talking with a Ron Paul supporter 2

YouTube ^

[Brett11]

Ron Paul supports limited government. So there’s no way in the world he would want a massive government to take away liberty from the American people.

[mnehring]

Nice attempt to re-write history but the bill Paul voted for would have increased taxes on everyone making over $250K. He had the option to vote no and either vote yea on another bill or present his own bill. He didn’t, he voted with Nancy Pelosi and the Dems.

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/02/dems-screw-the-wealth-producers-bill-passes-pelosi-gloats/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/254459/ron-pauls-idiem-mirabilisi-daniel-foster

Not the first time either.. Palio Fraudie is not the Constitutional hero his little cult makes him out to be. He is a moderate libertarian who at times, votes with the Democrats more than Conservative Republicans. Hell, even on economic issues he has been a failure. He talks a lot but when given a chairmanship and an opportunity to do something, he has completely blown it- not doing a single thing in his half-year as finance chair. At that, he even undermined his own Audit the Fed bill. Just another old career politician who wants the issues to stay alive so he can keep talking about them and raising money off it.

[Brett11]

He voted for a bill that extended the tax cuts for those making under $200,000 per year. Had he voted against that bill, he would’ve voted to raise taxes on those making under $200,000 per year. Ron Paul has voted in favor of every tax cut that he’s ever voted on. He voted for the ultimate bill that extended the tax cuts for EVERYBODY. You’re being completely dishonest by falsely claiming that Ron supports tax increases on the rich. He’s always voted in favor of lower taxes and less spending.

[mnehring]

The result of that bill would have been an increase in taxes on several brackets- period.

Spin it all you want, but he could have chosen to vote for a bill that did not result in an increase in taxes OR he could have proposed his own bill. The choice he made was the one that results in higher taxes.

The bill he voted for did not extend the tax cuts for everyone. That’s why all but three Republicans voted against it.

Paul is just another old career politician playing old career politician games. Time to clean house.

[Brett11]

Correction: $250,000 per year.

[Brett11]

He said in his statement that he would’ve preferred a bill that extended the tax cuts for everybody, but extending them for 98% of the American people was better than not extending them for anybody at all. You’re the one who’s spinning this issue. Honestly, if I had been in the house I probably would’ve just voted “present” on that bill. It was a trap either way you voted.

[John D]

He’s the only Republican candidate who actually believes in following the Constitution.

The Constitution says one of the duties of the President is to protect us. Cut and run believes if we just appease terrorists more they will leave us alone. He refuses to believe we need a military to protect us. He said one submarine would be all we need to protect our shores against invaders.
If this were 1776 the surrender monkey would be upset that we were fighting for our Independence. In 1812 he would be welcoming the British back. He would have supported Neville Chamberlain's position regarding Hitler.
Cut and Run's Battle Cry: SURRENDER, SURRENDER, and SURRENDER again. Surrender before we lose.

[John D]

Ron Paul supports legalizing drugs and PROSTITUTION. That did it for me right there. That’s insane.

When he blamed America for 9/11 did it for me. Now he wants gays in the military. Another nail in the coffin.
The only good thing about the surrender monkey is that he is absolutely ineffective. He has NEVER accomplished a thing that he talks about in the entire time he has been in Washington, and that is a LONG time. That is except getting as many earmarks as possible, but he SAYS he is against them.

[patriot08]

The old fool’s a nut case.
I’m ashamed he’s a fellow Texan.

[Brett11]

So what exactly did I say here that would’ve caused my posts to be reviewed? I suppose there really isn’t any room for debate at all on this site. You have to toe the establishment line on everything.

[trickyricky]

There are more republican establishment shills on Free Republic,
than you can shake a stick at.

I'd vote for Ron Paul before I'd vote for ANY of the globalists the republican machine trots out.

Of course it is all academic.

Ron Paul will NEVER win the presidency,
But if America is going to lose her sovereignty, and she is,
I'd rather it be at the hands of the democrat party.

Who knows? Maybe there are enough people left in America who despise the republicans AND the democrats,
to overthrow the traitors.

[Allegra]

What are all you neo-cons going to say when Ron Paul wins the Iowa straw poll tomorrow?

Ooops....gotta revise my answer. It appears that either Michele Bachmann has better spambots or people really are looking for conservatism this time around.

I suppose there really isn’t any room for debate at all on this site.

I think there is...but I don't think the leftist views ae much welcome here.

You do know the site owner's views on Ron Paul, right?

If not, I can find them for you.

[Brett11]

Does Pat Buchanan really have “leftist” views as well? I never knew that rejecting globalism was a “leftist” position. But at this point, I really don’t care anymore if the moderators here prefer neo-conservatives over traditional conservatives.