOOKING FROM THE BACK TO THE FRONT, THEY WILL
Ask, how come the one in the back is not getting ahead, for what reason, they will look at CANDIDATES FROM THE CORE INSIDE FIRST, and from the achiements already visible, MEANING THE SOUL AND THE BRAIN POWER INSTEAD OF THE POCKETS OF THE CANDIDATES, THERE ARE STATES THAT CANNOT BE BOUGHT,
it will cause a problem for the one buying PEOPLE, the game is just beginning, let no one forget it,
this one belong to THE PEOPLE OF ALL AMERICA,
AND THEY ARE ANXIOUS TO GET TO WORK AGAIN.
Mata I’ll amend “youth perceive him to be honest”—-
anticsrocks Paul disclaims approval of “hate whitey day” penned by member of his staff. Says he voted against MLK Day because it wae government funded.Heck he’d vote against Ron Paul Day if it were govt. funded.
Mata As you know i’ve got no dog in this race( though I’ve predicted an eventual Romney/Rubio ticket from Day One) I enjoy the competition and the occasional circular firing squad.
@Michael Henkins:
So countries like South Korea wouldn’t take over their own defense if we left? Saudi Arabia wouldn’t act if Iran tried to stop them from shipping oil? Etc. Why should we go broke giving them(allies) a free military with soldiers they could care less about? (Seriously, go to youtube and type in ‘protest american base’ and you will see what they really think about us keeping them safe)
IMHO, the world isn’t going to shut down if we’re not there to hold it’s hand. If anything, our allies would be giving us a ton of cash to update their armed forces so they can continue to dominate their regions. And they’ll start to appreciate what we done for them up till now. Not spitting on us like they are now.
@Ron Paul Is Right, to your comments above:
(1:) Mercy, you RP supporters think the world begins and ends with RP, and that he is the creator of all things fiscally responsible. Congress has been dancing with varying degrees of reform in the past couple of decades, as the ponzi scheme started collapsing. While I’ll agree that neither side of the aisle ever goes to what I consider the heart of real reform… a gradual phasing out, or opting out, for future beneficiaries… Ron Paul in his all or nothing type approaches never does squat.
Take, for example, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. which reformed Medicare and led to the creation of Part C (Medicare Advantage) and saved $115 bil in Medicare costs over five years. Your guy voted against it. As a matter of fact, when you look at Ron Paul’s history, he’s never met an omnibus appropriations bill that he’s liked – balanced and even including some cuts and savings or not – and pretty much just always says “no”… then takes the money and runs home to Texas.
History and voting records have a way of coming back to haunt you. Strikes me as Paul talks a good game, but has proven himself to be ineffective as a leader in Congress for the duration. He not only can never lead his peers to the water trough, he’ll always find something with any bill to attempt to justify his nay votes. And his supporters will always buy into it, lock stock and barrel and excuse him.
Unfortunately, the only way to get everything you want is the way Pelosi/Reid/Obama did with O’healthcare and Dodd-Frank…. have a hefty or veto proof majority, construct it in the back rooms, and shove it thru without the opposition party or the nation’s approval. Ron Paul will not be having that advantage.
(2:) NK was pretty much building the nukes the minute Madeline Not-so-bright left the country. The NK policies were established by Clinton.
You know, your leftist friends have been playing this “Republicans want to go to war with Iran” card for quite some time now. RP stands right with Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee and Dennis Kuchinich… other “very conservative leaders”, and apparently has adopted their tactics. The general consensus has been that Iran is ripe for a fall from within by their own youthful population, starting to dominate the demographics. Thus the reason the US has always worked behind the scenes (until Obama, that is) to give them support and encouragement.
Iran is showing how desperate they are now, profiling in the Strait. And they are also taunting a weak US under Obama, as demonstrated by the Iranian company wanting to ship off some toy drones to the POTUS so he’ll stop asking for the return of the downed drone.
