[Linda Liberty]

That's how liberals got where they are today, by only listening to people who share their point of view. It got them to believing absolute nonsense, and IMO its leading many here into the same place, believing unlikely things like Newt or Santorum could actually beat Obama, when Gingrich polls 11% behind Obama, in spite of how crummy the economy is, and it seems plainly evident that there's a broad class of women who otherwise might vote Republican who would never vote for a guy who's done what he has in his personal life (never mind how it is currently being exaggerated by his ex, the facts would be enough) and when Santorum polls 10 points behind Obama. Either of these guys nominated would plainly energize the left (which is currently completely enervated) and likely do even worse than their current polling-- there's a reason Santorum lost his last campaign by 17%.

I'm no fan of Romney. I was a huge supporter of Sarah, but I think she decided not to run because she feared she would lose the general election, and didn't want to be responsible for giving Obama a second term, which is going to prove to have been a terrible decision if either Gingrich or Santorum gets the nomination, because she would have been a vastly stronger candidate than either of them. The one good thing about Gingrich coming on is maybe Sarah will get back in.

Freepers like Gingrich because he says things they really like in debates. But the general electorate will not like these things as much, and its hard to convince people of new things in debates, that's not usually how you win elections. Think about how frustrated you are going to be next fall with Gingrich saying things you think are great, and the polls saying Obama won the debate.

Its truly desperate that freepers are hoping to nominate some guy who lost his last election by 17%, or some guy who's last official act was resigning because of corruption.

I'd say to you: look at Ron Paul. I did. The guy is steadfast, principled, morally upright, a veteran and a doctor, and actually a hell of a lot more electable than Gingrich or Santorum. He has the overwhelming support of the troops. He actually respects the constitution. You don't like his foreign policy, but consider the possibility you're wrong. I didn't like it either until relatively recently.

Iraq and Iran are not a clear and present danger to the US. What is a clear and present danger to the US is the budget deficit. That's what usually brings empires down and we will be the next to go. Even if Iran got a nuke, and declared war on us(which they would have no reason to if we came home) they still would be a much smaller strategic threat to the US than our own budget deficit. On the other hand, its a total pipe dream to think we will get the budget deficit in hand while policing the world. Every single sustained war the US has fought since and including the revolutionary war, has caused inflation and economic problems as the government printed money. This is not going to change if we continue extending the 22year and counting war in the middle east. And it won't change if you were to elect Gingrich or Santorum. And you will never get major cuts in domestic programs without also making major cuts in defense, at least unless the Republicans win a supermajority in the Senate and house, and that's not going to happen, especially not with Gingrich or Santorum heading the ticket. Paul has a proposal to make major cuts that won't even hurt defense, in fact it will strengthen it, by cutting the overseas expenditures. That will be a huge plus for US strategic security.

[grey_whiskers]

Put down your bong, OK?

Paul is on record as being OK with Iran having nukes.

This guarantees a regional nuclear war at least.

As such, it is disposative regardless of anything else on his slate of opinions.

Cheers!

[Jim Robinson]

Here’s what I think about PaulBots: zot.

[Jim Robinson]

Paultard surrender monkeys can KMA!!

[RedMDer]

[darkwing104]

I am sorry your Edward Bernays influenced propaganda does not work on people of principle. Pualtards, in general lack the moral convictions to be truly libertarians, you will never get it until you give up your self-centerend hedonism.

Until then you can enjoy lovely pic of Kitties...

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . . don't be shy.

[Vendome]

What the? Did you use the collective heads of your local Ron Paul supporters to come up with this drivel?

It looks the work of several authors.

You are too stoopid to have been a Freeper/Sleeper as long as you were.

Ron’s cracked. Not crazy or unhinged mind you, he’s just using where there ain’t not dirt.

Please go away in whatever fashion you can. Angry, disappointed...I really don’t care.

One day when you are old and reflecting on your life you will what a truly idiotic time you spent supporting Ron.

BTW, Ron is still invited for Thanksgiving...But that’s it.

[McGruff]

This is the day in 2008 I stopped even considering Ron Paul.

Oh, and bye!

[Old Sarge]

PAULTARD!!

[Lazamataz]

I'd say to you: look at Ron Paul. I did. The guy is steadfast, principled, morally upright, a veteran and a doctor, and actually a hell of a lot more electable than Gingrich or Santorum.

He's soooo not electable.

But, that aside, I cannot get past his isolationism. Isolationism worked well until about 1950, when air traffic started becoming commonplace. Isolation WILL NOT WORK AT ALL today, in this wired world.