“The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the
lightning ain't distributed right."
~ Mark Twain ~
Posted on 01/13/2012 11:03:47 PM PST by Republic_of_Secession.
Ron Paul is neither.
How many of the GOP candidates are running to get them back out of the military?
Yes, the fact is that Paul endorsed Cynthia McKinney, you think that she or Ralph Nader should be President? Paul does.
Ron Paul’s endorsement of 2008 given on September 10th.
“This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates – Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)”
“Ron Paul was joined by third party candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader who issued the following joint statement and agreement:”
http://www.ronpaul.com/ronpaul2008/events/ron-paul-press-conference/
IIRC Santorum and Gingrich (or was it Perry?) said they would reverse the removal of DADT. Of course it would be up Congress (unelss the jackal is found ineligible, removed, and all his signed crap made null and void.)
But just because tons of Rs are cowards and RINOS doesn’t make Paul any less of a creepy nutcase who appears to be trying to spoil the election and get either Mitt the candidate (most likely) or the jackal re-elected (which is what would happen if Mitt got the nomination anyway).
Libertarianism is NOT Constitutional.
I haven't seen any candidate address this issue, but DADT is unconsitutional, it was used as a transition from forbiding homosexuals in the military, which is constitutional to allowing them in openly.
So, going back to it is not progress.
And the Constitution was made to be followed, which is what Ron Paul advocates.
Many on FR seem to think it is just a bunch of suggestions and have no qualms about ignoring it when it suits their agenda.
The purpose of the gathering the various fringe parties was to unite against the two major ones which really are one.
Paul endorsed Balwdin,(who I believe was the Constitutional Party candidate) not McKinney, nor Barr, the Libertarian.
So stop spreading falsehoods.
Paul most certainly endorse McKinney along with Nader and Baldwin and Barr. Quit lying and trying to tell people that he did not tell people to vote for her as part of his endorsement.
Ron Paul’s endorsement of 2008 given on September 10th.
“This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates – Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)”
“Ron Paul was joined by third party candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader who issued the following joint statement and agreement:”
Of course DADT was bad enough. I haven’t seen what the other candidates have said in detail. To be honest, I don’t have enough time to follow what they are saying in detail. DADT should have been repealed and back to “ask, tell, and out the door if the answer is wrong”.
That said, Paul directly said (I read the direct quotes) that he supports “gay rights” and that in itself, plus his vote to force faggots into the military, shows that any spew he spews about the Constitution is window dressing for his ultra kook Libertarian crap. He is also a liar and a hypocrite. He now claims after decades of his newsletter that he not only didn’t write it, but didn’t even read it! So he either knowingly allowed a newsletter, signed in his name, to be sent out purporting to be written by him but in reality he didn’t even READ it, or he is lying that he didn’t write it or even read.
How such disgusting lies and hypocrisy can be touted as “conservative” is beyond my ken. And palling around with the likes of Code Pinko, Stormfront, and saying stuff about the evil US and nicey Muslims that could be coming right out of Tehran is more madness.
You’re using the Daily Paul as a source and now you’re accusing others of not getting it right ?
Arrogant little Paulbot, ain’tcha ?
Feel better?
He listed four POSSIBLE people to vote for in FOUR different minor parties.
When asked which INDIVIDUAL he supported, he endorsed BALDWIN, not Mckinney.
So get your facts straight.
Quite the reasonable rebuttal to my points!
Another factor in the “why Ron Paul is an insane loser” is his cultlike puerile followers.
“The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the
lightning ain't distributed right."
~ Mark Twain ~
The nonsense about the newsletter's are simply a red herring.
And Paul doesn't claim to be a conservative, he claims to be a constitutionalist, and sometimes that means he is a conservative and sometimes it means he is a libertarian.
Paul endorses 4 candidates in 2008.
He listed the 4 candidates in alphabetical order that he wanted his cult followers to vote for and he brought three of them on stage with him, according to his transcript at ronpaul.com
“This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates – Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)”
“Ron Paul was joined by third party candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader who issued the following joint statement and agreement:”
http://www.ronpaul.com/ronpaul2008/events/ron-paul-press-conference/
There is a live Ronulan on this thread who is still here and IMHO shouldn’t be.
Why, pray tell, is the fact that Paul either lied about writing his newsletters, or lying now about NOT writing (nor reading!) them, “ranting”?
And do tell me about this - how is not only voting for put homos in the military but ALSO being completely on board with “gay rights” (his own words!) being a “constitutionalist”? Plus the fact that he thinks abortion should be up the states! Should murder be up to the states? Yes or no?
Fred Phelps hides behind the Bible as he states that “Gods Hates Fags”
Ron Paul hides behind the Constitution as he seeks to disband our military.
Fred Phelps hides behind the Bible as he protests at military funerals.
Ron Paul hides behind the Constitution as he ignores the nuclear threat in Iran.
Ron Paul hides behind the Constitution as he says nothing about his stormfront endorsements.
Ron Paul hides behind the Constitution as he makes alliances with Barney Frank to legalize dope and whores.
Ron Paul hides behind the Constitution as he takes funding from George Soros.
On and on I could go. But let me tell you something. I could show you example after example of Barack Obama paying lip-service to the Constitution as Paul is doing. But so what? If all you can do is (falsely) claim Paul is a Constitutionals, then beware the zot. As you see - another long time FReeper has already been zotted.
And you will be next.
A lot of odd ones seem to have 2001 sign up dates.
My goodness...I don’t know if that is the most absurd attempt to explain something Paul did away, but it certainly ranks near the top.
I’ll give you credit for actually responding to what was said rather than just pretending you never saw it and then reverting back to talking points.
Ron Paul isn't ignoring Iran getting a nuke, he understands that there isn't much we can do to stop them from getting one.
Unless you want to invade Iran?
Haven't seen any stormfront endorsements, I saw some people take a photo with him.
I am sure many people are getting funds from Soro's who don't know about it.
So far, all I have seen is a bunch of smears and a clear understanding of what the Constitution says and what Ron Paul believes.
Save the threats.
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.