Posted on 07/06/2011 1:18:22 PM PDT by truthfreedom
You need to research your candidates before you decide to vote for them. Ron Paul going nuts on drug question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os9g3fpMozU
As far as sovereignty goes, I’m not for violating other country’s sovereignty or anything, but that is far from the first reaction that one should have on the death of our number one foreign enemy. Of course, Ron Paul doesn’t even believe Islamic Terrorism is that big of a deal: http://www.davidbahnsen.com/index.php/2011/05/21/the-undiscerning-and-dangerous-appreciation-of-ron-paul/. I don’t support the wars, but we can’t have a President who thinks our number one foreign enemy is made up by the establishment to further their agenda. We need to be able to respond in force to these barbarians, not debate their motives.
I’m not defending the poll.
But when you’re going 1st - it was an online poll, or 2nd, they have some magical way to only call Ron Paul supporters, you’re missing the most obvious choice.
The most obvious choice is that there was no poll at all.
It’s just typing on a website.
And how do we know that any pollsters aren’t just making stuff up?
I saw this poll and saw that it had Ron Paul at 22% and I said, hey, why not post this. It does have the appearance of a new poll.
But if you look at my enthusiasm, right now, I probably spend as much time putting facts on the endless stream of Rick Perry threads than I’m doing hyping Ron Paul.
I also spend a lot of time defending Palin and agreeing with people who write about how when she announces, there will be so much money coming in that everyone will be stunned.
And I’m also warning people about Marcus Bachmann.
No idea what you’re talking about.
4 years ago, Palin was on the rpf VP list. The Judge was and often is the favorite.
People are coming out with Pat Buchanan.
It’s just typing on a website.
Then why post it on here?
I saw this poll and saw that it had Ron Paul at 22% and I said, hey, why not post this. It does have the appearance of a new poll.
OK, but what if it was some other unknown, unverified poll but reflected say, Rick Perry leading with 22% instead? Would you have posted it?
Didn't think so. ;-)
You should know I’m in the top 30 posters at RPF. I knew everything that went down there up until early last month.
I agree with Ron Paul on the drugs - the states should decide.
If that link is from the debate, it was funny, and people liked it, but he shouldn’t be talking about heroin being legal. Because no state would legalize heroin. It was an error. And I’m not saying Ron Paul’s messaging is perfect.
The Constitution says nothing about a War on Drugs. States should be able to do whatever they want. 10th Amendment.
Talking about how there won’t be as many junkies as you might think if heroin was legal is not going to appeal to standard, normal, Republican voters. But 10th Amendment will.
I believe in ignoring potential problems in the middle east.
my philosophy might or might not cause problems down the road. But it definitely is cheaper, and we’re broke now.
The main threat of muslims, at least to me, isn’t terrorism, but that sharia law business. And whatever policy that keeps them out of the US is something that might sound good to me. The more we bomb these muslim countries, the more we make it unpleasant to live there, the more likely they’re going to want to move. We’d be smart to try to encourage them to stay put.
Ron Paul’s true position, which came out here in the debate, is not a Constitution one: That the states should decide the question with Federal involvement only at the ports of entry. No, Paul argued that state involvement at all was an offense to liberty. Paul showed his true colors their. He is not a conservative, but a radical libertarian.
i know you don’t
no surprise there
are you a pothead?
Wow. Yeah, I’ve logged many many more hours here on FR than RPF. There are people who started this year with more posts than me. I typically think LibertyEagle has the right idea, you probably know him (or her)
Antiwar Democrats are almost completely incapable of understanding what FR style Republicans think. RPF does not understand that any of the other Republican candidates can be seen as allies. The dominant theory over there is pretty much wrong. That’s not to say that RPF didn’t have right thinking conservative republicans. It’s just that they got outnumbered.
Ron Paul as you know of course, had plenty of supporters for many years. And they weren’t antiwar Dems. Abolish the income tax and shut down most of the federal government. That’s what I thought he was about. And then he got into a fight with Giuliani, and all these antiwar Dems showed up as Ron Paul supporters. So right then, you have a large clueless group with terrible ideas. And battling with them is difficult.
There’s a Revolution March II coming perhaps “to show the media our numbers”. Cmon people. Why? Because that’s what Antiwar Democrats know. Antiwar marches.
Campaign comes and goes, and Ron Paul Forums becomes Liberty Forums. Sounds fine, sounds ok, but then you get a whole bunch of libertarians. And libertarians insist that following orders is intrincially bad. So forget using the “the campaign told you not to do that” argument. “Are you trying to impede my liberty to do some completely stupid and harmful thing” Yes. Yes I am. The Ron Paul campaign is not the Federal Government.
It’s great that there are so many people there who want to spend a lot of time and a lot of money, but this year it’s not all about getting from 2% to 10%. Ron Paul is more popular than ever, Rand is a US Senator. Grassroots did help last time around. Invented the money bomb. And there’s a lot of video that looks a lot like “inventing the tea party”. But they’re running a parallel GOTV, parallel organizations, and it’s great if you want to go from 2 to 10, but there has to be a lot of butt kicked if Ron is going to win.
Just reading over there btw. $75K ad buy radio for Ames. The grassroots is doing TV ads.
Because no one can tell. I’m not saying I think it’s fake. I just have no idea.
I’m just saying, it’s so rare for anyone to say “I don’t think there was actually a poll done”, when it’s clearly a possibility.
What some people think the deal with this poll is, is it was voter id calls, and the numbers were coming from Ron Paul.
I don’t think so. Why would Ron Paul be IDing voters in Texas so early? I don’t buy it.
