Posted on 12/13/2011 10:58:28 AM PST by BatMite
Ron Paul is the Rodney Dangerfield of Republican presidential candidates.... Why, despite a small but devoted set of supporters, does this 76-year-old obstetrician turned politician routinely get no respect from the media and GOP operatives?...
1. Ron Paul is not a "top-tier" candidate.
...Paul is doing increasingly well in national and state-level polls.... And now that Cain has dropped out, Paul's stock is likely to keep climbing. The congressman is no less a top-tier candidate than anyone else in the race.2. Ron Paul is a doctrinaire libertarian.
...Paul parts company with many libertarians on many issues. These include immigration, where he favors ending birthright citizenship and reducing the number of newcomers until the welfare state is dismantled. Paul says abortion law should be settled at the state level, but in Congress in 2005, 2007, 2009 and this year he introduced the Sanctity of Life Act....3. Ron Paul's call to "end the Fed" is crazy.
...Paul's bill to audit the Fed, which has been introduced three years in a row and hasn't passed, but had more than 300 co-sponsors in the House in 2009. Paul introduced a new version in January that has 195 co-sponsors drawn from both parties....4. Ron Paul is anti-military.
Unlike his fellow, er, top-tier candidates Gingrich and Romney, Paul served his country in uniform, as an Air Force captain.... While Pentagon brass might oppose his defense cuts, troops seem to like what he is saying....5. Ron Paul has strong youth support because he wants to legalize drugs.
Paul's popularity among younger voters — he's called a "rock star" on the college circuit — stems from the idealism of his politics. Kids rally behind his faith in the future, belief in the individual and confidence in bottom-up decision-making....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Welcome to FR.
Annoying Imp
Since Dec 13, 2011
Ron Paul -says it’s okay for homosexuals to serve openly in the military, that it’s okay for Iran to have nukes, and the 9/11 was our fault.
And for your filing: Batmite had already bought the zot before I even posted.
So you can unbunch your undies.
Gingrich, Romney, Bachman, Paul and Huntsman.
Given those choices, I would always vote for anybody but obummer, I would then say that extends to anybody but Paul then anybody but Huntsman.
You’re a troll named after the Batman equivalent of Scrappy-Doo pushing a truther nut for POTUS on a site where the owner has said all of the truther candidate’s “spam monkey” supporters can kiss his ass.
Epic fail.
Woohoo, let’s get a Truther in the White House! Yeeeeeeah Boy!!!!
Wooooooo! Truther in the White House! Woooooo!
Yeah, that’s the only sane option. Sure it is. Lie down and wait for the paramedics.
Gotta love the paultards as they continue in their ‘epirc strurggle’ to enthrone a gurgling moron.
They amusing after a fashion, but also pathetic and pitiable.
He also has the moronic idea that a group of people who bathe stockbrokers and secretaries in flaming jet fuel for their tin god would have been placated by a few foreign policy changes.
When even the UN thought this guy had enough nerve agent to kill every person on Earth, one doesn’t need to look for a shadowy “real reason” for the invasion. That’s just sloppy reasoning.
So you agree that “bringing democracy” was not the real reason?
How many times did Saddam have to violate the surrender agreement before the ‘or else’ part of the surrender agreement would happen?
Do you remember what the ‘or else’ part of the surrender agreement was?
It was an immediate return to a state of war, destruction of his military, etc etc etc.
And yes, before you whine it out, a surrender agreement is under duress- that’s why it is ‘surrender’.
And we did find chemical weapons, three mustard gas shells werew turned into IED’s as well as one binary Sarin shell of a type that Iraq did not have prior to 1996 or so.
The info can be found in the Deulfer report IF you’d bother to read it.
Why should anyone whine if US interests are not the primary consideration?
Ask the banned anti-military troll poster “JohnGalt” and his echo Burkeman1.
I putting words in my mouth is the only way you can keep up, you may want to re-evaluate your position.
Here’s the text. Be sure and tell me where the stuff about the crusade for democracy is:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107
Oh, and be sure to tell me where any administration official or flag officer who commanded troops in that war has said we invaded the place in order to put democracy there and for no other reason. Be sure you can cite your source.
It hardly matters whether he really had the weapons...we thought he did, and legitimately so. If he had passed sarin or VX to Al Qaida and it had been deployed in the NYC subway system, the Wrong Paul crowd would be telling us Bush held off from invading Iraq to benefit his oil buddies.
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.