Posted on 05/12/2011 8:34:49 AM PDT by Hawk720
Ron Paul is set to officially launch his presidential campaign Friday morning, a Paul source told POLITICO.
The Texas congressman will make his announcement from New Hampshire during the 7:00 a.m. hour of ABC’s “Good Morning America.” Paul is then scheduled to speak at 10:00 a.m. in Exeter, part of a two-day swing through New Hampshire following a stop in Iowa. Paul will also be keynoting the Grafton County Republican Memorial dinner on Friday night.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
The type of conservative I am is the same type who owns and operates this conservative website. If you have a problem with that then you have a problem with him and perhaps you should be pushing your pro-heroin, surrender-monkey candidate somewhere else.
Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!" -- Jim Robinson, 09/30/07
I don’t know about that.
I think Ron Paul’s position is that when we invade other countries, when we bomb other countries, when we kill people in other countries, it makes the people in those countries mad at us.
Many people still don’t understand that. They think people in other countries want us to go into their countries and kill them.
I think that it’s expensive to go into other countries and kill people, and it often makes people in other countries mad at us.
Others think foreigners like it when we kill them. And those people are likely the ones who call Ron Paul “crazy”.
2007.
Not 2011.
There was no “tea party” in 2007. Bush was the President, and it was felt best not to criticize a sitting Republican President.
Rand Paul (who does differ with Ron on several foreign policy elements) is a top tea party leader.
The wars are not Bush’s wars anymore. They’re Obama’s wars.
And I’m not spamming. I didn’t post this article. And I don’t post pro Ron Paul articles.
I can assure you that JimRob understands the argument about the Constitutionality of FEDERAL anti drug laws. He understands Limited Constitutional Government.
No one is talking about removing STATE laws against heroin, and JimRob understands this, even if you don’t.
JimRob does understand the difference between Federal and State law. He might or might not agree that the DEA is a massive Federal Bureaucracy that should be shut down. I don’t know.
Not 2011.
There was no “tea party” in 2007. Bush was the President, and it was felt best not to criticize a sitting Republican President.
Put that bong down, you're making no sense.
JimRob said that is 2007 and it had nothing to do with the Tea Party. You can see someone quoting him here. Were they predicting what he would say in 2001?
btw...if you're going to mention someone in a post it's considered polite to ping them. You did not.
The rest of your post doesn't warrant my time.
Then he went on to say that he would not have taken out bin Laden.
The transcripts are available on Simon Conway's daily blog.
Evidently, the story is going viral. This guy is toast.
Honestly, I’d rather not bother the busy guy. You’re the one who brought him in for no reason.
The reason I mentioned the dates is because things change in 4 years.
You simply can’t understand that things are different in 2011 than they were in 2007, it makes no sense to you?
It makes no sense to you that we’re talking about Obama’s wars now?
What could possibly be puzzling about conservatives despising the paleopipsqueak and fraud of Galveston???
1. Paleopaulie despises our country and wants it disarmed in the face of its enemies.
2. He CLAIMS to be a pro-lifer BUT opposes federal government action to end the American Holocaust, ignoring that the "right" to kill the unborn child is a complete fantasy invented and enforced by SCOTUS. Winking toward his social issue libertine supporters, he poses for pro-life holy pictures while opposing federal pro-life action (10th amendment, don'tcha know?).
3. He CLAIMS to favor traditional marriage between one mqn, one woman (no same "sex"ers, no barnyard animals, no space aliens) BUT, oh darnm, that pesky old 10th Amendment again even as the SCOTUS gears up to make anal sex a "constitutional" right and substitute for marriage.
4. The paleofraudster also poses for holy pictures as a budget cutter while stuffing federal appropriations bills with zillions of taxpayer financed goodies and earmarks for the good ol' folks of Galveston while voting against said appropriations bills, two-faced hypocrite that he is, knowing that his less clever colleagues (just as pork-frenzied as is Paulie himself) will vote in his pork with their own.
5. Letters of marque and reprisal??? I'll take Ohio class nuclear boomers any day. They permanently discourage our enemies in ways and to an extent that oddballs with rolling eyeballs, three-cornered hats, blunderbusses and rowboats never could.