Would I have posted it? No. Perry has Perry people posting Perry things all the time. If it had good Palin numbers, and it was sitting there somewhere without being on FR, maybe. And there can be no shortage of Palin threads.
you have a lot more confidence than I do. I really like her, but I just don’t think the media will “allow” her to be president. People are really polarized over her, hard to get elected that way.
As for the rest, I’d vote for john Bolton or Alan West. Of those that are declared runners, only Bachmann...Can’t get into Romney because of his stance on Global Warming and State sponsored health care.
Well, the question is whether you think that he’d govern the way he’s always voted, or based on
What Ron Paul said was funny, and was true. If heroin was legal, there wouldn’t be a whole bunch more junkies running around. Reasonable people just don’t become junkies.
Oxycontin is so similar to heroin. Oxy is a prescription medication. Heroin could be too. Bayer made heroin. It’s actually an old Bayer brand name. Codeine, Morpheine. Simiar. Heroin, dissimilar.
It seemed like he was making fun of people with traditional views of drugs. It doesn’t make him a radical libertarian.
100 years ago, there weren’t all these laws. Elixers contained cocaine, opium. These are natural product that may cause addiction, but not likely overdose if they’re diluted in a beverage. People could shoot up caffeine if they wanted to. But it’s in coffee and in soda. Get rid of all these laws.
Ron Paul doesn’t have to worry about not getting money from Merck, he knows that Merck money would go to Gardasil Rick.
But Ron Paul is consistent in limiting federal goverment.
So even if he is a libertarian at heart, whatever that means, he has voted, consistently, 10th Amendment.
I have to say I have trouble arguing with you, because there’s not way you’re sincerely bothered by the drug stuff, if you could’a been a top poster on rpf over 4 years. Ron Paul didn’t just come up with that. That was his position all 4 years. You could be upset that he’s not doing better at messaging, but that’s a reason to be disappointed, not angry.
The last time we had someone we really liked was Reagan.
After Reagan
Bush
Bush
Dole
Bush
Bush
McCain.
None were what we wanted. There might not have been a single conservative politician we wanted more than them, but, we didn’t get what we wanted.
Palin is the most popular, the most famous Republican. We know her, we like her, and we are mighty. The tea party wasn’t around 4 years ago.
Listening to arguments about electability gets us in trouble. We end up with the wrong candidates. They don’t win more often, and when they do win, they suck. The last good president was the last conservative nominee. Reagan.
If we put a conservative up there, the last 6 cycles, we would have gotten at least 1 good term. Maybe 1 term with some cuts in it.
So, we do what we should always do. We vote for the person we want to be the President. Don’t guess about electability. We get info from msm, they lie. We know what we want. We want Palin, right? I personally believe that Ron Paul would be the best President, but I also believe that free republic wants Palin, and I can completely support Palin as well. So, we go with that.
These days we have the same 4 people posting Perry story after Perry story, and they can’t make any reasonable pro Perry arguments. No one wants Perry. We want Palin. And we like Bachmann because she’s like Palin, but the media hasn’t started attacking her (they’d make her unelectable in a week, and would have great fun doing it, if it came to that). But we want Palin. And the Palin victory would be so much the sweeter because she was directly attacking msm. Palin would have beaten msm and Obama at the same time. And become the First Female President.
She’s polarizing. right. that’s the way it works. One or the other, pick one. Not, try to find out where we differ on policy.
We’re conservatives, we’re against liberals. 2 poles. Polarizing.
We want polarizing, and we believe that Sarah Palin, through her campaigning skills, overall likeability, etc., will cause people to choose our pole, the conservative pole. McCain didn’t exactly make the case for limited constitutional government. Neither did the Bushes.
We have the right message and the right messenger. (And I’m saying this as a Paul supporter who very much thinks Ron Paul can be 100% counted on to make the federal government smaller for the first time since ever - I am conflicted I admit).
I know that he’s in favor of ending the drug war. So am I. I don’t think drugs equal religion, however. I also believe there should be restrictions on drugs at the state level. Do I believe many will start using drugs if they are legalized? No, and, hint to Ron Paul, no one does.
Ron Paul knew how to handle that question if he wanted to win the Presidency. He could have said “I don’t think the war on drugs is an appropriate function of the Federal government... States should be allowed to set their own drug policies...” But, no, he had to insult most of the Republican primary electorate by comparing religion to drugs. On the Bin Laden question, he could have said “I only wish we could have gotten him sooner, and we could have with my proposal for Letters of Marque and Reprisal back in ‘01...” But, no, he had to the gadfly who wondered about the raid and Pakistan’s sovereignty.
Did you know that Ron Paul lost 25 points of favorability in Iowa over the course of a month in the PPP poll after his repeated stunts in May? I came to the conclusion that Ron Paul does not want to be President, or, worse, he is incapable of running a campaign, and is, therefore, incapable of being President. If Ron Paul doesn’t want to be President, then why should I support him? Well, now I don’t, and then I realized even worse stuff about him. It’s not that I didn’t know these facts before, but I simply suppressed them for the purposes of having a clear conscious while supporting him. I simply couldn’t do that anymore.
I like your points and your perspective on “polarization” is one I haven’t thought of.
I guess we shall see. I would much rather vote for a candidate than vote against.
So, I e-mailed them (info@azimuthpolls.com) and promptly received a failure notice. Not promising. Also their phone number (202-239-6207) is apparently a cell phone in Washington D.C. for someone named Dave (yeah, I called). I’m beginning to think this is not a real polling firm.
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.