Ron Paul Is Like Political Cyanide

The Looking Spoon ^ | 5-12-11 | Jared H. McAndersen

[The Looking Spoon]

Sorry Ron Paul supporters, I know you howl like a dog whistle factory in a tornado when he gets criticized, but this is exactly why Trump said he'll never win...

Ron Paul says he would not have authorized the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, and that President Barack Obama should have worked with the Pakistani government instead of authorizing a raid...

Read the rest at Poltico

Even if he's right, for the sake of argument, these are statements that make a person patently unelectable. Focus groups have found that this ranks right up there with child molestation, the difference being at least those Chesters know they shouldn't run.

For 10 years this psycho hid from us, and Pakistan could've made the search only 10 days if they wanted. Yet Ron Paul thinks we should've ripped the steering wheel out of the column, handed it to them and said "here, you drive."

I usually bite my tongue with this guy for the sake of his supporters that I'm friends with, and for the sake of his son, who I like.....so far....but this is just too much, even for the guy who thinks even the Civil War was unnecessary.

He shouldn't be president, period. He should follow in his twin brothers footsteps....

....and be the cartoon he really is.

[JimWayne]

If Rick Santorum can run for Prez after losing in 2006, why not Allen?

Santorum endorsed Romney. Allen endorsed Arlen Specter. I would oppose both of them. Allen also foisted ethanol on us. Guess he wants to save the polar bears when the great DELUGE happens?

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

If Ron Paul was elected President, the US would be rich, free, and dead!

[Reagan Man]

Sorry, bucko. Been around a long time and remember a whole lot. Wasn't always satisfied with Reagan's decisions, but I was never disappointed in his Presidency.

Here I thought you were taking pot shots at Pres Reagan, not Gov Reagan.

Reagan admitted the Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967 turned out to be a mistake. I seriously doubt his veto would have held up anyway. In the end, however, the real blame falls on California's liberal medical community. Not on Reagan.

[hedgetrimmer]

Saul Alinsky is alive and well I see.

[truthfreedom]

Allen was the early early front runner for 2008, before he lost. I’m not suggesting that I’d support Allen, but he is a name that possibly could excite some people. He really isn’t famous though. I think Allen is believed to be famous. But isn’t.

[truthfreedom]

Big Government types think that “anarchy and chaos” reign when the FEDERAL Government doesn’t meddle in everyones lives.

Ron Paul doesn’t have a problem with State Laws. It’s just that he believes that the Federal Government should be limited to what the Constitution explicitly allows. And the Constitution doesn’t explicitly let the FedGov do much of anything.

[Reagan Man]

So, exactly what has Ron Paul accomplished for America? I'll tell you... NOTHING! ZERO! ZIPPO! NADA!

Paul's domestic policy is not built on the republican notion of smaller government or even the conservative idea of limiting government in contemporary times. Rather, Paul's domestic policy is built on the libertarian theory of returning to the America of 1789. Attempts to return America to 1789 in 2011, would assure widespread anarchy, chaos and death to thousands, if not millions of American citizens. Maybe even civil war. Sadly, a thought that might please many 21st century southern fried rebels.

Paul's libertarian foreign policy is even more destructive to our Republic then his libertarian domestic policy. If Paul had his way, US military engagement against the terrorists in Iraq would never have taken place. Pleasing his fellow anti-war liberals. And Afghanistan would have been surrendered back to the Taliban within a very short time. If Paul had his way, the Islamofascists would have had endless opportunities to kill even more people then they murdered on 911. If Paul had his way, the Patriot Act, enhanced interrogation, FISA and the terrorist prison at Gitmo would have never existed. If Paul had his way, ALL 500K+ US troops serving American interests throughout the world, would have been called home in a major cut and run effort, an historic retreat from our international obligations. In some cases, leaving our best allies defenseless.

Paul is a dangerous and naive libertarian loon and unfit to serve in Congress or to be potus. The fact is, Paul can't get elected as a Libertarian and must masquerade as a Republican to get elected.

[truthfreedom]

Ron Paul believes that states can and should have laws.

Libertarians believe that states should have those laws.

Ron Paul and Libertarians agree that the Federal Government shouldn’t have those laws.

Ron Paul wouldn’t be an ideal Libertarian Governor, because he’d probably leave in a lot more laws than the Libertarians would like, but a good President for Libertarians, because he wouldn’t effect state laws, but would remove the federal.

I personally think that’s the best system. 50 different states with different laws, and one of the states regulatory system would be just to everyones liking. Good laws will triumph over bad, and laws that work best will be adopted. Laws will still be individualized to the tastes of each state.

Nothing like anarchy or chaos would result.

[Mtner77]

....”A few things I don’t like about Ron Paul either, but he’s infinitely better than Obama-lama-ding-dong. Don’t you agree?”....

NO!

It is funny. Paulbot’s think that they can get over by saying “Obama is worse than Ron Paul”????

