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?
It worries me that there are enough lunatics to keep putting him back in Congress. What is the matter with those people? They must be a crazy as loons.
Good piece. His true believers will never accept the fact he is irrational and lacks the ability to see the unintended consequences of his policies.
Obama would tie him in knots getting him to blab his rediculous philosophy.
Between him and NEWT, they are making the GOP look ignorant.
We need a heavy weight that I don’t think has shown up yet. Here’s hoping he/she steps in soon to stop this circus.
Ron Paul has some really good ideas. I particularly like his ideas on how to limit the power of the federal government.
But the problem is that he also has some really bad ideas. For example, it is one thing to limit our overseas commitments, but it’s another thing to abandon them, as Paul suggests.
Amen, Ron!
He may be slipping into the beginning stages of Alzheimer’s.
Friday, October 12, 2001
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, introduced H.R. 3076, “The September 11 Marque
and Reprisal Act of 2001,” which would authorize the White House to order the capture or killing of bin Laden, and not necessarily by official military personnel.
Ron Paul isn’t gonna get nominated but his presence in the field is entertaining and unpredictable. Everybody oughta understand that it’ll be OK, he’s no threat—he raises some interesting issues from time to time, is certainly more than a little daffy at other times, but if I could nominate any one person in America to lead an audit of the Federal Reserve Bank it would definitely be Ron Paul.
That’s where the Marxist have an edge on us. They are at least smart enough to understand the use of messaging.
I wouldn’t even say that. Cyanide is useful.
Conservatives and Libertarians only meet and agree on most fiscal issues.
On Social Issues and on Foreign Policy we are miles apart.
However, Libertarians do try to take over the Republican party, because they can’t get anywhere with the Libertarian Party. Obviously, Ron and Rand are in office, so they do get a little power, but, not much.
Then when Libertarians post on FR and you oppose them with a conservative message, you get hotly accused of “not being conservative” or “not knowing your Constitution.”
What I am not is a Libertarian. And a Libertarian is not a conservative, except on most fiscal issues. Why pretend otherwise? They are just trying to usurp the Republican power, money, and recognition.
Ron Paul continually perverts the Constitution and the ideology of the Founders.
He supports homosexualizing our military, supports Iran getting nuclear weapons, supports a Victory Mosque at Ground Zero, and no even regrets the death of Osama Bin Laden.
Yet he always trys to perversely spin his way as being the voice of the Founders. He would not last a day in the days of our Founding. He would be branded as the pervert that he is and outcasted.
If truth be told, his position on the Fed has a strong influence on the Tea Party and he has been ahead of every conservative politician when it comes to questioning government spending. OTOH, his foreign policy is not going to become reality and he is not taken seriously on that front by anyone. Why let that get to you and make you jittery when he has ZERO influence on foreign policy?
The reason he gets elected is that his opponents in the primaries are RINOs. Ron Paul, IMHO, is harmless despite his (flawed) rhetoric on foreign affairs. He is useful on the economic front. Many other RINO wannabe-Presidents are worse and cause real damage. e.g.: George Allen voted for ethanol, voted to raise the debt ceiling and triangulated his position on abortion. However, he has the right speeches for foreign policy to sway some voters who fall for emotional appeal. That is what damages the country, not empty talk on foreign policy.
Saul Alinsky is alive and well I see.