6. PaleoPaulie combines the martial spirit of a George McGovern or Weepy Walter Jones, the greed for ill-gotten pork of Comrade O, the "manly" qualities of Barney Frank, the secretiveness and dishonest character qualities of Tricky Dick, and the mental "stability" of his soulmate Dennis Cuckoocinich.
7. There is sooooo much more but the above should suffice.
AND YOU WONDER why conservatives despise the little SOB??? Puhleeze!!!!
I understand things have changed; on that we can agree. The one thing that has not changed is the loon that is Ron Paul. I may agree with him on many tings. Heck, I may agree with Mitt Romney on many things. But that doesn't mean either of them would get my vote.
Paul's anti-war, cut & run, surrender-monkey ideas just aren't practical, certainly not in Iraq. He even said he would not have given the order to kill bin Laden. That, in my mind, is lunacy. But it is vintage Ron Paul and exactly why he will never be president.
Ron Paul is the Cynthia McKinney of the Republican Party.
Palin, Cain and Bachmann are fine. NO RINOs and that means no foreign policy and military squishballs and habitual autoliars like El Run Paulie. No to Huntsman, Romney, Giuliani and to anyone not trustworthy on guns, babies, marriage, taxes, spending, etc. I take it that I am qualified as anti-RINO (which of course also makes me anti-paleoPaulie).
My puzzle was why is Paul accepted elsewhere but not on this site. Perhaps you can send your post to the Grafton County Republicans. They do not seem to be as informed as you.
Please explain then what happened in 1988? Why was Paul's rhetoric so toxic towards Reagan. I don't believe he is a full Reagan hater today like the rest of the Libertarians, but he sure isn't much of a follower either. Would Reagan have walked away from killing Osama for the reasons He cited this week?
Do you also think that Abe Lincoln was the biggest war criminal in the history of the United States?
Do you think that Veit Nam is a "wonderful" place under Communist rule?
These are some seriously unConservative views.
If you were the Grafton County Republicans and you were looking to raise some cash, wouldn’t giving a dinner with a speaker like Paul with all his Paulbots fit the bill? I have been to plenty of GOP events like this in my time and I have never seen one for as low as $45 before. There is a reason for that. The kooks and college kids going can afford that.
Plus Paul is also, technically speaking, a Republican even though he is most assuredly a devout Libertarian. The county GOP apparatus is probably just happy to have anyone with name recognition speak.
If I had to guess, I’d say that Ron Paul was disappointed in 1988 that the Federal Government was not shrunk from 1980 to 1988, or not shrunk enough. But, I don’t know.
The other stuff, Lincoln, Vietnam, what Reagan would’ve done, I have no idea.
Ron Paul takes a bunch of positions that aren’t aligned with the majority of Libertarians, and a bunch of positions that are.
Libertarians seem to want a bunch of things full out legal.
Ron Paul just wants the Federal Government out of it.
But I’m not holding myself out as a Ron Paul expert.
And sometimes even Ron Paul seems to have difficulty getting his point across, like with heroin in the last debate.
A Libertarian might want heroin legal in all 50 states, perhaps going so far as to call for a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing that “right”.
Ron Paul does not believe that, just that we don’t need so many expensive layers of government (Federal and State, at least) handling this matter.
His answer in the debate, though, seemed to see a world where heroin was legal. He should make it clear that state laws banning heroin are alright with him.
He was there, with Reagan, in 1976, when few were, as a true conservative, and in 1980, against Bush, as a true conservative, and I think he was hoping that because Reagan was a true conservative, real, massive cuts in Fed Gov would be accomplished. And, although Reagan did the best job of any President in my lifetime, the big big cuts didn’t happen under Reagan.
Well, that’s the argument.
Your argument is that Big Federal Government is necessary in 2011.
Ron Paul does not believe that is the case.
You say Big Government yes, Ron Paul says Big Government no.
No, he can't.
Paul isn’t in this race to win. He’s one of those perpetual candidates for president who just adores the attention. And the merry band of drug users and other miscreants who make up his following are making sure he gets it.
But Ron Paul is against Obama’s foreign policy.
Is Obama Conservative?
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.