Posted on 08/13/2011 1:26:27 PM PDT by JimWayne
After yesterday's spurt in talk radio about Ron Paul, I've been thinking about his positions. I oppose Ron Paul on Foreign Policy (especially his position ignoring the threat of Islam taking over our policy), but have to seriously wonder about supporting some of the other candidates who have not faced opposition.
Ron Paul gets a lot of flak, but why do the others get away with cheating us for doing far worse than what Ron Paul promises to do to Israel? Many candidates like Rick Santorum, George Allen and Joe Barton have hijacked the label of conservative, but are less conservative than even Ron Paul. They support raising debt to infinite levels, deficit funding, support for Islamic regimes like Pakistan, nationalized healthcare (they did not oppose Romneycare), have wishy-washy positions on abortion, and say one thing during the elections while ganging up with the liberals right after the elections.
The second thought in my mind is about Israel. Why are we so obsessed about Israel when the Jewish people seem to vote for the RATs? I think Islam is more dangerous and if we pull the aid from both Palestine and Israel, Israel will win, but this is a situation I don't really feel strongly about. There are much bigger problems at home and my wealth is depleting not merely due to Obama and other Dims, but the RINOs and neocons who have ganged up with the liberals over the years.
These RINOs do not support us but expect our support unconditionally. They even opposed the TEA Party candidates but suddenly claim that they themselves are part of the TEA Party.
So my question to you is why should we give a free pass to the RINOs? Shouldn't we hold them to the same standards we hold Ron Paul to? I can already hear that Ron Paul is a kook, but that is not the question. The question is whether others like Santorum and George Allen aren't worse than being a kook and why should we support them? The other question is why Israel is so important that my savings should be used for them. Shouldn't they take care of themselves?
[ How lunkheads like you survive on FR is one of life’s mysteries. ]
What else do you know thats not true?.. Are you a democrat?..
Can't be. I'm not a racist.
I do not take Ron Paul seriously, especially his position on Islam. This thread was not a support for Ron Paul, but opposition to some of the RINOs who I think deserve the same treatment that Ron Paul gets. In particular, Rick Santorum is not worthy of respect. Nor is Joe Barton. People get angry when Ron Paul talks of not fighting Islamofascism, so why tolerate those who actively support Islamic countries and represent them at Washington?
I pointed out that there were other RINOs who are as bad as Ron Paul on this front, yet do not face opposition and need to be opposed. You try to spin it as support for Ron Paul. You must be intensely loyal to one of the RINOs who actually supports Islamofascism. Now, Rick Santorum has come out and stated that he opposes Iran only because Iran oppresses homosexuals. Shameful and disgusting.
Too many people on here just dont care about conservative principles. It aggravates me to death sometimes.
Sure Ron Paul has his faults, but as bad as others? I don’t think so. I ask myself, would he make that bad of a president?
Sure, he is non-interventionist in foreign affairs, but I think that we have been too interventionist for too long. It needs toned back some. Most Americans agree. Paul might wanna drastically cut back the military and our involvements, but realistically could he? No. He would cut back some and Congress and the people would temper that. The military would shrink some, but not on a large scale.
I also ask myself whether he would have supported things like:
Obamacare
No Child left behind
Medicare Part D
the creation of the DHS
The war in Iraq
The TSA
The Patriot Act
the bailouts
The Stimulus
gun control of any kind
abortion
more regulation
I gotta say heck no. Not a chance. Paul wouldnt even consider supporting these. But would any of the other “so called” conservative candidates?
By my accounting, that list probably cost over $10 trillion. Was it worth it?
Nice! So much FUD about the only person running for the GOP who actually stands for most of the things conservatives _claim_ to stand for.
Thanks for digging up the quotes.
The coverage is just something for the political press to do waiting for next year. So don’t worry about disqualifying people yet. Heck don’t you want campaign Carl to have something to do?
Paul may get pointed out the most but the candidates who are not going to win the nomination include:
1. Legislators: Bachman, Newt, Paul, Santorum, ect. The US electorate does not elect legislators to executive positions unless given no other choice like last time.
2. Anyone who has not won a statewide election.: Bachman, Cain, Newt, Paul, Trump etc. Like any other job running for office involves certain skills that are honed over time. You don’t go from never running a campaign or never running a campaign larger than a congressional district to running winning national campaign.
So we are left with the governors and ex-gov: Huntsman, Johnson, Palin Pawlenty, Perry and Romney. Four years ago I wondered if being an ex-mayor of a really large city would do it and then Rudy ran a terrible campaign to underline the statewide election point and is dithering away again this time too. But rest assured if the GOP is to win in 2012, it will be with someone with executive not legislative experience.
BTW, my own personal criterion now is were you conservative in 2008. That is the key. Did you cut and run and jump on the global warming bandwagon as Pawlenty did or as apparently Romney still is. If someone one not confident in their conservative convictions could have been scared into revealing it, 2008 was the year. So I am very curious to know more of what Perry was saying in 2008. I know Palin was not scared away from her convictions. I know Pawlenty was by the warmists. I know Romney is not conservative. I know Newt was and was voluntarily filmed on a couch with Pelosi.
To me you can not trust someone in DC who can be scared out of their professed conservative values. That is what the DC establishment is all about. So what these candidates said in 2008 is the key to me.
He took money from Stormfront.
He didn’t vet each and every individual contributor?? Can any other candidate say they did the same?
Now if you can say for sure that he knew and understood who they were, that it was intended for influence, or that it was a sizable amount, that argument might hold merit. But as it is, thats a pretty pathetic argument. Otherwise, any guy with radical beliefs could donate $20 to all of the candidates (except Mitt Romney of course) and shoot down the whole field. Is that what you want? Besides that, even dirtbags are still allowed to donate to candidates that they like for whatever reason. Its the American way. We don’t exclude those who have beliefs we don’t agree with.
Perhaps we should think about average contribution size and where they came from. Ron Paul’s contribution sizes are small and from the grassroots. They are tiny by everyone elses standards. That is because the other candidates are taking money from K street lobbyists who expect something for their donations. Which is more dangerous? A $20 dollar donation from a Stormfront member, or a million from a healthcare lobbyist?
RuPaul kept the Stormfront money.
Warning bells? Like every candidate vets each individual contribution. How much was it? If it was less than $100 I would tell the trouble maker that was asking to stick it. I wouldn’t let muckrakers examine each and every individual contribution. It would be cooperating with the same people running a vendetta against me.
Perhaps we should shine some light on the other RINO candidates? I don’t remember you complaining about prochoice contributions to people like Giuliani. Groups like Emily’s List contribute to lots of moderate repubs. So which is worse, a small contribution from an individual that belongs to a radical yet legal group, or taking large contributions from a prochoice lobbying group?
My particular choice for President has not yet announced her candidacy.
But I'm waiting for it...and I am patient.
My particular choice for President has not yet announced her candidacy.
But I'm waiting for it...and I am patient.
Those would be some of your finer qualities, but your total idiocy supersedes them all.
Go away from FR, you supporter of Global Warming and homosexuality.
What kind of IDIOT still supports Ron Paul?
Oh, please. Like the men salivating over Sarah Palin are just SO thoughtful about their voting choices.
Where’s the link? Or is this a vanity?
The thread is not about Ron Paul but about others who are tolerated despite supporting Global Warming, Islamic terrorist regimes, baby killing and other liberal policies. I used Ron Paul to highlight the point that if he could be attacked for his bad policies (I pointed out his flawed position on Islamofascism), so should others. We should not accept RINOs.
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.