Actually, Ron Paul is probably the only candidate that could turn a solid red state blue. And a blue state even more blue.
Is that the lie you tell to get people to support Paul? I hope it hasn’t worked, only a fool would believe it.
Paul’s whacked out views on the war basically justifies democrats in opposing the war and their weak-at-the-knees policies on terrorism would automatically be a dead-issue, and his “get rid of everything that the founders didn’t mention in the constitution” views on pretty much everything isn’t supported by, well, anyone except his libertarian posse and the conspiracy kooks who are afraid the NWO will invade their trailers.
Having 2 bush-bashers, 1 a democrat and 1 a libertarian, in 2008 does NOTHING BUT HARM for the GOP or conservatives. Stop trying to sabotage Republicans with that nonsense.
Well Ike was elected to get us out of Korea and Nixon was elected to get us out of Nam. 70% of the people are against the war now and that number will probably go to 80% by next election, unless there is a huge major improvement in Iraq. Very doubtful that will happen. You want to tell me that the more hawkish candidate will win in that type situation.
Humphrey would have beat Nixon in 68, if he could have distanced himself from LBJ’s war soon enough.
****Is that the lie you tell to get people to support Paul? I hope it hasn’t worked, only a fool would believe it.*****
Since when did opinions become lies? I am beginning to see that a lot of the anti-Ron Paul sentiment comes from people who have difficulties thinking in a logical manner.
*****Paul’s whacked out views on the war basically justifies democrats in opposing the war and their weak-at-the-knees policies on terrorism would automatically be a dead-issue, and his “get rid of everything that the founders didn’t mention in the constitution” views on pretty much everything isn’t supported by, well, anyone except his libertarian posse and the conspiracy kooks who are afraid the NWO will invade their trailers.****
Perhaps if you spent a bit of time looking at RP’s positions instead of just bashing him, you would see he is not as radical as you try to paint him. E.g. He would get rid of SS by first letting the youngest people opt out. He would protect the people depending on SS for retirement by funding it with some of the money saved by ending foreign aid and other reductions in the national government. He knows that you can’t just turn a switch and end a lot of these long standing programs, so there would be a period of transition.
****Having 2 bush-bashers, 1 a democrat and 1 a libertarian, in 2008 does NOTHING BUT HARM for the GOP or conservatives. Stop trying to sabotage Republicans with that nonsense.****
Ron Paul’s message is mainly a positive one about what he would do to reduce the size of the federal government and stop our interventionalist foreign policy. But he is for trade will all nations and diplomatic ties with all nations.