Flashback: Ron Paul Endorses Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader For President

Brian's Right Perspective ^ | December 26, 2011 | Brian

[Cincinatus' Wife]

As if there are any more reasons to show that Ron Paul should not be the GOP Presidential candidate, there is this bit from 2008 in which Paul endorses four(!) candidates for President, including the Marxist whack-job Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader. How unhinged to you have to be, intellectually, to endorse not only four people, but four whom also hold diametrically opposing views on the role of government. This alone shows that Ron Paul is not a serious thinker. In fact it shows him to be a reactionary flame thrower, willing to completely abandon principles when he doesn't get his way.

Ron Paul may truly be concerned for the direction of the country, as all of us are, but undisciplined rhetoric and childish temper tantrums when he doesn't get his way should disqualify him from the top nomination of any party.

See some of Cynthia McKinney's lowlights...: On Libyan Television supporting Ghadafi Regime....

....Paul, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination, will tell supporters he is not endorsing GOP nominee John McCain or Democratic nominee Barack Obama, and will instead give his seal of approval to four candidates: Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney (my emphasis), Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, independent candidate Ralph Nader, and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, according to a senior Paul aide.

[Big E]

I’ll tell you why I support Ron Paul. My primary concern is the wild, unrestrained growth of the Federal government. If it continues, it will only be a few years before it bankrupts us, and then probably enslaves us. I look at my bank statement, trying to figure out when I’ll be able to retire. My conclusion is, at the current levels of inflation, rates of return in the market, coupled with the fact that Social Security will be gone by the time I get there, means I’ll never be able to retire. All of this I blame on the insane spending being done by the government.

I think Ron Paul is the candidate who will best limit Washington’s spending. I also think he’s the guy who will shut down the unending regulations coming from the executive branch, which is killing private industry. If it makes you feel any better, if Paul has no chance, and Rick Perry catches a wave, I’ll probably vote for Perry. Paul is my first choice, though.

[HereInTheHeartland]

“My primary concern is the wild, unrestrained growth of the Federal government.”

Well that would be true for every poster here.

[jersey117]

That alone should do him in.

[elcid1970]

And we all know that Ron Paul is very VERY evenhanded when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

350 million Arab Muslims versus 5 million Israeli Jews, of course the correct view is moral equivalence.

[9YearLurker]

I think the Paul youth were a phenomenon of the last election—pre-crash and pre-Obama administration—as well. Kind of an OWS/libertarian mush, but fairly idealistic IMO. I also think there’s a fair mix of the personally productive within them.

They believe, rightly, that many of his policies would be good for the economy. And to a degree they are right that we have wasted national resources on misguided military adventurism. The ugly extremist underbelly of Paul they can either dismiss, be ignorant of, or secretly believe in as well.

[DungeonMaster]

Two guys knocked on my door yesterday to encourage me to support Ron Paul here in the Iowa Caucuses. One was from Montana and the other was here all the way from Sweden. I all but yelled at them calling Paul a nut who didn't care about Iran getting nukes and who reminded me of the guy on Boston Legal who killed his mother with a frying pan.

[ncalburt]

What a load of BS and lies !
The fraud Ron is a 32 year DC insider !
This Pork King of Congress Fought the GOP ban
On earmarks and was one of four gopers to Vote against it !
This fraud loaded up the PORK during the Obama regime to
The tune of 134,000,000 in 2009 !

Stop peddling lies for this 9-11 truther / Jew hater/
And vile but who called the us troops “ war criminals “during operation desert storm.

[John D]

I’ll tell you why I support Ron Paul. My primary concern is the wild, unrestrained growth of the Federal government. If it continues, it will only be a few years before it bankrupts us, and then probably enslaves us.

What do yoy think Paul will do about it? He has been in Washington for over a quarter century. Can you name something, anything he has ever done to slow the growth of government? I know you can't because there is nothing.
The ONLY two things he has ever done is blame America for every problem in the world, and acquire more earmarks than any candidate running. Neither slows the growth of government.

[ncalburt]

Exactly
These Oaul bots keep trying to rewrite the history
Of this Pork King

[mkjessup]

Unfortunately the lack of any decent conservative on the ticket right now has given Ron Paul a surge. I agree with Paul on about 96% of the issues, but the other 4% are Show Stoppers. I just don’t see anyone but (holding my nose) Romney at this point. Gingrich is a sleazeball and the others are not Presidential material.

Hey, I find myself in agreement with SOME of Ron Paul's views, particularly the Federal Reserve and the need to return power to the States, and cut back the size and reach of the federal government. His statements regarding the emerging police state in this Nation are quite frankly, bang on.

Unfortunately, that 4 percent that you refer to Roy is indeed, the 'show stopper' - we could no more trust Ron Paul in the area of foreign policy than we could trust say, Barack 0bama? Ron Paul praises that traitor Bradley Manning as a HERO?!? Actually thinks that Iran poses no threat? Where-TF has he been since 1979 when the Assahollah Khomeini seized power? In foreign policy, Ron Paul is absolutely and utterly delusional.

