Posted on 06/06/2009 7:27:27 PM PDT by GoldStandard
The Paulophiles can't stand the thought of a non-cookie cutter conservative who actually understands the Constitution and disagrees with foreign entanglements. Their ancestors hated Jefferson, so they hate Paul. It's nothing new.
Now I will be drawn and quartered for daring to support the only philosophically consistent patriot in Congress. And I couldn't care less.
Go on robots, throw the "truther" Molotov cocktail, I'm ready.
Your mouth’s writing a check that your @ss can’t cash, in other words?
Perot’s Third Party gave us Bill Clinton
-Eric "Dondero" Rittberg, former Ron Paul senior Texas aide (1997-2003).
And Dondero, for the record, doesn't like Ron Paul.
Why can't the people who blame Perot for Clinton or Nader for Bush take a long, hard look at the candidate themselves instead of desperately looking for a scapegoat?
I didn’t say that third party is the way to go; I was just commenting that there seems to be many conservatives who are not happy with the actions/lack of actions of politicians they voted for...
Pauls own forum sites and others along with links
are as anti semite as you can get.
There is no effort to do away with the posts or discourage them.
“illegals”
What is an “illegal” if you are a libertarian? Why should the government be telling anyone where they can live?
Actually, John McCain & 99% of the Republican party, including George W. Bush, ALREADY caused me to leave the GOP after 35 years. They are spineless, corrupt and power-hungry - just like the Democrats. I fell for that line last fall when I grudgingly voted for McCain (only because of Sarah Palin) & we still got Obama.
ping
What do you think FR would look like without constant moderator intervention?
which is why people need to get more active in primaries... make changes there, but what happens 8 or 9% show up to vote in primaries and the same people get re-elected time and time again as a result... everyone shares in the blame when they are too darned lazy to take five minutes to go vote.
Historically when there is a third party candidate it helps the democrat to win... Look at how Woodrow Wilson was elected, look at how Bill Clinton was elected — and even in Georgia if they had not had a law that required a runoff Chambliss would not be their senator right now..... not to mention that Bob Barr may well have been the difference in North Carolina as well as Indiana... anyone voting third party if they are a conservative has a desire to lose or to elect a democrat IMO.
Am glad you can convince yourself on the Perot vote
that gave us Clinton and the makings for 9/11
Nothing you can post can justify that.
That's not true. Chambliss got more votes than Martin both times.
Please no.
Ron Paul doesn't support foreign aid to Israel; Ergo, he's an anti-Semite. Never mind that Paul also opposes aid to the Palestinians, to the Saudis, or to any other nation.
Next up from the GOP butt-smoochers: Old newsletters of Paul being racist! Yippee!
Ron Paul is not running in 2012 and I'd still write him in if the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate another RINO.
This could result in Obama getting re-elected with less than 40% of the overall vote.
Good. I'd rather have Obama re-elected than another GOP "moderate" win the nomination.
It never ceases to amaze me. If these party hacks spent half the time labeling Sotomayor racist, that they spent libeling Ron Paul ... but no, that’d be intemperate.
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.