Posted on 05/13/2011 6:35:05 PM PDT by NoLibZone
Why don’t you call those that support Ron Paul, Ron Paul supporters instead of names? You do know ridicule is the political weapon of choice for the lefties, are you a Progressive Republican?
I also have a picture that was taken when Barry Goldwater introduced me to John McCain, but that does not mean I supported the crazy one. I just like the picture of Goldwater, but I bet you also dislike him, because he was not a surrender monkey like cut and run. (Him being Goldwater, not McCrazy)
Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party's efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O'Neill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed. Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter's four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan's five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.
Kook.
Ron Paul votes to homosexualize the US Military
It doesn’t matter if there are earmarks in a bill - IF YOU DON’T VOTE FOR THE BILL.
Ron Paul doesn’t vote for the bill.
That’s a bad bet on your part.
But your biggest argument against Ron Paul is a lie, so it doesn’t surprise me that you are guessing wrong about me as well.
earmarks don’t = spending.
With Ron Paul in the White House, I would not be in the least concerned about our nation defending itself against an attack. Rep. Paul voted in favor of the Afghanistan resolution in the aftermath of 9/11, and simply because he doesn't embrace every neocon wet dream military intervention doesn't make him weak on defense.
He believes in the original intent of Founders like Washington, who didn't believe in excessive foreign entanglements.
Having said that, Rep. Paul does need to nuance his rhetoric in the realm of national defense, given that so many are apt to misconstrue him. But he simply is not a neocon, and never will be, and I don't have a problem with that.
People need to understand that they will never find any politician whom they agree with 100%. Ron Paul is only one man, and if he got to the White House, the odds are that, after being adequately briefed, his national defense policy would probably become a bit more "hawkish", just like several other Presidents.
For national defense, I believe President Paul ultimately would do whatever needed to be done.
They get paid for by a separate yes or no vote.
People either vote yes to spending or no to spending.
Ron Paul votes no to spending.
So you are admitting cut and run is just dishonest.
What are you talking about?
Ron Paul does not vote for spending.
Political bullshit. He plays the game...nothing special about him. He’s a dumbass.
His followers are even dumber than he is....fools in fact.
He wouldn’t even give the order to take Bin Laden down.
It’s sad watching people defend him.
He’ irrelevant and I leave you to your irrelevancy and his 3% of the vote......as usual.
He got over 10% in a good number of states. Over 10% in Iowa.
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.