MD Straw Poll Results - Ron Paul Wins

MD GOP ^ | 09/05/2007 | MD GOP

[Hurricane Bruiser]

ANNAPOLIS— After eleven days of presidential straw poll ballots cast at the Maryland Republican Party’s State Fair booth, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) was announced last night as the winner.

The Maryland Republican Party’s first-ever presidential straw poll at the State Fair resulted in nearly 1,000 Marylanders casting a vote for their favorite Republican candidate for president.

[George W. Bush]

RuPaulettes were at the fair every day passing out fliers and the only one who were represented at the voting booth. Clearly they skewed the results.

So it's the fault of Ron Paul's supporters that all of those who supported the other candidates couldn't get off their dead asses and do a little work for their candidate?

Looks like the GOP's first team this year are the Couch Potatoes. Too lazy to lift a finger for their candidates. Then they blame Ron Paul because his supporters are upbeat and willing to work like dogs to elect someone with his message on small-government, liberty and sound financial instruments/institutions.

Is that it? Because we work for Dr. Paul to try to help him win, that's unfair to all the couch potato supporters of the other candidates? LOL.

[George W. Bush]

Here we are in a fight for our country's survival.

How dramatic! We rarely heard such paens of impending doom even during the Cold War. Well, whatever floats your boat. There's little indication the public is going to go for the Chicken Little routine in '08.

[George W. Bush]

The Muslims in Kosovo have ethnicly cleased the country and now want to become a separate country. Serbia is threatening to send an army into the country to stop that possible action.

Don't worry. Bush will continue the legacy of Xlinton, protect the genocidal rape-gang ethnic-cleansing Religion Of Peace™. While persecuting the Christians of eastern Europe.

The recent visit to Albania, the leper of Europe, was a signal, I think.

Soon, the blood of Christians will no doubt flow again in the Balkans, spurred on by the satanic United Nations and supported by both major parties in this country.

Someday, I believe God will punish America for its part in persecuting Christians around the world.

[JTN]

[WOSG]

“Trolling candidate threads is still trolling. It’s not RP specifically though. Virtually every candidate gets thrashed and trashed here at FR any more. I think it really harms our forum and the party in general but that is management’s choice. Personally, I thought JimRob alone handled the 2000 election much better than our current group of mods is doing. But that’s just my take. A group of mods has a strength that no single mod can overcome. And the job had gotten too big for just JimRob to handle. Still, JimRob did an amazing job back then when the board actually had a lot more posting activity on all the forums.”

Astute observations.

[ejonesie22]

The farce is strong in you...

[jmeagan]

*******Methinks you have things a bit reversed. Last I checked, anti-war Paulites are the ones not welcome on FR. So just who are the trolls on these threads?*******

And just why are anti-war Ron Paul supporters not welcome here? I joined FR a long time ago. I was really excited by the forum and almost made it to a Freeper function. However, things changed after the Gulf War started and I last posted, prior to recently, here back in 2004. I would think that a free exchange of ideas and a reasoned debate would be welcome here. I have a badge of honor on the internet, for people with my ideas. I was kicked off the Democratic forum for life.

Ron Paul is not a John Lennon “give peace a chance” type of person. He has made a reasoned argument that we should get out of interventionist policies and entangling alliances around the world.

In my own life, I am pretty much a MYOB type of person, but don’t threaten me or my family. I can become rather violent in that type situation, and people know it.

The US has become the bully of the world. Beginning with our interference with S.A. in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Every one knows that eventually you have to stand up to a bully, even if it means you lose. You just have to hurt him enough that he leaves you alone.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

I think Dr. Paul simply misspoke in regard to 9-11. He did not clarify what he meant, I presume.

I didn't misspeak with my sign! Paul blamed us (America) for 9-11!

[Zipporah]

“coward Paul”

In what way is Ron Paul a coward?

[JTN]

I just can’t figure out how liberal Republicans like Ghouliani lead in the polls among Republicans. What has happened to the party that used to be for small government???

HKtSNatGEfM!

[Dead Corpse]

And what you have to understand is that many (I'd say most) conservatives agree that, regardless of the fact that the war has been mismanaged in some instances, it is still worth fighting, and winnable, and Ron Paul is going to get nowhere with us.

Yes, it is "winnable". But not as we are doing it. That is what folks like Dr. Paul have been saying. Setting up a "democracy" in the Middle East is like setting up a rose garden in a sewage treatment plant. You might get it to grow with enough effort, but as soon as you leave it will wither and die.

And exactly where is it in the Constitution that it is our governments job to set up "democracies" in other countries? Fight war against those who attack us, yes... that is a delegated power. "Police actions" are no part of it.

As a long standing member of Congress and a candidate for the GOP nomination, I'd say Dr. Paul's statements are consistent, correct, and a lot more insightful than people are used to hearing from the current crop of partisan hacks infesting Congress.

