You view paleos as I do.
Posted on 04/27/2011 9:40:19 AM PDT by Bokababe
You probably think G.W. Bush was a conservative or John McCain. Sadly the neocons (democrats) have so messed up the conservative label it is almost meaningless today.
As a Constitutional conservative I tend to agree with Paul on a lot of issues and with 14 trillion in debt (100 trillion really) there is only one issue this election cycle, SPENDING. Now I did not support Paul last time and probably will not this time but Paul is very good on spending. It appears that most of the vile directed at Paul is because he does not support nation building in the Middle East/Asia/Africa. I also have a problem with that.
“Yep, 100% Paulhroid”
I’ve been called a lot worse, but that’s also the first time I’ve been called that. I do like Paul, but I’m not one of his biggest fans. I prefer Allen West.
“This is a board for discussion, so while you may disagree with a poster, they do have every right to post.”
Yes, it is, and yes, they do. I never said or implied any different.
You view paleos as I do.
BB never said that she hated FR.
Unfortunately for you, newbie, you just made yourself look like a total buffoon.
And you have a problem with the private sector doing a better job than the public sector?
Are conservatives like yourself truly for small, limited government...or just for cutting everyone off but yourselves from the Federal feeding trough?
And who in the hell are you to threaten to zot anyone around here, especially someone who has an eight-year posting history senior to yours?
Unless you are a moderator or Jim Robinson in another form, don't threaten me.
If you even bothered to read the article or my posts, I said that I thought Ron Paul probably couldn't win. Just because I object to you and your little gang slandering the man and insulting anyone who thinks that he might be a factor in this election, or that he might have some good ideas on some issues, doesn't mean I am recruiting for him. I don't have to. Ron Paul's issues -- smaller Constitutional government, the economy, the bailouts, Austrian economics vs Keynesianism ,the Federal Reserve, the gold standard, the deficit, the debt -- are all in the mainstream discussion today. And like it or not, Ron Paul set the agenda years ago when no one else was even talking about it.
I will say something nice about RP I hope doesnt get me in trouble. He is the only one (almost, Beck was too) talking about Bernake today. Everyone else was talking about Obama’s BC which is food for the braindead(I admit ate some too LOL.).
I saw the comment that started this exchange #4. Pretty amusing. She seems to think RP is the anti-christ. Some of her attacks would be much more popular in 2002, or 2007, or even late 2009 than now. Now they are :OBE
I dont see Ron as electable, nor do I agree with him on everything, but he should make the debate more interesting and informative. Who else will talk about QE? Trump? Romney? Huck? Getting ill thinking about it.
RP is clearly anti-abortion. You should stop posting that part in your list. It is absolutely not true.
Great thread you just had pulled.
Your name: Rabadash the ridiculous.
It fits......always has.....
Seniority is not everything on FR. We take other things in consideration, for example, your posting history.
These ones on your list stood out. Sounds like you are saying he is the anti-christ, or at least Satan.
You didn't list ‘child molestation’ or ‘beastiality’ or ‘genocide’ or ‘cannibalism’. Those would fit in well on your list, but you have to be careful not to exaggerate beyond those or no-one will take you serious.
He never really seems to do anything.
All he does is talk.
And his worshipers fall at his feet.
(Plus, he's too liberal.)
That one is easy.
He votes against the earmark bills, but if they still pass into law in spite of his vote against them, his taxpayers get stuck paying for them. That is what the earmarks are for.
Claiming he should go back to his voters and say :”I made sure you got nothing except the bill for the other states earmarks” is just a silly got-ya setup similar to :”If you were consistent with my version of your position you would not be in congress”. That is a standard Chris Matthews setup. If Paul voted for the earmark bills, then he shouldnt say he opposes them.
Are you not extrapolating a bit there? Isnt his real position that the Federal government doesn't have the power under the constitution to regulate abortion in the states, anymore than say murder? Is that what you mean by ‘allowed’, when he says that abortion is a state legal issue that includes (his supporting) overturning Roe vs Wade?
If that is really your point then I can defend that position, it is Sarah Palin’s too and I have defended her on it many times.
Allen West - What every man should be like, regardless of race.
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.