Posted on 10/29/2007 11:31:08 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Let me make this perfectly clear...
I would RATHER have hillery than Paul...
She may be a socialist power grubing bitch.....but she aint crazy...
Now begone zealot!
I smite thee!
Gotcha.
Answered....he’s a frickin nutcase...I dont care if he parrots your wet dreams...
WHY would you support Hitlery over a 100% Pro-Life, Pro-Gun Rights, Pro-Borders, Pro-Capitalism old-school Reagan Republican?
Do tell. And be specific.
In black.
(There is, of course, only one Presbyterian liturgical color. Ever.)
I answered your stupid question...
becuase she isnt frickin insane...
Get a clue.
That's what we're counting on.
No matter what else happens in the Primaries, you'll still vote for a 100% Pro-Life, Pro-Gun Rights, Pro-Borders, Pro-Capitalism old-school Reagan Republican if it's Ron Paul in the Generals.
Meanwhile, Ron Paul's Anti-War, Pro-Civil Rights stance puts Hillary's own BASE into play.
That's the idea.
And an indication that you have no answer.
Fact is, if Ron Paul wins the GOP Nomination, you'll vote for him in the Generals. Right now, you're just spouting.
Pity. They even provide a spell check.
What percent of blacks, then, are over 18? If it were even two-thirds (it's not), and then applying your dream of 33% of those folks going for Ron Paul (they won't), the numbers are still too few to lift your candidate out of 'Ralph Nader' territory.
Don't let math discourage you though. Imaginary numbers should be no problem at all for the witch-shrunken heads of Ron Paul & company.
Actually, we haven’t taken action in the Americas so Ron hasn’t addressed the issue.
He is on record regarding our operations in Iraq. And if he can’t see any reason for being in a nation that swore to help destroy our nation, gave $25k rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Israel, started a war that cost about 500,000 lives on both sides with Iran, took over another nation Kuwait, attacked Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel, killed upwards of 300,000 more of his citizens through torture, gased the Kurds, was raping abusing and killing women for the sport of it, and was just fine with his sons feeding their husbands through a wood chipper feet first, it’s kindof hard to acknowledge any type of verbal victory on your part for denying he wouldn’t have supported Reagan’s efforts in Granada.
Seriously, what kind of medications do you have to be on to think Paul would give a pass to what took place in Iraq, but would approve of stoping what was going on in Granada?
The War on Terrorism was concieved as a reaction to a violent attack on our soil. The action in Granada was concieved as a preemptive strike against those who looked like they might hurt our students, and develop a base in the Americas.
Are you telling me Paul would support Granada? LOL, you believe that?
Man....I wouldnt vote for him EVER...
I’m serious as a heart attack...
You are advocating for a crazy man...
Do your church lady superior dance all you want...
He’s nuts....he aint going to win sh!t...he wont get my vote....ever...
Ron Paul has never repudiated the Monroe Doctrine.
In 1983, Ronald Reagan -- executing the Monroe Doctrine -- notified Congress of the Grenada Intervention, but did not consult Congress.
Congressman Ron Paul lodged no protest.
Considering he protests everything else that the Government does which is unconstitutional, his silence on Ronald Reagan's execution of the Monroe Doctrine does not help your case.
Which is no case at all, of course. President Reagan executed the Monroe Doctrine. Congress was notified. Ron Paul offered no objection.
Case closed.
I notice that Ron Paul has one supporter here, and that one supporter is responsible for 87% of the noise going on here.
Gotcha.
(and you call me insane. HAH!)
Do know this, however -- I will NEVER support spending American Blood and Treasure to support an Anti-Christian Terrorist Thug-Regime like the ruling Islamic Theocracy of Iraq, which is dominated by the psychopathic gang of murderers known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Islamic Al Dawa Party, who are the very same Islamic Terrorist Parties which bombed the US & French Embassies in Kuwait, and murdered 241 United States Marines in Beirut in 1983. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, of the Al Dawa Party, was the Bureau Chief of the Al Dawa Party's terrorist "Jihad Office" in Damascus in the 1980s and was thus heavily responsible for Al Dawa operations in Beirut, while parliament member Jamal Jafaar Mohammed of his ruling coalition is one of the "Kuwait 17", still under a Kuwaiti death sentence (in absentia) for his direct involvement in the vicious attack on the US Embassy in Kuwait!
If supporting these Anti-Christ, American-Killing Terrorist Thugs is more important to you than EVERY other Conservative issue -- well, if that's your definition of "Conservatism", THEN VOTE HILLARY, and BE PROUD.
But it will NEVER be MY definition of Conservatism.
I’d like to think otherwise, but you are an idiot.
Faced with what I just recited to you, you have deemed it reasonable to think that Paul would agree to military action outside of our borders.
That is patently false.
If Paul can’t sign on to the War on Terrorism, and he can’t, he shouldn’t be trusted to defend this nation and it’s citizens anywhere outside our borders.
Ron Paul has destroyed himself on this issue, and if you wish to defend a moonbat like that, go right ahead.
It’s your credibility, not mine.
There is one thing we can agree on. The case is definately closed.
I have an autographed picture of Neil Armstrong, but it doesn’t mean that I have been to the moon.
Ron Paul hates the military. He should run as Hillary’s VP.
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.