Posted on 08/18/2007 1:36:47 PM PDT by Captain Kirk
Ron Paul received 216 votes for a commanding first-place finish in a straw poll today sponsored by the West Alabama Republican Assembly. Mitt Romney came in second with 14 votes.
The poll was open to Alabama residents.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.ronpaul2008.com ...
According to a lot of the maroons around here, Paul has more supporters from the Liberal column than from the Conservative column. If they are to be believed, then he would undoubtedly siphon more votes from Hillary than from the Republican nominee—not that the Republican nominee will necessarily be any less liberal than Hillary, mind you.
Do you think DU supports many of these positions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
You can delude yourself into thinking that those who support Paul are going to automatically hold their noses for the GOP nominee if Paul loses. Sorry, it ain't going to happen.
Paul is leading a movement, not a mere campaign race for higher office. He is educating a new generation of voters & voters who previously didn't care about politics about the need to return to Constitutional principles and traditions.
Bellyache all you want about Paul being in the race, but the cold truth is that whoever is the GOP nominee (excluding Fred Thompson) is going to need Paul's endorsement in order to defeat the Dims.
Thanks!
LOL!
LOL!
>> I don’t think this is necessarily a leftist position.
Yes, it is a leftwing moonbat position.
Anyone with half a brain knows precisely why they hate us: because we don’t worship their not-a-god and his false prophet, the pedophile Muhammed.
It’s as simple as that. How do I know? Because they have told us so, over and over, orally and in writing. And they have backed up their words with actions. Vile, barbaric, evil, reprehensible actions that no one (except moonbats and Ron Paul) would tolerate or make excuses for.
The /moonbats/ and /paulistines/ are the ones who don’t get it, and try to make “the Islamist question” out to be more convoluted than it really is. They think you can “tawk” to the Mooselimbs and “negotiate” with them and so forth and we’ll all be just one big happy (isolationist) family.
Did Condit not pursue the straw vote issue? Did Paul’s folks not comment as well...
They are your wacky cousins up in Walker County...
>> Few of them are as reasonable or coherent as you.
I’ll second that.
You’re a long, long way from changing my mind, but you’re a credit to his campaign.
If he declares in September, he'll still be declaring earlier than Reagan, Bush 41 or Clinton did, so can we lay this silly urban myth to rest?
If you want to discuss that, take it back to the other thread and don’t try to hijack this one. I’m posting there and continuing to expose that thread for the fraud and non-story that it is.
Of course not, it is one of the few things they have...
I didn’t bring it up...
Well, not a formal endorsement, but they’re going to need to reach out to Paul’s supporters. The only candidate who comes close to Paul’s ideals is Fred Thompson.
>> Likely he would have immediately asked Congress for a full declaration of war [on Afghanistan], instead of waiting to see what the “international community” thinks.
That position is not coherent with wanting to withdraw immediately from Iraq.
But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that he believes we SHOULD be at war with — with what? — the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq? Radical Islam? What?
Would Dr. Paul then support declaring war on Iraq right now? That’s one possible solution to the (shall we say) “issues” in that country, you know. Tell Maliki that he has three days to get his countrymen’s s___ together or we will declare war on Iraq like we should have in the first place, demand immediate unconditional surrender of all insurgent elements, and if we don’t get it kick bloody hell out of the problem areas, collateral damage and their precious mosques be damned.
By the way that’s pretty much how we won the peace in Japan and Germany, after we won the war. Unconditional surrender and we just plain didn’t PUT UP with any crap from them. Please do remember they, like the Islamonazis, started it! It’s not like we picked the fight, we just finished it.
While we’re on the subject: we could have remained isolationist in WWII; no small number of influential Americans thought we should have, and after all, the homeland wasn’t really threatened. How does Dr. Paul feel about the handling and outcome of that conflict?
Here’s what I’m getting at: I think Dr. Paul is a mere technocrat. A legalist. A “constitutionalist”, if that’s what you want to call it.
But in his stubborn pedantic dogmatic legalism, he has no common sense or awareness of the world around us. He’s living in the 19th century. And, worse and more dangerous, he has no internalized concept of RIGHT and WRONG — of GOOD and EVIL.
Another moonbat position. No small wonder the moonbats find him appealing.
I do not.
“Vile, barbaric, evil, reprehensible actions that no one (except moonbats and Ron Paul) would tolerate or make excuses for.”
Where has Ron Paul made excuses for them or has said the actions were tolerable?
If it’s trying to understand why? That’s not excusing or tolerating them.
Why don’t we close the border to these people and let them fight it out, amongst themselves.
I just read in the Detroit Free Press we’re bringing in Iraqi immigrants into the Detroit area. What kind of BS is that? Give them rifle and send them home if we trust them that much.
Why hasn’t the border been closed to them?
They’re in our engineering schools learning our technology to use against us.
Why hasn’t the border been closed to Muslims?
Are we at war or not?
I’m not a big supporter of Ron Paul’s foreign policy, but he doesn’t get a fair shake around here a lot of times either.
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.