Try to follow here. The GOP will NEVER elect “Dr. Paul”, not even dog catcher. (How he keeps getting re-elected in Houston is anyone’s guess). His foreign policy (if you can call hiding under the bed a “policy”) alone, marks him as a “nutter”. And you think the mainstream GOP will vote for him because “he’s infinitely better than Obama”???? Laughable. Who is NOT better than Obama? (BTW, if an election were held today, on this board of Republican’s, between “nutter” “Dr. Paul” and Barry, I am not certain who would win. I am betting NEITHER would get 2% of the vote).

At least the Duncan Hunter people knew when to throw the towel in. Not the “Dr. Paul” and Rand peeps. Just keep screaming louder. Than the rest of us fools will finally get it! And then we are “sure” to see the light and vote for this fine man.

[The Looking Spoon]

Well then, vote NOW: a)Obama b) Ron Paul.
A few things I don’t like about Ron Paul either, but he’s infinitely better than Obama-lama-ding-dong. Don’t you agree?

---

Luckily, this is a scenario that will never happen :-)

[John D]

A few things I don’t like about Ron Paul either, but he’s infinitely better than Obama-lama-ding-dong. Don’t you agree?

I do not think there is much difference between them. They both want to blame America for every problem in the world. they are both for the pro-gay agenda, they both are anti-military, they both want legalized drugs. About the only difference is obama wanted bin laden dead, cut and run didn't.

[KevinDavis]

Exactly..

[JimWayne]

Reagan was a great President. You misunderstand me. His achievements were in taking on the unions and standing up to Communism. That does not suddenly make his debts or deficits acceptable. Nor does it excuse his stance on abortion when he was Governor.

[Reagan Man]

Reagan pushed for federalism with his Presidential Executive Order #12612.

All Ron Paul can do is talk about it. Ron Paul will never be potus and will never be a governor. There aren't that many Libertarians/libertarians around to elect this quack. If Libertarian Paul didn't run as a Republican, he'd never have been elected to anything.

Anyone who thinks it was wrong for the US military to have taken out Osama Bin Laden, is a blithering idiot. Ron Paul is a blithering idiot.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>>Reagan was a great President. You misunderstand me. His achievements were in taking on the unions and standing up to Communism. That does not suddenly make his debts or deficits acceptable. Nor does it excuse his stance on abortion when he was Governor.

Wrong, I do understand you. Its you who seems to misunderstand who Reagan really was. First off, laying out the facts about the real Reagan record is not making excuses for Reagan. Lots of folks are ignorant about the political and personal motivations of Reagan through a long and well detailed life in the public spotlight. Reagan's achievements were not limited to taking on the air traffic controllers and standing up to the Soviets. Although ending that 45 year conflict and winning the Cold War was an historic accomplishment that eluded 7 president's prior to Reagan.

Again. The GOP did not control the House and therefore, did not control the purse strings. While the debt did go up while Reagan was in the Oval Office, the annual deficit was actually going down when he left office. Reagan had to negotiate and compromise the best possible deals with Speaker O'Neil and the Democrat House majority. Even though each and every draft of Reagan's original budgets were always DOA. For the most part Reagan got his way 75%-80% of the time.

Btw, Reagan's "stance" on abortion was simple. He did not support abortion on demand personally or as a matter of public policy. In 1967 Reagan wanted a 99% pro-life bill, with the one exception for a woman's right to self defense, but he settled for a 95% pro-life bill. Sadly, what California ultimately realized was a 100% pro-abortion law. Upon becoming law, the California medical community began an immediate state wide effort to abuse the TAA of 1967 and turn it into abortion on demand and not its original intent, to assist with the difficult abortion cases.

[Steel Wolf]

Anyone who thinks it was wrong for the US military to have taken out Osama Bin Laden, is a blithering idiot. Ron Paul is a blithering idiot.

Exactly right. I'm as libertarian as they come, but Ron Paul is covered with ten foot pole marks for a reason. The man is a tin eared loon. Personal responsibility doesn't need to mean national isolationism, or trying to revert the government back to how it ran in 1793.

He has some very good positions, and some very bad ones, but he's not the man to implement any of them.

The country was 86% in favor of killing Bin Laden. 86%! What kind of fool announces that he was opposed to it, especially in the same week you announce you're running for President? He's way too in love with his own ideals to know or care if they're politically toxic, or just plain wrong.

[Reagan Man]

Wow! Well said, Steel Wolf.

And thanks.

[NoLibZone]

You don’t know enough about Paul and his positions to make an informed decision about him.

It was an Letter Dr Ron Paul wrote to chairman of the RNC Frank Fahrenkopf, March 1987.

The MSNBC interview as asking him about that position, which he would not dispute.

[truthfreedom]

Well, I’m looking at the Letter now.

People seem to need to cut and paste to make it look bad.
It’s an interesting read. Apparently the results during the Reagan administration weren’t Conservative enough for Ron Paul, even though Reagan was the most Conservative President of the modern era.

Ron Paul is just very conservative is all.

What would be interesting is if we actually look at what he said back then. Do you agree with the things he said way way back then.

He wanted a much smaller Federal Government back then.

Do we want a much smaller Federal Government right now?

[NoLibZone]

"it’s an interesting read. Apparently the results during the Reagan administration weren’t Conservative enough for Ron Paul, even though Reagan was the most Conservative President of the modern era."

You agree the images linking of Ron Paul and Ron Reagan is wrong.