Where are all the Ron Paul people coming from?

The Oregon Poll ^ | 9-20-7

[Petronski]

Over the last two days The Oregon Poll was seen by almost 400 "unique visitors," most of them in support of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. The majority of these people came from these two links on the web.

ronpaulforums.com

stormfront.org

[Salvation]

buses?

[trisham]

You're the one that's worried over a supposed kook candidate who supposedly can't win, not me.

***************

Paul is leaching money and attention from a viable candidate: Thompson. I have no idea why you are promoting his candidacy, as he is never going to be the nominee.

[mnehring]

The WOT issue made me question Paul’s sincerity on other issues. But yes, the WOT is the breaking issue. Even if you oppose it in theory, you don’t defund our troops who are being shot at. Paul has made that the central theme of his campaign, telling me that is the most important issue to him, as it is to me. The problem with this is we are on polar opposite ends of the spectrum in regards to this.

I probably agree with 75% of Paul’s positions, but the 25% disagreement is a deal breaker. Most of the other issues I mentioned are simply to point out how Paul says one thing but does another, like border security. He complains nothing is being done but when given the opportunity to do something about it, he voted against putting the Guard on the border because part of the bill also said it was to support stopping drug runners and he is against anything to do with the WOD- (according to Paulites, I haven’t seen Paul say this.)

The WOD is another issue for me where I disagree, but that isn’t a major issue in this election.

[logician2u]

"Not as genuine" what?

If you could be a little more specific, you wouldn't risk having others try to interpret what you mean.

And if you didn't call him a big spender, just what was the point in listing the earmarks Dr. Paul submitted? That he was a hypocrite? Or that his earmarks kited up the fiscal budget?

Look, it's the oldest trick in the bag of political tricks to smear a candidate by association. Nixon was expert at it, as was LBJ. Your contending that it's some of Paul's kooky followers that got you started examining his record is transparently false. If anything, you already knew his record -- one part of it, his opposing the Iraq invasion -- and from that point forward looked for anything and everything that could paint him as someone the folks on this forum would dislike.

There are no doubt followers of your candidate who worship snakes. Most of us would think these types a bit kooky, but I'm not in the least concerned that Fred Thompson, if he were to become President ofthe United States, would invite them to do a worship service in the White House.

[dragnet2]

So our national borders have little to do with national security?

[mnehring]

I’m sure he is for it, after all he talks about it a lot, however, when the vote came up to put the guard on the border, he voted no.

Even if it was for some point he was making about the War on Drugs, the result was a No vote.

He chose a symbolic vote (if the excuse is the WOD) over the substance of the result of the vote.

[dragnet2]

So our national borders have little to do with national security?

Yes or no?

[mnehring]

Where in the world did you get that from?

Y’alls attempt to bait is cute, but I have to finish up this Flash project now.

[Clint N. Suhks]

“1. Defunding the troops in the middle of a war.
2. Opposing the WOT.
3. Blaming American and ‘blowback’ for the WOT.
4. Opposing putting the military on the border.
5. Opposing criminalizing the harming of a fetus in the commission of a crime.
6. Opposing laws that prevent taking a minor across state lines to get an abortion.
7. Supporting laws that protect child predator’s ‘privacy’.
8. Opposing the patriot act.
9. Playing semantic games with the Constitution, Art 1, Sect 8, Subsect 11, but ignoring Subsect 10 in regards to declarations of war.”

10. His moonbat conspiracy theory that there are plans to build a “superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.”

11. In the debate citing he would follow the Constitution AND International Law.

[dragnet2]

So our national borders have little to do with national security? Yes or no?

If you could answer the above. Thanks.

[mnehring]

If you insist, YES. Seemed pretty obvious by my previous post but I guess I have to type it slower with fewer words.

[Petronski]

So our national borders have little to do with national security?

National borders are necessary for national security, but not sufficient.

[the808bass]

There are no doubt followers of your candidate who worship snakes. Most of us would think these types a bit kooky, but I'm not in the least concerned that Fred Thompson, if he were to become President ofthe United States, would invite them to do a worship service in the White House.

Snake handlers might support Fred Thompson, but not because they secretly (or not so secretly, as the case may be) believe that Fred Thompson will support their snake-handling beliefs and advance their particular odd views. That is the difference between "kooks-who-happen-to-support-a-candidate" and "kooks-who-support-a-candidate-because-they-think-he-agrees-with-them." Hope that helps.

[counterpunch]

Above all, Dr Ron Paul is a truth-teller.

Another term for “Truther”.

I'm familiar with the PNAC. It is a think tank that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Bolton, Bill Bennett, and many other highly respected individuals have all been members. Unfortunately, people like Ron Paul and his supporters believe it is a secret Jewish cabal, along with the Elders of Zion.

Between his anti-semitism and his newsletters saying things like “95 percent of the black males in Washington, D.C. are semi-criminal or entirely criminal”, it's no wonder he's built up such a fervent following of Neo-Nazis.

Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 2008 Republican primary.
His supporters are a scourge on society with their blackshirt antics, crashing campaign events, disingenuously passing themselves off as legitimate concerned Republicans, and clogging our forum and polls with their filth.
I really wish they would go away, every last one of them.
They are no different than DUmmies and Kossacks, and most of the time are one and the same.
They are the natural enemies of FreeRepublic, and should be treated as such.
It is time we take the forum back. We didn't put up with it from Deaniacs, so why must we put up with it now that they've returned in the name of Ron Paul?

 

[RavenATB]

Reynolds Corp announced free airfare to the “Tinfoil Hat Convention”.

[dragnet2]

Ah, yes, then you agree that our national security depends on the security of our national borders...

Tell me, why does our current leadership, aid and abet, and actually encourage this massive violent invasion of our country?

[RavenATB]

Eh...are you sure they’re actually “people”?

[takenoprisoner]

Ron Paul:
“ I also remember that I have sworn a solemn oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States.

For me, upholding that oath is the first and best way to preserve and protect the blessed American way of life for our children and grandchildren.”

Nutjob defends the Constitution, freedom, and liberties. How kooky can one get? /s

[trisham]

Tell me, why does our current leadership, aid and abet, and actually encourage this massive violent invasion of our country?

**************

What does that have to do with Ron Paul?

[dragnet2]

Tell me, why does our current leadership, aid and abet, and actually encourage this massive violent invasion of our country?