Ron Paul or certified RINOs, whom would you prefer? (vanity)

[JimWayne]

After yesterday's spurt in talk radio about Ron Paul, I've been thinking about his positions. I oppose Ron Paul on Foreign Policy (especially his position ignoring the threat of Islam taking over our policy), but have to seriously wonder about supporting some of the other candidates who have not faced opposition.

Ron Paul gets a lot of flak, but why do the others get away with cheating us for doing far worse than what Ron Paul promises to do to Israel? Many candidates like Rick Santorum, George Allen and Joe Barton have hijacked the label of conservative, but are less conservative than even Ron Paul. They support raising debt to infinite levels, deficit funding, support for Islamic regimes like Pakistan, nationalized healthcare (they did not oppose Romneycare), have wishy-washy positions on abortion, and say one thing during the elections while ganging up with the liberals right after the elections.

The second thought in my mind is about Israel. Why are we so obsessed about Israel when the Jewish people seem to vote for the RATs? I think Islam is more dangerous and if we pull the aid from both Palestine and Israel, Israel will win, but this is a situation I don't really feel strongly about. There are much bigger problems at home and my wealth is depleting not merely due to Obama and other Dims, but the RINOs and neocons who have ganged up with the liberals over the years.

These RINOs do not support us but expect our support unconditionally. They even opposed the TEA Party candidates but suddenly claim that they themselves are part of the TEA Party.

So my question to you is why should we give a free pass to the RINOs? Shouldn't we hold them to the same standards we hold Ron Paul to? I can already hear that Ron Paul is a kook, but that is not the question. The question is whether others like Santorum and George Allen aren't worse than being a kook and why should we support them? The other question is why Israel is so important that my savings should be used for them. Shouldn't they take care of themselves?

[slorunner]

Congratulations, your thinking just re-elected Obama.

[JimWayne]

By putting the word savings in quotation marks and ridiculing the concept of savings, you proved that you are no different from a liberal. On Israel, aid is like money I give a beggar. It is not the right of Israel to get my money. I would not have brought up the issue but for the fact that Jewish people seem to keep voting for the Dims after taking my money. As for the amount of money, it is a huge amount.

[MindBender26]

The problem is that whenever we agree with some candidate on 99% of the issues, but disagree on 1%, everyone goes around screaming RINO, RINO!

[John D]

I do agree that Ron Paul has no chance of winning, but the same is true for Herman Cain.

But Herman Cain has actually accomplished something, does not blame America for every problem in the world and does not believe surrender is the only answer to the terrorist threat.

[MIchaelTArchangel]

Neither!

[JimWayne]

The problem is that whenever we agree with some candidate on 99% of the issues, but disagree on 1%, everyone goes around screaming RINO, RINO!

Are you saying that Ron Paul is not a RINO or are you saying that Rick Santorum is not a RINO? Between the two, who is worse and on what grounds would you say one is worse than the other?

[John D]

Santorum is a fraud and worse than Ron Paul.

Nobody is worse than the surrender monkey.

[=8 mrrabbit 8=]

Is the “bogeyman” argument the best you got?

...try harder.

=8-)

[MIchaelTArchangel]

They are certifying them now?I think they certified Ron Paul years ago.

[Signalman]

Ron Paul can’t win, so that makes a choice easier.

Exactly. Neither can/will Pawlenty, Palin(not running), Santorum or that guy from Utah...what's his name, oh yeah Huntsman. Cain? Not going to happen. Bachmann? Maybe, but I don't think so.

Let's cut through all the crap. The likely GOP candidate IS going to be either Romney or Perry. Personally, I prefer Perry, but it IS going to be one of those two. So, as they say, "deal with it".

[Las Vegas Ron]

BS, got a linky?

[Antoninus]

I am starting to like the idea of Perry/Santorum.

Agreed. I much prefer this combo. Forget Ron Paul.

[Proud2BeRight]

There is absolutely no chance of Ron Paul being the GOP candidate. That said, if he was, I promise that he would not get my vote. Neither that nut or an establishment RINO will beat Obama so the question assumes 4 more years of tyranny.

[D-fendr]

I’ll support the most conservative candidate who can abet Obama.

Problem: I don’t know who that is.

[Republican Wildcat]

Someone who supports candidates who go overseas to military bases and solicit desertion on the part of our troops, advocate physical attacks on President Bush, passes around phony flyers to portray conservative groups as racist, disrupts the Republican National Convention, etc. is not even open to consideration as a candidate for my vote, and shouldn’t be for anyone.

[TADSLOS]

So, as they say, "deal with it".

Is that the same as SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP? Sure sounds like it.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Ron Paul should not even be on the stage at these debates.

Ron Paul made easy: Give Iran the bomb.

Nuff said.

[Antoninus]

Perry and Santorum are RINOs.

And what do you call a guy who enthusiastically voted to homosexualize the military? That would be Ron Paul. The man is a complete nincompoop on social issues.

[Psalm 144]

Ron Paul.

I will take the half baked over the slow poison, if those are the only two things on the menu.

[gusopol3]

Santorum’s wife, Karen, now home schools the children (presumably in Virginia). And the Penn Hills School District has had to go to court to get back the $100,000 – spending even MORE time and MORE taxpayer dollars to get back money Santorum never should have pursued in the first place.

I can't vouch for the source here, but I remember this was part of the story. http://santorumexposed.com/pages/issues/issues-tax.php