Semper Fidelis!
Posted on 12/16/2007 11:57:44 AM PST by traviskicks
It sure is easy to suck money out of suckers these days.
Now all “Dr.” (hahahaha) Paul has to do is figure out how to hide it for his golden years, because it sure isn’t going to BUY the presidency for him, otherwise Soros would be president.
Gee did he also say that Jesus and the devil were brothers?
That is funny as hell. Think that one up on your own or steal it from someone else?
HA! but you're not denying that he's a moonbat. Intersesting...
I don't see how "Jesus and Satan were brothers" fits into that at all.
But as far as RP supporters goes, that pretty much covers them. Except they forgot to add Michal Moore lovers, but that includes all the above anyways.
Talk about conspiracy theories. You really need to stop watching Fox News and get out a bit.
On second thought, don't. They're all out to get you. Seriously. Heard Sean Hannity say it himself. Stay home on primary day. Some of us (actual Paul supporters, not the ones in your head) will be getting out and vote to return freedom and liberty to this nation
P.T. Barnum proven correct once again...SUCKERS!
Actually I suspect that a majority of his support comes from the potheads...you know maaannn! Dude pass that one over here and lets call in a pledge for another $200.00.
Paul is a RINO moonbat and so are his deluded supporters.
Are you denying that the 9/11 Truthers, StormFronters and antiwar.com folks support Paul?
And I don’t watch Fox News or listen to Hannity. But I am curious to why you criticize both? Usually Fox and Hannity are the favorite targets of Democrats and liberals. Are you going to tell me to stop listening to Rush too?
anti-war nuts in action.. Round 2?
why don’t they spend their hard-earned dough on their families and give some to their local charities instead of chasing pipe dreams.(maybe it’s what’s in their pipes that contributes to this campaign, I guess)
I guess the weather’ll keep the blimp out of the air. It looks positively miserable in Baaaahston today.
I wish some of the other Republican candidates would think outside the fundraising box the way that the Paulestinians do. I don’t support the guy, and I can’t forgive him for going after Code Pink harder than he’s gone after small-government conservatives, but I’ll say one thing—his supporters are really, really creative, and are showing McPain-Feingold up for the travesty that it really is.
}:-)4
How is it any more loony than calling Rudy, Huckabee or McCain RINOs?
And this, to me, is the saddest thing about a Paul candidacy. He's got some really strong ideas about limiting the scope and power of the government. If he'd pull his head out of the sand and take a look at the threats we're facing around the world, and realize that we CAN'T simply disengage and return to some isolationist fantasy world, I'd be a lot closer to getting behind him.
But his campaign, for whatever reasons, has really been playing up his anti-war stand at the expense of everything else. You can't convince me that moonbats marching in some "impeach Bush" protest in Berkeley while carrying Ron Paul signs really want to abolish the Department of Education? Or reform Social Security? No. They're supporting Paul because (a) he's spoken out more stridently against the war than virtually any of the Rats except maybe Kookcinich; (b) they think they can screw up the Republicans by putting his name in there; (c) it's the "cool" and "rebellious" thing to do. Pick one or more.
}:-)4
As of 4:00 PM he’s raised $15 million for the quarter, $3.5 million today with 12,208 new donors.
Not at all. However a very small, small portion contrary to what any 'conservative' writer may insinuate. Shall we go through the supporters now of all candidates? Besides it being too easy, it wouldn't be right to go there. Every candidate has a group of crazy followers and except for these 'reports' from Fox et. al., or a few quotes from reporters digging to find the craziest person on the scene, I'm not seeing it. But again so what?
My point is Dr. Paul's stance is he's going to follow the Constitution. If the voters you named want to vote for him, fine let 'em. Many of them will realize they'll have wasted their vote two years from now since if it isn't in the Constitution, he's not going to do it. Republicans have used the Old Right, Classical Liberals and libertarians for years promising something but yet once in office completely ignoring it.
The difference here is Dr. Paul isn't promising them a single thing. Not one iota to forward their agenda. If it's not in the Constitution they're going to be sorely disappointed. And knowing what the man stands for, I know they'll be disappointed
And I don’t watch Fox News or listen to Hannity. But I am curious to why you criticize both? Usually Fox and Hannity are the favorite targets of Democrats and liberals. Are you going to tell me to stop listening to Rush too?
I know this is going to come as a shock to you but many in the Old Right can level just as much fire against the Republican 'mainstream' for their continued ignorance of the Constitution as any liberal or Democrat can.
I agree 100%. What Dr. Paul’s supporters here on FR don’t seem to understand is that Paul is actually harming the cause of small government conservatism and individualism.
Because his candidacy is so intertwined with being anti-war, isolationist, Alex Jones, neo-Nazis, etc., people are going to automatically connect libertarianism and small-government conservatism with those movements as well.
Look at the two lions of individualism of the 20th century: Reagan and Goldwater. Compare both those men’s foreign policy stances with Paul’s.
I found an article from George Will on the Heritage Foundation website:
http://www.heritage.org/About/Essay2004.cfm
It’s a quote from Barry Goldwater:
“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”
Here are George Will’s comments afterward:
“Here was a vision of government that aimed to restore the ideas of the Founding Fathers and throw out the welfarist plans of the modern liberals. It was what conservatives believed was still possible in America; it was what liberals believed was hopelessly antiquated and even dangerous.”
I contend that the majority of Americans would balk at this minimalist approach to federal government because they would not be able to obtain largesse from the treasury. It’s “show me the money” for far too many...
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.