Obama has already put the US in the position of being weak and ridiculed, and now showing our military’s backs as he bugs out. Ron Paul’s policies make Obama look like a veritable hawk. RP’s isolationist foreign policies will not only backfire for his goal, it will endanger the HUMINT that we need, and can only get by being present in some of these countries.
For a guy who didn’t want to play the meaning of “is” game, you’re now playing the meaning of “is” game. Ron Paul is an isolationist in his foreign policy… which is the same as a non-interventionist. He is not an isolationist in his monetary or trade policy. But since Ron Paul knows this is a problem, he’s provided his base with tips on how to convince people that refusing to intervene with other nations isn’t the same as staying isolated from their affairs. ala the below:
RP isn’t in favor of treaties and trade agreements, which places him far more in the isolationist category by his own definitions. He actually does apply strong limitations on foreign trade because of an unrealistic philosophy that no government regulations – including embargoes or sanctions – should be allowable. This is a pie in the sky, unworkable libertarian utopia and actually ignores that other nations will impose unfair tariffs without a written agreement… something the RP opposes, yet encourages with his “free trade” philosophy.
As the Club for Growth notes in it’s White Paper on Paul:
Ironically, his “no embargoes or sanctions” attitudes, along with the stripping of US military presence on bases around the world needed for HUMINT, leaves the US with virtually no weaponry for defense save “a few good submarines”. In fact, if Dr. Paul wished to avoid warfare, his free trade philosophy prohibits using economic weapons as well… leave the US with not many alternatives but to bow in deference to foreign nations.
INRE Paul’s zero tax rates. Yes, I know it’s incomes taxes and the observation I made is the same.
That’s because we had tariffs, and the central govt was profitable. But then US tariffs in lieu of income taxes is antithesis to Dr Paul’s free trade philosophy. Figure out that conundrum.
Really? From Comment #57
This of course means that anyone who does *not* support Dr. Paul is not a “real conservative”… hence my laughter at your foolish claim.
You do know that Dr Paul is only about legalizing drugs for the taxes on the sales of them, right? Or do you have some other lofty vision of his reasoning?
Pray tell, where in your imagination did someone criticize RP supporters for “not being loyal to the Republican cause”? We have a few party loyalists here, but the majority are conservatives that aren’t happy with what the Republican “cause” is trying to saddle us with for a nominee. That hardly makes us “loyalists”, Gaffa.
And the criticism is of Ron Paul and mostly his foreign policy, with a few libertarian economic dreams thrown in. When the RP supporter becomes rude and insulting, the flavor and tone are returned…. just as it is for any other candidate supporter.
We’ve all bandied about debates on Newt, Santorum, Perry, Romney and Bachmann. Huntsman never made the grade. And, of course, Cain. The point is few of us found any one we could be really excited about and go the distance with. All of us are craving a steak, and finding ourselves having to choose from a buffet of hamburgers and meatballs instead.
Ron Paul Is Right
hi, if you all supporters has in your mind to VOTE for OBAMA if he is not winning,
you certainly have a big problem of understanding why this ELECTION IS all about,
IT’S ALL ABOUT DEFEATING OBAMA, SO IF YOU CALL YOURSELVES CONSERVATIVES, you all better think twice of what the stakes are now so important, and why the CANDIDATES ARE SO VISCOUSLY SCREENED, DID IT EVER HAPPEN BEFORE THAT A CANDIDATE WHICH SHOW THE BEST EXTERIOR PROFILE IS BEING PROJECTED ABOVE OTHER MORE ABLE TO LEAD THIS COUNTRY OUT OF THE DESTRUCTIVE PLACE IT IS NOW, WHICH WOULD GET TO THE POINT OF A POSSIBLE REVOLUTION WITHIN, IF IT IS DRAGED FOR LONGER THAN 2012,
Y’ALL BETTER THINK TWICE OF THE WAY YOU WILL SWAY IF YOUR CANDIDATE IS NOT CHOSEN, AMERICA DEPENDS ON ALL AMERICANS, NO MORE NO LESS FOR THIS ELECTION.
