Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Paul Grabs Attention of Alienated Voters
WSJ ^ | 8/31/2007 | JACKIE CALMES

Posted on 09/01/2007 6:52:16 PM PDT by oblomov

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last
To: oblomov
Paul Grabs Attention of Alienated Voters

ALIEN ATE DA VOTERS, Who would have thunk it.

Maybe Paul should be running for supremo leader of Mars.

21 posted on 09/01/2007 9:01:57 PM PDT by OKIEDOC (Kalifornia, a red state wannabe. I don't take Ex Lax I just read the New York Times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears

You say that Ron Paul will cut whole departments.

You say that he is very much in the mold of Ronald Reagan.

How many departments did Ronald Reagan cut?


22 posted on 09/01/2007 9:12:34 PM PDT by Artemis Webb (RON PAUL: "It will be a little bit better now with the democrats now in charge of oversight ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: oblomov
to just 2% in polls

LOL

23 posted on 09/01/2007 9:14:42 PM PDT by Wheee The People (Go FRed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wheee The People

Paul grabs attention of Aliens (the UFO driving kind)


24 posted on 09/01/2007 9:19:25 PM PDT by angrymarine (I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: oblomov

25 posted on 09/01/2007 9:20:27 PM PDT by JTN (‘We achieve much more in peace than…unconstitutional, undeclared wars’ - Dr. Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RDTF
I wonder if he’ll ever be re-elected to anything ever again. At least not as a Republican.

He will probably win reelection to his house seat in Texas (14thDistrict). He won reelection last year with around 60% of the vote in an election when lots of other so-called Republicans (and some real Republicans) got their @$$ handed to them.

26 posted on 09/01/2007 9:39:59 PM PDT by Calvinist_Dark_Lord ((I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb
How many departments did Ronald Reagan cut?

What department did Reagan specifically state he would cut during his campaign? The point is that Reagan, like Paul, gave specifics. Something you don't hear from many Republicans these days.

27 posted on 09/01/2007 9:45:53 PM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
Ron Turd is the POS candidate.

using that college education to its full extent eh ?

28 posted on 09/02/2007 5:01:16 AM PDT by Revelation 911 (prov 30:33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Reagan, like Paul, gave specifics. Something you don't hear from many Republicans these days.

bears repeating

29 posted on 09/02/2007 5:02:19 AM PDT by Revelation 911 (prov 30:33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: billbears

>>What department did Reagan specifically state he would cut during his campaign?

Department of Education


30 posted on 09/02/2007 6:19:36 AM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

I agree that some of the Paul supporters are overzealous to the point of being obnoxious. I support Paul contingently, reluctantly, and I have no illusions about him actually having a chance at winning the nomination.

Why do I support him? I see Paul as anathema to the establishment in both parties that seems to agree on the broad outlines of policy, differing only on minor points of doctrine. Romney, Obama, Clinton, Guiliani... all adhere to the same welfare-statist ideology, and the results we would get with one of the mainstream Republicans would differ only slightly from what we would get with a Democrat.


31 posted on 09/02/2007 6:33:07 AM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: billbears; Revelation 911; oblomov
"How many departments did Ronald Reagan cut?"

"What department did Reagan specifically state he would cut during his campaign? The point is that Reagan, like Paul, gave specifics. Something you don't hear from many Republicans these days."

The POINT is that the President can't cut departments. He can't cut departments anymore than he can appropriate funds.

When Reagan took office the useless Department of Education and the useless Department of Energy were both less than four years old but even by that time we were stuck with them.

I don't have a very high opinion of Presidential candidates who are:
A. Ignorant of their Constitutional powers (particularly unforgivable for a self-described "Constitutionalists")
B. Making promises to voters that they already know they cannot keep. For the record this is called "lying".

32 posted on 09/02/2007 6:33:49 AM PDT by Artemis Webb (RON PAUL: "It will be a little bit better now with the democrats now in charge of oversight ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal

What a clever and refreshingly intelligent riposte. Two references to feces in the same short sentence.


33 posted on 09/02/2007 6:37:32 AM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: oblomov

Re: #31

So basically you like that he stirs the pot or makes some waves?


34 posted on 09/02/2007 6:44:05 AM PDT by Artemis Webb (RON PAUL: "It will be a little bit better now with the democrats now in charge of oversight ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb
I don't have a very high opinion of Presidential candidates who are: A. Ignorant of their Constitutional powers (particularly unforgivable for a self-described "Constitutionalists") B. Making promises to voters that they already know they cannot keep. For the record this is called "lying"

But still Reagan hoped to keep this campaign promise. So since he made that campaign promise you don't have a high opinion of Reagan. Yep, sounds about right for today's 'conservative'...

35 posted on 09/02/2007 6:45:05 AM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: billbears

Nice try...you can collect your consolation prize at the exit door.


36 posted on 09/02/2007 6:47:31 AM PDT by Artemis Webb (RON PAUL: "It will be a little bit better now with the democrats now in charge of oversight ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb
LOL!! You don't understand very well do you?

1) Reagan stated he would cut the Department of Education.

2) You state you don't hold Presidential candidates in high regard that make statements about cutting departments (in fact calling them 'liars').

3) Logically then you don't hold Reagan in high regard (and calling Ronald Reagan a 'liar').

Have a nice day...

37 posted on 09/02/2007 6:55:11 AM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

“I began to see those candidates as personal enemies. For me it is really not about Ron Paul at all. It is all about his supporters, especially those here on FR.”

That’s RICH.

I can’t say I ‘ve noticed a bunch of Paul supporters on other threads attacking anyone, except the super trio of RINOs known as the “top tier”...., you know, gun-grabber julieannie, gun-control flopper romney, and john mccain (feingold).

I have however, on the Paul threads, witnessed hordes of your kind bringing all your most hateful psersonal attack comments in tow.

I’ve been noticing Duncan Hunter has been taking a little heat as well. So has Tancredo. It’s the same coments ...”he’ll never be president”.

Go figure.

All the Paul people I personally know are for Paul, Hunter, or Tancredo, not the top tier of loser “electable” RINOs.

Right now, I’m looking at Tancredo, followed by Paul, then Hunter. I’ll support one of them, or no one.


38 posted on 09/02/2007 7:35:37 AM PDT by 383rr (Those who choose security over liberty deserve neither- GUN CONTROL=SLAVERY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 383rr

psersonal=personal


39 posted on 09/02/2007 7:36:46 AM PDT by 383rr (Those who choose security over liberty deserve neither- GUN CONTROL=SLAVERY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

This was posted previously under a different name. Thanks for the ping though. I’d like to have a word with the Big Government GOP constituents who love Big Brother when it accomplishes their agenda.


40 posted on 09/02/2007 12:21:28 PM PDT by Eric Blair 2084 (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms shouldn't be a federal agency...it should be a convenience store.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson