And what he gets wrong, he gets very very wrong.
Posted on 04/10/2010 3:56:34 PM PDT by speciallybland
Don't try that BS, knowing that Ron Paul is not a serious candidate and cannot even win anything in Texas outside of his little congressional district has nothing to do with the phony story that you are trying to write there.
You cannot just make things up.
What story are you talking about?
Your argument, that people shouldn’t support the person they prefer because you think they won’t win, is the same argument a person uses to persuade a conservative to vote for a moderate. Make the decision based on electablility rather than what you want. I prefer, for the Primary, to choose not on the basis of electablility but on my own preferences. I think everyone, for the primary, should choose based on what they prefer, rather than on what they think is more electable.
I prefer less goverment, more freedom, so I prefer Ron Paul.
Don’t take someone saying something about a professional gadfly like Paul being unable to win any election outside of his district and it being laughable for someone to think that he is a serious Presidential candidate, and turn that into a lie describing a posters larger beliefs and politics.
If you notice here at FR, most of the Ron Paul crowd are not just happy to vote for their guy in the primary, they also want to bring down the leading conservative candidate that may be able to stop Mitt Romney, trying to gut and weaken the leading conservative candidates that can win, is a whole different game than merely throwing a vote away in a primary, that is seriously hurting the conservative movement.
Like I said earlier, I don’t even know why you kids are here, you don’t know anything, or care anything about politics. It is all just some emotional game to you. Like backing a sports team or something.
what “lie” are you talking about.
I’m saying the same type of argument is taking place.
You’re saying, I believe, that Ron Paul should not be supported because he isn’t electable. I’m saying that argument is roughly the same as saying that a conservative shouldn’t be supported because a moderate would be more electable. Same argument.
You aren’t arguing that Ron Paul shouldn’t be supported because you disagree with his policies. That’s an entirely different argument.
I personally want the smallest government possible, and I think that Ron Paul would be the best person to do that job, to accomplish smaller government.
You might want bigger government, in which case you wouldn’t support Ron Paul.
I also want to add that you’re making a lot of assumptions about me. You’re calling me a kid. You know, if you check when I joined, and see that I joined Free Republic 10 years ago, you might figure out that I’m probably not quite as young as you think I am.
It seems that you’d rather argue with a stereotypical Ron Paul supporter than with me, and you’d rather argue against arguments that I’m not making.
Do you have your responses pre-written and categoried. Copy “Insult #8 to Ron Paul Supporter” from txt file. Paste “Insult #8 to Ron Paul Supporter” into “Your Reply” on Free Republic.
And a “lie” deals with the truth or falsity of a statement of fact. I have no idea what statement of fact I’m making that you have a problem with.
Who are you talking about? Sarah Palin?
Assuming that Palin runs -- and now with Mark Sanford, whom I also liked a lot on the issues, unfortunately but rightfully disgraced -- I wish her all the best in 2012. In fact, I'm hoping that I'll get to see Senator Rand Paul endorse her for President, like his dad endorsed Ronald Reagan as a Congressman back in 1976.
Ron Paul, much as I like him, really is getting pretty old for any Presidential run; and I agree with Sarah Palin on enough issues that I see every reason to support her at this time. So I can't speak for "most of the Ron Paul crowd"; but I do think that 80%-of-a-loaf is not all bad, and if I can get that much agreement with "my top Conservative issues" from a Candidate Sarah Palin, then I'll support her. And, I expect, so will Rand Paul.
So we're not all Palin-bashers, I'll tell you that.
Still woulda loved to see Palin get a second crack at Veep, though; and with Sanford out... well, she moves up to the top slot, in my mind, at least as things are shaping up at this early stage.
When I said kids, I wasn’t thinking of age. Good luck with your activities.
This Ron Paul stuff bores me.
I thought I heard booing during Pence's remarks about standing by Israel. These would have been the Paulbots, I imagine.
Pence is a contender. His speech, and the audience reaction, are evidence of that.
Evangelicals for Mitt. Why don’t they call themselves Proud Evangelicals for Mitt? I love these PR names, like Republicans for Choice, that only serve to draw attention to the fact that they are the tiny minority seen by everyone else as oxymoronic.
Typical of the Paulbots voting at CPAC was a young man sporting red hair, wearing an "End the Fed" shirt and leather jacket, who was drunkenly yelling "end the fed" over the sound of the auction announcer.
“If Ron Paul keeps winning these straw polls or coming in 2nd, that’s enough real evidence to indicate that he should be considered in the top tier.”
Your ignorance is astounding.
Ron Paul supporters truely need to be studies.
“If you don’t know who is going to win you don’t know who isn’t.”
This tripe might pass for RonPaulian Vulkanized logic...
But on Earth and in reality is is illogical.
Honestly, put the pipe down, you’re making an ass of yourself.
And what he gets wrong, he gets very very wrong.
Why all the bitterness? RP’s support may only be in the low teens, but that is about 1,000% more than any other hardcore Constitutional/conservative has gotten, including RP some years ago. That has put him “in the mix” for media coverage and campaigning.
I would think that most conservatives would be glad that he has gotten people to think about money and banking and other subjects that candidates that you apparently approve of either don’t understand or are afraid to raise. There have been other candidates who didn’t win the Presidency who over time had far more influence on policy than those who did.
Perhaps he is an old gadfly, but so was Socrates.
I was in a meeting with Pence just before the health care vote. If he is supposed to be the future of the party, we are in trouble. He isn’t tough enough or articulate enough to be firmly principled. Moreover, he comes across as a mid-level politician. He would be a vast improvement over BHO, but it is hard seeing him get there.
I don’t see that we have any first rate candidates at this point.
So, Pence is unacceptable but RonPaul is fine?
LOL.
Btw, comparing Socrates to Paul is a crime against history.
If you had followed my posts, you would have seen that I don’t harbor any thoughts that RP will be the nominee or elected President. You also have difficulty reading. I made it quite clear that Pence would be an improvement, but that he would not be a strong candidate. That is far from “unacceptable”.
By the way, what do you think you know about Socrates?
I wouldn’t go knocking potential candidates down right now if I were you. That seems to be de rigueur on FR: grind them all into the dust. Did you watch the speech?
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.