@MataHarley:
Hi Mata. Here’s my two cents on Ron Paul. It’s not the substance of what he is about that turns off people. It’s his non-ability to lead thoughtful discussions amongst his peers in Congress and to convince them of the rightness of his ideas that has led to his failure to be a “leader” in congress. Instead, Ron Paul opts for taking the stance of being against virtually everyone else in Congress, considering them as the opposition.
People do not take kindly, in most instances, to being treated as an opponent, even when the end goal seems to be equivalent, or nearly so. Those people tend to either dismiss Ron Paul’s ideas offhand, or treat with the true opposition, the liberals, and ally against Ron Paul.
As such, even if one agrees with his ideas, or his assessments of the situation, the fact that Ron Paul is not a leader is the biggest turnoff to him being President. And the Ron Paul supporters may not want to hear it, but Ron Paul and Obama are very much alike in this. Obama is not a very good leader because he does not bring people together to discuss issues rationally, but rather, assumes attack mode on whoever displays the slightest disagreement to his ideas or stances on issues. Ron Paul, and his supporters, are the same way. Anytime someone admits even a small disagreement with his ideas, or even just a concern about it, they end up being included within all the opposition to Paul’s idea(s) and attacked because of it.
This is the reason I cannot ever support Ron Paul for anything that requires the smallest amount of leadership, let alone for President.
@MataHarley:
Somehow, I missed your last sentence in that post.
That is as great a way of talking about the GOP candidates and about the choices we conservatives desire as I’ve seen anywhere. And to take it a little further, not only are we left with those choices, but the liberals keep trying to tell us how their SPAM is better than the mediocre beef put in front of us.
@johngalt, I agree that Ron Paul has demonstrated himself inept at being able to consolidate his Congressional peers in his two different stints as a Representative. I know you have just returned to us (and we missed you, BTW… :0) but it’s why I’ve continually used the phrase “he couldn’t lead a thirsty burro to a trough filled with water”. He would be just as ineffective as a POTUS.
This means that his libertarian policies may sound inviting to the supporters, but the likelihood of any of them coming about is nil. Most of the things he wants to do requires a willing Congress behind him. This would mean that Ron Paul would, again like Obama, have to use or abuse his powers of the Executive Branch to achieve change. And that, in itself, goes against the grain of his Constitution/liberty mantra.
@MataHarley:
That idea has led many otherwise good men/women astray. Regardless of how good one’s ideas are, implementing them outside of the legal/ethical framework the Constitution provides for us is, in effect, tyranny, one of the exact situations the founders sought to take us away from. Do I think Ron Paul would do that? No. I do think, because of that and more that you have stated, that Ron Paul, as President, would be no better, and in some cases worse, than Obama has been. There is too much that needs to be addressed to have a totally ineffective President, and essentially a “deadlock” in government. Add in that the liberals would, if Paul ever could get elected, point out that “deadlock” and relate it to conservatism, and use it to promote their next ideological nutcase, and we could see a nearly assured victory for them, throughout government, in 2016. At least with Obama still at the helm, the blame still falls on the liberal ideology. And no, I would never vote for Obama over Ron Paul, if it came down to those choices.
@MataHarley:
You we’re kind of all over the place, so please forgive me for snipping a lot.
Compared to the rest of RINOs/CINOs that are running, I guess he might as well be.
See Judge Napolitano article I provided a link for earlier.
Of course he did. He’s consistent in his beliefs.
The net cost of Medicare Advantage
It’s always somebody else’s fault…Do you work for the Obama admin? 🙂
Maybe Mitt and the like should stop banging the war drum then…
So what, even without the threat of the US, they’re not going to close it because it would hurt them economically and cause serious blowback from the rest of the world. They’re all talk.
No, he’s not in favor of treaties, trade agreements, trade organizations which don’t favor free trade. Seeing as how the WTO rules against us every chance it gets, and seeing as how countries like China don’t honor their agreements while holding us to ours, I think he’s right.
It’s amazing how China doesn’t do a thing and yet we know not to mess around with it.