Understand how the enemy thinks and why they want to attack us. This doesn't mean "cut and run because they don't like us", no matter how much morons want to try and spin it. Destroy them, don't pussy foot around "nation building". Declare war. Don't puss out and use UN mandates to prop up your case for a war.

These aren't positions of weakness. Nor are they "anti-war" per se. If they get "nowhere" with you, maybe it's YOU that has the problem. Why do YOU want our military personnel using law enforcement rules of engagement in a hostile environment? Why do YOU want to see a "democracy" built amongst hostile Islamic radicalized Nations? Why do YOU want this war drawn out so that it can be used against conservatives in the next election cycle? Why do YOU want a "boots on the ground" approach when we have the technology to flatten Iraq, Iran, Syria, AND Afghanistan without losing a single soldier?

[dirtboy]

Which may or may not serve the interests of his own constituents.

Ah, so one can justify the other white meat in such a manner. Gotcha.

[jmeagan]

********Personally, I am not a Libertarian, have never been, never will be. I don’t like their default pro-abortion position, their open-borders position, their completely unfettered free-trade policy, their position advocating legalizing even the worst narcotics. I don’d agree with that. Ron Paul would lose me as a supporter if he agreed with them on that. Now, of course there are a few Libertarians supporting Ron Paul who might take issue with my characterization of the LP but that’s just my position. I am a Republican and a conservative. And if you think that somehow that excludes a strong position favoring liberty and libertarian values, I commend the Ronald Reagan’s well-known defense of libertarian Republicans to you. He certainly grasped the fundamental conservative values of libertarian small-government Republicans. Like me. Like Ron Paul.******

Ron Paul is pro life. He is against open borders. Although he talks about unfettered free trade, he would finance the federal government with a uniform, but not a protectionist tariff. Frankly, his trade policy was the main thing I disagreed with, until I found out he would finance the federal government with tariffs.

Drugs are a difficult situation. I would ten times rather my children smoked pot than drank alcohol. Alcohol is one of the most destructive drugs in the world, so it is hard to see that any other drug could be worse. But alcohol is legal in this country. Most of the bad things about other drugs are because they are illegal and costly. I would never trust a coke head, as the cost of their habit makes them steal from their mothers. On the whole, I think legalizing drugs would be less costly to our society.

[jmeagan]

*******Let me ask you this: Do you honestly believe (forget all the rhetoric of whether Congress voted for war or not) Ronald Reagan would be happy with the anti-war rhetoric coming from both the anti-war left and the Ron Paul camps today? Oh, and don’t try to qualify the rhetoric from the Ron Paul camps as not anti-war. It is.*****

Ronald Reagan was a person who was able to admit his mistakes. He gained the presidency as an unabashed “free trader”, but when confronted with the realities of “free trade “ became one of the most protectionist presidents in recent history. He protected the US automobile industry, the steel industry, the motorcycle industry and the chip maker industry.

Reagan was dealing with another super power that had the ability to destroy the world as we know it today. Today, we are dealing with a very different situation. Yes, the terrorists could kill a few thousand people here or there. Or they could get an Atomic bomb and kill millions of people. However, no country could deal with our wrath, if we identified them as the country responsible for a nuclear attack on the US.

[trisham]

The US has become the bully of the world. Beginning with our interference with S.A. in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Every one knows that eventually you have to stand up to a bully, even if it means you lose. You just have to hurt him enough that he leaves you alone.

**************

I don't even know how to respond to this.

[BillyBoy]

>> So let’s say Paul got the nomination. Would all of the FReepers who talk big about “sucking it up for the Party” against Hillary if someone else’s man didn’t get the nomination vote for Dr Paul? Or would the Constitution Party get their votes? Remember that Dr. Paul is 90% of what most conservatives want. The first rule of campaign school is “All Or Nothing Always Gets You Nothing”. Which is what we’ll continue to get with more RINOS. <<

The Paulites are mostly "anyone who doesn't agree with me 100% of the time should be shot" purists, so they follow the same rule of thumb that the RINO politicians do.

Mainly, they demand you vote for their guy if he wins the nomination so we can "stop the Democrats", but if the shoe is on the other foot and my guy wins the nomination, they sit at home and sulk about it. It's a one-way street. The only difference is the RINOs will demand you support them in the general election but refuse to support the conservative because he's too "extreme" and "unelectable". The Paulites will demand you support them in the general election but refuse to support the conservative because he voted the wrong way on ONE "socialist" bill they dislike.

