Posted on 12/08/2011 12:34:17 PM PST by Bokababe
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin joined Eric Bolling on Fox Business Networks Follow The Money Wednesday night, and chimed in on several hot-button GOP issues, including the Donald Trump debate and Newt Gingrichs rise in the polls. But her most interesting comments came when Bolling got into the weight that her endorsement may carry.
You know the endorsement that Im most interested in? Palin asked. Ron Pauls, to tell you the truth. Palin said she didnt agree with Pauls foreign policy, pointing out that he wasnt even invited to the Republican Jewish Coalitions summit this week. But she said that he was absolutely right on when it comes to his stand on domestic spending issues. Hes the one that Americans need to listen to when it comes to dealing in reality about this bankrupt path that we are on, she said.
So Ron Pauls endorsement not saying he wont get the nomination, but in case he doesnt who it is that he chooses to endorse will give us a clear indication of who is on the right path with domestic spending that needs to be addressed. Im very interested in hearing what Ron Paul thinks at the end of the day.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
“Paul probably wont endorse anyone. Hell stay in, with no chance of winning, just to be a spoiler.”
Doesn’t really matter. The majority of the kind of folk that support Paul, would not vote for anyone else anyway. My irritation with Ron Paul is that he should NOT have run in the GOP primary, but run as a third party (which he is) candidate in the general election.
I understand "M.A.D." although I'd argue with the idea that communists were ever considered "sane", given that they too killed millions of their own people. The only thing the we had going for us in that fight was that because they were atheists, they weren't quite so ripe to collectively destroy themselves.
Do me a favor, please quit talking to me as though I've lived under a rock when it comes to "understanding Islam". I've known what a Muslim was for as long as I can remember - -especially that if I brought a guy home who was Muslim, that would have been about the one and only grounds for being disowned. I went to university with a Saudi Prince and worked with the son of a Jordanian member of Parliament -- that was all back in the 1970's. I've been to the ME twice in 1984 & in 2000. And I number among my friends some prominent anti-jihadist writers.
I've got a pretty good grasp of what Islam is and what radical Islam is, as well as having a grasp of historical context. I want to fight them as bad as you do, but the way we are handling this is doing us more harm than good. It's time to hit the reset button.
Our current policies -- supported largely by fear-mongering -- are not making us any safer and in fact are draining us dry economically and turning us into slaves in our own country. In the name of WOT, US citizens can now be pulled off the street by the government and detained offshore indefinitely with no legal recourse. Our parents rejected this kind of political insanity when the threat of communism loomed. Why are we allowing this in the name of the WOT?
IMHO, it's because we are are "the terrorized" and we are functioning like traumatized, terrorized people who are so scared that we shoot at anything that moves. And what the terrorists haven't done to us, we've allowed our politicians to do to us -- getting scanned and strip searched at the airport, being scared into submission, being hopped up to go turn over some other Muslim hornets nest somewhere else on the other side of the world "for our own good"-- and we are fighting against what? Some 8th century scimitar wielding weirdos who happened to get lucky with some airplanes ten years ago when our intelligence services had their head up their butts?
And BTW, the hijackers weren't Iraqi, weren't Afghani, or Pakistani or Libyan or any of the other places we've gone to war since 9/11-- they were Saudi. So why isn't Saudi Arabia "a glass factory" if we are really fighting terror? And oh yes, I know we need protection here because Muslims could smuggle a tactical nuke into the US and hit a major city". "Smuggle"? Really? They could have driven a damn parade across our Southern border with blimps and full scale nukes for the last ten years, and there would have been nothing to stop them. Because we've been too worried about the border between Iraq and Iran to care about securing our own sovereign borders.
So please don't assume that anyone who disagrees on how we are handling things is "naive" or "doesn't get it" -- I get it, Ron Paul gets it, it's just that we think there is a better way that doesn't have us killing ourselves, bankrupting ourselves and handing over our liberty -- the very foundation of our way of life -- to nameless, faceless government bureaucrats -- all to "keep us safe from terrorists". So when that is done, who is going to keep us safe from a government that's thrown out the Constitution?
Heaven's Gate cult-like, no?
If you can't appreciate the pure beauty of the violin after hearing this, something's wrong with your ears.