Must be because it has its military spread out all over the globe and is beating us at our own game…Right?
Ron Paul believes we can do more with countries like Iran by selling Xboxes and Coca-Cola then shutting them out, taking away their gas and letting them freeze in the snow. Is he wrong? Is China wrong?
No, he favors free trade with everyone. No strings attached. No crony capitalist exclusions. Pure free trade.
Seeing what the Republican Party has done with our debt, the size of our government and seeing how it has diminished our liberty…I really don’t think it’s a valid argument to say that he should have been more of a team player and compromised his beliefs to get things done.
I personally don’t put much stock in these groups, but since you want to cite this one:
Club for Growth’s Andy Roth Discusses Presidential Candidates
Looks like this Conservative Org favors Ron Paul more than the rest of his fellow RINOs/CINOs.
I think Ron Paul would argue that we haven’t gotten free trade from these agreements(NAFTA and CAFTA)…
Ron Paul isn’t for disarming America and getting rid of all our weapons to the point we’re weak. And he’s not for getting rid of our finely crafted nuclear missiles which could wipe out all human life on this planet.
His website:
That’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, Dr. Paul will lead the fight to:
* Make securing our borders the top national security priority.
* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.
* Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.
* End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.
* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.
* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.
* Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.
* Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.
* Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.
* Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid.
Yeah, he has this crazy notion that doing things like holding out gasoline from Iran, causing thousands of Iranians to freeze in the winter, is a bad thing that makes them hate us. Those Jesus lovers are crazy like that. Wait…Don’t most Conservatives claim to love Jesus?
No, I never wrote I was a Conservative.
You can laugh in denial all you want, but if you support Obama or an Obama clone(Mitt “I need bailout money” RomneyCare, Newt Fannie/Freddie Cap and Trade Gingrich, Bailout Statist Rick Santorom) that clearly calls into question your Conservative Card. Ron Paul is the most Conservative guy in the race.
@Ron Paul Is Right: You said:
I would say that it probably has more to do with the fact that they have, what? 1.2 or 1.3 billion people… That being a Communist country, they would have no compunction sending wave after wave of soldiers to their deaths, merely to overwhelm their opponent.
See, if you know your history, you wouldn’t make comments like the one you did.
@Ron Paul Is Right: Ron Paul left the GOP and stabbed Reagan in the back in this 1987 letter he penned.
David Catron @ the American Spectator laid this out nicely, here:
Ron Paul is nothing more than an opportunistic politician, not the near deity his rabid followers prop him up as.
@anticsrocks:
Well that’s really my point, they don’t have to act tough and have their military all over the planet to get their point across. (Neither do we)
@Ron Paul Is Right: Okay, you might want to explain why China has been building up their military since the early 90s, then.
BTW, you completely ignored my comment #88. And you haven’t illuminated us as to why we ought to follow Ron Paul down the primrose GOP path to the Oval Office when he told the GOP and Reagan to go screw themselves…
@anticsrocks:
Nationalism.
Note: The Chinese government’s published 2011 military budget is about US$91.5 billion(1.4% of their GDP).
United States 3.6%
Russia 2.8%
United Kingdom 2.7%
Republic of China (Taiwan) 2.6%
People’s Republic of China (PRC)[11] 1.4%
Japan 1.0%
They would rather build up their infrastructure than waste their money on their military. They know that no one is going to mess with them.
His letter was a good read, thx.
Go right here for your personal Ron Paul Revival! Can I hear an amen!?!?
Note: I’m JK here. (All I need is for another response of how I worship Ron Paul…Get new material people)
@GaffaUK:
Most conservatives on this site know that your Ron Paul hypothetical will never happen, that choice will never have to be made.
___________________________________
Perry is out and Gingrich is leaving the latest Brian Ross hype up to his daughters to handle. I’m seeing that balloon going….pfft!
@Ron Paul Is Right: So you provide a link rather than put in your own words why you think we ought to support or at least to consider supporting Ron Paul?
