Posted on 09/05/2007 11:17:42 AM PDT by Hurricane Bruiser
Damn I blew right past this...
Awesome...
Do you have a clue who Ron Paul is? You might want to check on his long standing positions. For example, he is not anti-war, he simply wants Congress to declare war instead of us becoming mired in multiple police actions. Check his position on border security - it’s wayyyy better than GW’s.
I have seen them working in the past on this site against Republicans in a tight race suggesting votes down loser third party holes or to push not voting at all.
I think that is a favor for Democrats.
I think Democrats love Libertarians around voting time.
Of course not.
But it would be a nightmare to have to either stay at home or choose from two such ill-suited candidates for the highest office in the land. Terrible scenario.
Won’t happen, so it’s a moot nightmare. Interesting concept, moot nightmares.
Not bad sloganeering. Got anything that not textbook propaganda material?
Save it.
Most freepers today have no clue what it means to be conservative.
That hunter is a 2nd tier candidate while Guliani and Romney are front runners is all you need to see to realize how idiotic most posters are on this board.
I think you just hate libertarians, because you don’t trust people to run thier own lives.
When you are less popular than congress...
Yeah, I do. He's an antiwar nutbar who is also a hypocrite on earmarks.
You think so? Ron Paul voted against Iraq, Hillary didn’t. Most Dem voters would swing to the GOP for a fresh, outsider politician who is anti-tax and for smaller government (much like Reagan).
So let’s say Paul got the nomination. Would all of the FReepers who talk big about “sucking it up for the Party” against Hillary if someone else’s man didn’t get the nomination vote for Dr Paul? Or would the Constitution Party get their votes?
Remember that Dr. Paul is 90% of what most conservatives want. The first rule of campaign school is “All Or Nothing Always Gets You Nothing”. Which is what we’ll continue to get with more RINOS.
Who the hell is happy with it?
Being "unhappy" doesn't translate into suicide by surrender?
GW is saving your ass whether you like it or not. He told you on the day after 9/11 that it was going to be long and hard, but cowards like the Paul and his sycophants would rather see America die a slow death.
I see you didn’t read ALL of my post.
There you have it. Until rp apologizes for blaming us for 9-11 he will never be a contender in the repub party.
Oh yeah, the way some of them write they RUN THEIR OWN LIVES could make great fodder for Science Fiction films.
Didn't need to. The two items I mentioned are deal-breakers.
That's wrong on too many levels to count.
See there, I told you so.
The GOP will only win if it holds the base. An anti-war candidate will not do that.
Yeah, Ron Paul the coward, staining the name of Ronald Reagan, who saw the wisdom of leaving Beirut and getting out of Middle Eastern political affairs.
You people are a joke. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
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.