Posted on 08/09/2007 7:14:58 AM PDT by CenTexConfederate
Ron Paul big on 'Net, but media don't notice
Clarence Page August 8, 2007
WASHINGTON
Of all the interesting little fish swimming beneath the currents of the major candidates in this presidential campaign season, none is making waves as surprising as those kicked up by Rep. Ron Paul.
The Texas Republican, who embraces a libertarian point of view, has been riding an unimpressive 2 percent in the polls, but if the presidential election were held in cyberspace, Paul would probably win hands down.
Paul's supporters flood online polls, such as the unscientific survey ABC News invited viewers to join after the Republican debate last Sunday. Yet, you could barely find the Texas doctor in the network's after-debate coverage, despite the vigorous applause he ignited with his call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
LOL.
I’m aware of all the various definitions of Neocon. I believe the “correct” one is the one you laid out.
Whats the point?
I have a Samsung 52 1080 also. Great TV. I am using it with an Adcom SS Amp setup firing Klipsch reference though I am looking at Vandersteen or B&W as an upgrade. What is your Mac driving?
Before I got married though my critical system was a set of Maggies running of a pair of Silver 7s. I miss those girls...
Damn, now I got to like you and stuff ;-)
I guess since you are kinda cool now you can call me a Neocon Fascist if I can call you an old fashioned conservative nut job...
At least we agree on what's important.
"Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism." Captain's Quarters.
Voted "No" on the resolutions of May 2, 2002 that supported Israel.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich voted against a House Resolution that will urge the United Nations Security Council to charge Iran's president under the genocide conventions.
Reason? In his own words:
"This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide."
"Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing UN resolutions as justification, this resolution is like déja-vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for UN resolutions?"
How do we deal with Iran? In his own words:
"We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war."
His policy on Iraq? In his own words:
"Just leave!"
Reason During a May debate in South Carolina, he suggested the 9/11 attacks could be attributed to United States policy. “Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us?” he asked, referring to one of Osama bin Laden's communiqués. “They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years.”
So as well as being an anti-Semite, he's a kook. As for the racist accusation you leveled at me, you really need to find a way to defend Paul that is just a tad less disingenuous.
Paul and his minions have a track record of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic bias that is not disputable.
The best intentions of those ‘volunteers’ had some disastrous results and may result in the election of the Hildabeast herself. I am praying that it doesn’t.
Ron Paul isn’t Ross Perot. Both are a bit kooky, but Perot wouldn’t suggest surrender as a viable course of action for America under ANY circumstances.
Here are some more ‘Conservative(sic)’ votes by Paul:
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes.
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons.
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime.
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism.
Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror.
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools.
Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy.
Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy.
Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.
Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects.
Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding.
Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers.
Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers
Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse.
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
Voted NO on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan.
Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill.
Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers.
Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers.
Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients.
Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks.
Perhaps you forgot, but someone made the connection from "neocon" to anti-semitism.
I was merely trying to respond to that comment.
Perot was a little Kooky, but he was the real thing.
Shoot, we know what Ross Perot would do... look he tried to do to help his employees who were hostages in Iran..
Perot was a little Kooky, but he was the real thing.
Yep, and he got most of his people out. I know somebody that was there by Perot’s request to ‘get it done’.
He got people excited and then bailed out and he did it twice. He was not an honest candidate for the office of president.
As much as I don’t like Ron Paul I don’t see him like that. I just hope he doesn’t decided to go 3rd party and take his supporters with him. That will give us hillary for sure.
I just hope he doesn’t decided to go 3rd party and take his supporters with him. That will give us hillary for sure.
No chance at all of anyone following him off the cliff. See his 1988 race.
ouch....
it’s become a pejorative..
I hope you are right but I think that there are people (here) who still believe in their hearts, that Perot was for real.
I hope you are right but I think that there are people (here) who still believe in their hearts, that Perot was for real.
Well, to be fair, 19% of the total vote is pretty ‘real’ politically.
But the fact is Ron Paul isn’t going to be in the general election come November of 2008....so it doesn’t really matter.
Depending on the speaker, it is used for Anti-Semitic purposes.
Anyone who uses the term neoconservative other then those who are neoconservatives are labeled anti-semitic. The neo conservatives have been using that tactic for years to discredit traditional Conservatives and smear them with the anti-semiti label. Even Russell Kirk. Anything to hide the fact that they are disillusioned big government leftists with fascist tendencies. No one would buy what they sell as a stand alone product. Many fine traditional conservatives have either been fooled into thinking this group is conservative or in some cases they simply agree with the authoritian nature of the neocon philosophy.
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.