Interesting…
@Ron Paul Is Right: The link you provided evidently does not exist.
And no, you cannot get an Amen to anything concerning Ron Paul, save the announcement that he is dropping out of the GOP race and deciding not to run third party, giving Obama a second term.
@anticsrocks:
Yes, I provided a link to Ron Paul’s site…I’ll let him sell himself.
Sry for bad link, for some reason my link(www.ronpaul2012.com) had crap added to it by site.
@Ron Paul Is Right: I just think it is odd that you seem to be so supportive of Ron Paul, but as soon as I pose a tough question, you clam up.
Explaining one’s core convictions come easily. I could easily give reasons why I support the candidate of my choosing. Yeah it might be easier to just link the website, but since my beliefs align with the candidate I support, I don’t need to do that.
It’s okay if you don’t want to try and “sell” RP, I totally understand how difficult that can be.
@anticsrocks:
I didn’t clam up, I pointed you to a site which will quickly and effectively tell you everything you need to know about RP…Bullet points and all.
So I saved myself some time by just giving you a link. *Pats self on back*
Which candidate do you support?
@Ron Paul Is Right: I don’t want talking points, RPIR. I want you to explain why I should back a candidate that told the GOP to get lost, and now wants their seal of approval.
If you can’t communicate that, it’s no shame. I would be hard pressed to sell Ron Paul, too.
@Ron Paul Is Right: I will gladly tell you which candidate I support, once you “sell” me on RP.
@anticsrocks:
Come on antics, tell us which candidate best represents your idea of conservative values.
I can honestly say that Ron Paul beliefs come closest to mirroring mine and how I feel the framers intended for the Constitution to limit the Federal governments powers. So it’s easy for me to say that he is my candidate of choice, but I’m a Constitutionalist not a Conservative.
It’s real easy to tell someone else how they are wrong…tell us how you are right.
@anticsrocks:
and whom you think we should vote for. Please.
@Poppa_T: I don’t mind telling you at all. Let’s give RPIR one more day to see if he has enough courage of conviction to explain why we ought to support Ron Paul, especially after he, as I have said above, told the GOP and Reagan to take a long walk off a short pier when it was politically expedient for him to do so.
@anticsrocks:
I can’t speak for anyone else, certainly not for Dr. Paul or RPIR but I personally left the republican party at about the same time RP did. I truly believed in and supported Reagan but I believe he opened not closed the door to illegal immigration after he granted amnesty to 3 million illegals. Another factor was his signing of the Cobra act which included the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) which was blatantly unconstitutional in my opinion. For all of Reagan’s small government rhetoric the fact is he did nothing of the kind and to imagine that he cut government is to delude yourself. Therefore I too told the GOP they could go fly a kite and joined the Libertarian Party. I wasn’t expedient for me to do so, I was merely following what I perceived to be how our founders beliefs.
@Poppa_T: That is fine, Poppa. And the thing that makes me believe you is that now you are not hat in hand at the GOP’s door asking for their seal of approval. Ron Paul is. Therefore, when it was politically expedient for him to leave the GOP, he did. Now it is to his advantage to come back, so voila.
There are many other reasons I do not support Ron Paul, but that is for another post. As I said, I’ll give RPIR a tad bit more time to see if he has the stones to step up, or if he is a windbag.
@anticsrocks:
There is no ‘we’, there is just ‘you’….And you should support him because he represents your idea of the best candidate. If not, don’t.
I think Ron Paul will do more than the other candidates in ending the world cop bs, ending the federal war on drugs, cutting our government and debt down to size, restoring our natural rights, a return to the original intent of the Constitution, etc. That’s why I support him.
@anticsrocks:
So who’s your perfect candidate antics? (Or were you just projecting with the stoneless windbag bs?)
Anticsrocks Seems RPIR IS CALLING YOU OUT.
In your wildest dreams did you think you’d be supporting Gingrich for potus when I first asked about 6 months ago?
Mata and John Galt are describing themselves as Independants.How bout you? Keep rockin