Posted on 07/17/2007 4:44:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
Guess he should get his own website so he can share his opinions with the other nine Ron Paul supporters.
LOL, wow, there’s a deep, powerful argument.
May she marry Michael Schiavo.
LOL!
Is that what you meant in post # 47 when you wrote:
"It’s his supporters. They are, to the last one, the most infantile, foul mouthed bunch of jerks I’ve ever dealt with or read."
I have tried to be civil on this forum, sometimes it isn't easy. The attacks on Ron Paul here range from the humorous, to some based on fact and well reasoned, to some of the most vile slanders I have ever seen.
To E-mailer
Subject: Ron Paul
Thank you so much for your E-mail.
Rest assured I will give it all the consideration it merits
Valin
They are, to the last one, the most infantile, foul mouthed bunch of jerks **I’ve ever dealt with or read.”**
The latter part of that statement is key.
You read my posts to you on another thread, and from that you get that I am a infantile, foul mouthed jerk? Can you point out what I wrote that leads you to form that opinion?
“You read my posts to you on another thread, and from that you get that I am a infantile, foul mouthed jerk?”
Ok fine, if it makes you feel better I hereby plead guilty to generalizing. I will say that while you are not the most polite Paulistinian I’ve ever communicated with, I have NO evidence of your jerkosity.
My apologies and I’ll try not to generalize as much in the future.
Illiteracy, with some Tourette's syndrome mixed in for good measure. Never a happy combination.
““Now the ranter that started this post was quite absurd but he is quite the minority when it comes to Ron Paul supporters.”
Actually among Paul supporters that I have seen, you are the most intelligent sounding, not a foul word in your post. The subject of this thread however, he is quite typical.”
Thanks Grunthor,
As to the earmark requests by Ron Paul, I did some digging and found this written by Ron Paul:
“June 18, 2007
Last week’s big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.
Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessary save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn’t lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.
The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week’s earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.
So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United
Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.
So we need to focus on the longer term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.”
I would think that since we have a flawed overgrown federal government, that returning some of the constituents in your district tax money that otherwise would have gone to other parts of the country does make some sense. I’m not saying that everything he requested was good or not good, but one must work within a flawed system since that is what we have. A person could argue that it is double talk, but I think it is more a position of advocating what you truly want to happen, but recognizing reality, you make requests to return taxes back to your district. It certainly isn’t the cardinal sin in life.
As to Chuck Hagel, he seems like a pretty good guy on most things. Not a whole lot to fault except I don’t trust the religious right (although I do work for a church), and he seems rated quite high by that constituency. My problem with the religious right is they seem all in favor of the government trying to regulate morality which just brings government into areas I don’t think the government has any business. Jailing people for hurting themselves by doing stupid things like smoking pot, or a other unsavory activities that do not directly hurt someone else seems a waste a law enforcement and a overreach of government in my opinion. As it is we have many communities that outlaw certain activities on Sunday which should be unconstitutional on the basis of the separation of church and state. To make things worse, nowhere in the Bible will you find Sunday to be the day to worship God on. Go figure.
ROTFL, every single Ron Paul supporter I have tangled with in other forums are just as crazy as this guy. I think they are all throwbacks from the hippy days and burned out their brains on acid.
You gotta love these Ron Paul supporters. On several of my anti-Hillary YouTubes, they jump aboard with a Ron Paul support comment. They get deleted. These people are genuine pests who actually delude themselves into believing he could actually win the presidency. Maybe once he tops the 1% mark he’ll have a better shot at that.
Ron Paul, you have a few good ideas, but for anyone to consider you commander in chief material shows himself to be a fool.
We’re six months out from the very first primary in New Hampshire.
The point is not whether he’ll win the presidency, it’s whether his stance for smaller, constitutional government will change the way in which the fat-wallet RINO candidates talk about the proper role of government.
There are Ron Paul supporters who actually think he can win. There are Dems calling in to talk shows and evoking his name. That is because he blames America for the war against the Islamofascists. While many of us would be supportive of his small government stand, when he opens his mouth to criticize this nation for what the radical Muslims have done, he loses all credibility. He will have no influence because of that.
You are aware, aren’t you, of the history of how thoroughly our nation screwed over the populations of middle-eastern countries, tolerating and backing tyrants willing to sell out their nation as long as they were a bulwark against the Soviets? Do you know what “Operation Ajax” was?
We propped up the Shah, we bankrolled Saddam, and we continue to support the corrupt monarchy of Saudi Arabia. The US has been crassly manipulating the government and politics of the Middle East since the discovery of oil there in the 1920’s.
Of course, it was for a good cause - our nation’s energy security and position as a global superpower and the ultimate defeat of the Soviet empire - but to pretend that we never stomped on any toes in the region is laughable.
We do things in our national interest as we should. More than any nation in the history of the world, we have set people free. We buy oil; we don’t steal it. I don’t give a damn why the Islamofascists want us dead. I want them dead first. We could leave Israel tomorrow. We could remove our troops from Mideast soil tomorrow. They still want us dead.
What Ron Paul doesn’t understand, and what the Paulbots don’t understand is that this doesn’t go back to 1920. This goes back centuries. They want us dead. They want Western Civilization dead. They want us all to convert or die.
I do not trust Ron Paul to defend this nation. No matter how much I agree with him on the need to shrink government and expand individual freedom, he can never by my commander in chief.
Any conservative not supporting Ron Paul likely supports an interventionist foreign policy. That makes them a neoconservative, by definition.
“Fred Thompson is a disgustingly evil looking bald bastard”
Just another reason to vote for him.
No bald man has run for President on a major party ticket since 1956, when there were two baldies, Eisenhower and Stevenson.
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.