There are plenty of people who agree with them "90% of the time" that the Paulites will utterly refuse to support. For example, check Lindsey Graham's voting record and you will discover he supports the right positions 90% of the time (solidly pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family, pro-ANWR drilling, pro-tax cuts, pro-spending cuts, etc.). A bunch of purists here will refuse to support Graham under ANY circumstances (including the general election) because Graham doesn't agree with the "100% pure" crowd on amnesty. One loudmouth Ron Paul supporter is even encourging people to vote for the Democrat canidate who's 90% socialist if Lindsey Graham wins the nomination instead of their guy (I diss Paul alot, but at least I don't stoop to endorsing his Democrat opponent when he wins the GOP nomination in his district). BTW, it's rather odd they are so up in arms with Graham, Kyl, etc., supporting amnesty when they had no problems with Ron Paul joining the open borders Libertarian Party. Perhaps they don't realize that the Harry Browne crowd is more "open borders" than Lindsey Graham ever was when he joined forces with the McCain crowd.

So sorry, I don't want any more lectures from freepers about how a Presidential candidate agrees with me "90% of the time" and therefore I should support them, when the hypocrites are demanding their Senators agree with them 100% of the time. Kool-aid drinking libertarians are nortorious for bitterly attacking people who agree with them 99.99999% of the time. Bob Barr was one of the best allies the libertarians ever had on gun rights and small goverment and civil liberties, and they worked their butt off to defeat him in the general election because he disagree with them on ONE issue -- the war on drugs. (oddly enough, Bob Barr himself if now a card-carrying Libertarian)

Let's me know when these freepers demanding we "get behind" Ron Paul because he agrees with us "90% of the time" do the same for U.S. Senators who win the GOP nomination and agree with them 90% of the time.

Until then, those who advocate "do as I say, not as I do" can get bent. Remember the golden rule.

[BillyBoy]

>> So let’s say Paul got the nomination. Would all of the FReepers who talk big about “sucking it up for the Party” against Hillary if someone else’s man didn’t get the nomination vote for Dr Paul? Or would the Constitution Party get their votes? Remember that Dr. Paul is 90% of what most conservatives want. The first rule of campaign school is “All Or Nothing Always Gets You Nothing”. Which is what we’ll continue to get with more RINOS. <<

The Paulites are mostly "anyone who doesn't agree with me 100% of the time should be shot" purists, so they follow the same rule of thumb that the RINO politicians do.

Mainly, they demand you vote for their guy if he wins the nomination so we can "stop the Democrats", but if the shoe is on the other foot and my guy wins the nomination, they sit at home and sulk about it. It's a one-way street. The only difference is the RINOs will demand you support them in the general election but refuse to support the conservative because he's too "extreme" and "unelectable". The Paulites will demand you support them in the general election but refuse to support the conservative because he voted the wrong way on ONE "socialist" bill they dislike.

There are plenty of people who agree with them "90% of the time" that the Paulites will utterly refuse to support. For example, check Lindsey Graham's voting record and you will discover he supports the right positions 90% of the time (solidly pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family, pro-ANWR drilling, pro-tax cuts, pro-spending cuts, etc.). A bunch of purists here will refuse to support Graham under ANY circumstances (including the general election) because Graham doesn't agree with the "100% pure" crowd on amnesty. One loudmouth Ron Paul supporter is even encourging people to vote for the Democrat canidate who's 90% socialist if Lindsey Graham wins the nomination instead of their guy (I diss Paul alot, but at least I don't stoop to endorsing his Democrat opponent when he wins the GOP nomination in his district). BTW, it's rather odd they are so up in arms with Graham, Kyl, etc., supporting amnesty when they had no problems with Ron Paul joining the open borders Libertarian Party. Perhaps they don't realize that the Harry Browne crowd is more "open borders" than Lindsey Graham ever was when he joined forces with the McCain crowd.

So sorry, I don't want any more lectures from freepers about how a Presidential candidate agrees with me "90% of the time" and therefore I should support them, when the hypocrites are demanding their Senators agree with them 100% of the time. Kool-aid drinking libertarians are nortorious for bitterly attacking people who agree with them 99.99999% of the time. Bob Barr was one of the best allies the libertarians ever had on gun rights and small goverment and civil liberties, and they worked their butt off to defeat him in the general election because he disagree with them on ONE issue -- the war on drugs. (oddly enough, Bob Barr himself if now a card-carrying Libertarian)

Let's me know when these freepers demanding we "get behind" Ron Paul because he agrees with us "90% of the time" do the same for U.S. Senators who win the GOP nomination and agree with them 90% of the time.

Until then, those who advocate "do as I say, not as I do" can get bent. Remember the golden rule.

[dirtboy]

And just why are anti-war Ron Paul supporters not welcome here?

Because, like, FR supports the Iraq War? For damn good reasons that escape the Paulites?

[publana]

They’re being overly kind to an old loon. Paul is a nutter to the nth degree. He is an embarrassment.

[mvpel]

So it's the fault of Ron Paul's supporters that all of those who supported the other candidates couldn't get off their dead asses and do a little work for their candidate?

Nah, it's just that they were out of billable hours for the week.