Now Donald Rumsfeld said some wise words when he talked about "going to war with the Army you have, not the Army you would prefer to have in the future" (paraphrased) and that is unfortunately the way it is shaping up so far as the eventual GOP nominee.

Mitt Romney is nothing more than '0bama-lite', his policies and positions are barely to the right of 0bama, Romney has the audacity to now suggest that he is 'more conservative'? This is the guy who proclaimed that he was never part of the Reagan Revolution, that he was NOT in favor of going back to the 'Reagan Years', and for that alone Romney can KMA. The fact is, Governor Perry of Texas would damn sure be an improvement over the leftist turd currently stinking up the White House. So too would Rick Santorum. Likewise for Michele Bachmann, and yes: even "sleazeball" (your words Roy) Newt Gingrich.

We don't have any real excellent, Reaganesque type choices at this point. I wouldn't rule out a brokered convention next year, but I will say this: Ron Paul will NOT be the GOP nominee, it's not going to happen, and if he goes the third party route, HE will be the one responsible for giving 0bama a second term, along with those who vote for him.

(Got your FReepmail btw, and Happy New Year FRiend! ;)

[Big E]

Hey, I said I believe Ron Paul will shrink the size of the Federal government. Earmarks are a drop in the bucket when you look at the overall government expenditures. I think Paul’s record is pretty consistent when you are talking about the expansion of government. This is what I believe. You obviously believe something else, and support somebody else. Don’t call me a liar.

[John D]

Again, what makes you think the surrender monkey will do anything. He has never done anything to help America. What make you think he will all of a sudden change?

[Big E]

I think he’s the guy that talks about cutting the spending the most. His voting record has been about cutting the spending. Again, I don’t care about earmarks. When you’re talking about Medicare expansion, SCHIP, etc. Paul has voted against it. He has a specific plan to balance the budget. The other candidates seem very much less concerned about the spending. What has he done in Congress? Well, when you’re outnumbered 10-1 by politicians who want to increase the size of government, no, he has not reduced the size of government. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t want to. I could be wrong, but that’s how it looks to me.

[John D]

The world is full of kids who want to be pro football players, but few are capable. Cut and Run talks a good talk, but that is all he ever does.
While you and Paul may not be concerned with his wasteful spending I am. If he was truly against earmarks, like he says he is, why does he acquire them every chance he gets?

[Big E]

Ok, who do you support?

[kenmcg]

The dude’s a lunatic and anyone that supports him should be observed for lunacy.

[Popman]

It must be very painful being a paultard .....having to twist yourself into pretzel to defend this clown almost daily....

[John D]

Anybody is better than the surrender monkey. Every other candidate has at least accomplished something other than wasting money.

[Roy Baty]

If I told you where I work mk, I'd have to kill you, but suffice to say that Ron Paul is against the Patriot Act and some of our best tools to use against the bad guys were provided by that Act. Tools that were taken away by the dems in the 70’s and that Britain and most other countries have available to them.

[mkjessup]

Roy, we're NOT Britain and "most other countries", the so-called Patriot Act is a double edged sword and if you work where I think you do, you probably know this. Catching the bad guys has always been the goal, the FBI for domestic espionage/sabotage, the CIA for dealing with foreign threats outside the CONUS, NSA for signals intelligence, collection and analysis, in addition to the myriad of alphabet soup agencies, some military, some not.

The majority of our intelligence gathering difficulties over the past 20 years can for the most part be laid at the feet of none other than Jamie Gorelick, who made it damn near impossible for intelligence agencies to share data, due to the construction of her infamous "wall" which effectively gave aid and assistance to the 9/11 hijackers, along with John Effin' Kerry, who stiff armed a pair of FAA security professionals who were desperate to warn him about the lack of security at Logan Airport in Boston, but that's another story for another time.

Nobody wants to see America suffer an intelligence failure as we did on 9/11 or at any other time. However our freedoms and liberties that are enshrined in our Constitution cannot be the price for 100 percent guaranteed intelligence gathering effectiveness. The Soviet Union had one of the most pervasive and efficient intelligence apparatus seen anywhere on the planet, of course the price was the mental and physical tyranny over their population.

I'm sure that our illustrious former President George W. Bush and "Pennsylvania's Tom Ridge" had the very best of intentions when the fascist Department of Homeland Security was created, how secure are we today? And moreover, how secure are we with 0bama and his anti-American cabal with their hands on those "best tools" you speak of?

Sorry Roy, at one time I was a fervent and unwaving supporter of GWB and creating any and every sort of intelligence mechanism to fight terrorism. Unfortunately, there were never any true controls integrated with those tools that provided any effective oversight over 'who' is/was designated a terrorist and who wasn't.

Janet Incompetentano, Eric Holder, just to name two. I don't know about you FRiend, but knowing those two liberal cruds have control of such investigative methods does NOT help me to sleep better at night, far from it.