Or you can get raw with these strings.
How about this gamechanger from America's Got Talent (which they SHOULD have won).
Either way, the violin is sweet yet lethal.
Do it!
Same here.
I have to ask myself, what do I care more about? Voting for a President with the right foreign policy but the wrong domestic policy or the reverse? That’s my choice this year.
That said, I think conservatives are putting too much weight on who will be President and too little on who is running the House. Why Boehner is still there is a mystery to me.
But the younger generation doesn't see it that way -- and by next election, generations X, Y and the Millennial generations will all be of voting age and will collectively outnumber us Baby-boomers. To which I say, Thank God! They want and deserve a future that has some hope, not the horrible vision that we've accepted for them -- of feckless faithless politicians and endless police actions, debt, perpetual poverty and hopelessness. They still have faith in Liberty -- I wish that we all did, but most of us have given up and compromised. The least we can do is try not to blow the planet up before they get a chance to claim their country and their future, before it's too late.
If the younger generation goes after Ron Paul, it's because they still haven't gotten smart enough to spot a charlatan after they blew it with the big "O".
Maybe Paul will stay in the race to keep the debates honest and meaningful, much like Alan Keyes did in the primaries in 2000 and 2004. I think Paul has such enthusiastic support that he has an obligation to stay in as long as he can.
And we were such "geniuses", LOL! Even we had to go through our Jimmy Carter before we got to Ronald Reagan.
Little tidbit for you Pew Research: "If the 2012 election were decided on Twitter, Ron Paul would be our next president"
Ron Paul: My critics ‘misunderstand Zionism’
(Snip)
The Republican hopeful suggested that “America doesnt want anyone to be self-reliant,” saying “we want to rule the world and be the saviors of the world and we are going broke in the process.”
(Snip)
Given this quote, why would anyone support this clown?
I wonder if people have ever considered the possibility that he actually is.....reality challenged?
"Suggested that" indicates that these were not his exact words. Having read more than an occasional RP soundbite, he was likely indicating that, "the American government....doesn't want anyone to be self-reliant" -- which is true. It increases their political power to have everyone in the world dependent on the them for everything, including us.
....saying we want to rule the world and be the saviors of the world
Which we (and they) of course do -- "spreading democracy far and wide to those savages who just don't understand how superior we are" -- it's a great ego trip for both our politicians and for us.
and we are going broke in the process.
And we AREN'T "going broke in the process"????? Wow ,damn, let's go print up some money and go party! We aren't broke -- stop the presses!
I wonder if people have ever considered the possibility that he actually is.....reality challenged?
Where is the supposed incoherence here? It's perfectly coherent and absolutely true.
So let's give up the rest of the article:
Paul said that some critics of his Israeli policy "not only misunderstand the American Constitution and the role we should have in the world, they also misunderstand Zionism." He explained that "part of the original idea of Zionism, as I understand it, was that there should be Jewish independence and Jewish self-reliance."
Also true. Zionists were for Israeli sovereign independence, not being a dependency of anyone's. If they wanted to remain anyone's province, they'd have stayed under British rule.
... Paul also noted that "We give $3 billion a year to Israel in loans; and we give $12 billion or more in assistance to Israels self-declared enemies......"Foreign aid does not help Israel," Paul said in defense of his plan to cut all foreign aid, including to Israel. "The borrower is servant to the lender and America should never be the master of Israel and its fate. We should be her friend."
And again, where is the untruth in any of this? We've turned brave, self-reliant Israelis into French poodles doing humiliating self-destructive tricks for our amusement. Meanwhile, we have been financing and empowering Israel's enemies and reinforcing the political positioning of the Palestinians. We are killing Israel with our "kindness".
I believe it was Theodore Roosevelt who said "speak softly and carry a big stick".
Right now, our military is spread so thin that they cannot exhibit the strength that we know is there. Our country is going broke, and we have spent most of our military strength chasing spooks and building schools. Not the best way to show strength.
I say; let's bring them home, (most of them), rebuild the military, and get someone in the State Department who understands the concept.
Paul also said that the reason there is so much money in politics is that there is so much money in government. That you can’t put an uncovered cake under the sink and ewxpect that it won’t attract cockroaches.
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.