For example, of these four, identify who's voting record each is.
A. 
B. 
C. 
D. 
Answer: A. Fred Thompson, B. Rudy Guiliani, C. Ron Paul, D. Joe Lieberman - Source: http://www.ontheissues.org C.
Posted on 09/11/2007 10:52:54 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
Duncan Hunter just plain can't win for the same reason Paul won't: House members that are not in leadership positions (Speaker or Minority Leader) don't have a large enough base to run for the Presidency, and they don't have executive experience to run on.
If Hunter runs and wins a Senate seat (fat chance in CA) or gets elected Governor and can somehow corral the Demo legislature, that will make him a threat.
Good point. You know you are in trouble when an utter tool like O'Reilly makes you look stupid.
This primary race is like the Red Sox and the Yankees emptying their dugouts and brawling. I’ve been watching and reading about all the candidates. This statement from Ron Paul seals his fate with me. What’s he going to do next? Tell General Petraeus how to do his job?
Bears repeating, and I agree with it 100%. I agree with a lot of Paul's domestic stands. And while I still think we did the right thing in principle by overthrowing Saddam, I can understand and respect his opposition to it. But the fact is that we are over there, like it or not. Cutting and running is not an option. The debate should be over different options to give us a victory there, not how soon we should declare defeat (which is what Paul and some of his fellow paleocons of the Buchananite wing would have us do).
}:-)4
If anyone who has a logical, reasoned argument that supports why Paul is such a "screwball", that would certainly be interesting to read.
Dear Ron Paul
Evil exists and must be crushed, defeated and eradicated. There is no understanding it, or reasoning with it, or appeasing it, or backing away from it. We will kill it, or it will kill us, it is that simple.
“What baffles me is how he got any Republican votes in the first place.”
Uh, because he is for federal government that conforms to it’s constitutional role. He is anti-abortion and pro-gun. He wants to cut taxes and get rid of bloated government bureaucracy. He is against spending borrowed money like drunken sailors. He believes that only congress has the authority to mint and issue money and many other things that Republicans used to support.
To the Move.orgs, Cindy Sheehans, Dem congress critters, Kos kids, Code Pinkos, and most of all Ron Paul and his merry band of misfit toys, I would like to quote to you a simple verse, one just recently shared with you by the esteemed creator of this very site:
"UP YOURS"
Statement by the founder of Free Republic:
In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side. Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy as opposed to allowing the enemy the luxury of conducting their attacks on us at home on their terms and on their schedule.
Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security. We support our military, our troops and our Commander-in-Chief and we oppose turning control of our government back over to the liberals and socialists who favor appeasement, weakness, and subserviency. We do not believe in surrendering to the terrorists as France, Germany, Russia and Spain have done and as Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and the Democrats, et al, are proposing.
You sure you are on the right site?
I think this canard can be traced to John Kampfner, a UK radical left journalist who covers the Middle East and specializes in pro-Palestinian propaganda as editor of The New Statesman.
Kampfner wrote a series of articles about the Bush White House and the run up to the liberation of Iraq, in which he claimed that his unnamed sources informed him that Paul Wolfowitz expressed the opinion that Iraqi oil production might in some way help to offset the costs of the war.
Even if Kampfner was a reliable source, one presidential adviser throwing out a random suggestion in a private meeting hardly equates to predicting that "the war would pay for itself via oil."
You asked, you shall receive...
Ron Paul warns of staged terror attack
Please also observe that Ron Paul is frequently a guest on the Alex Jones show. Alex Jones is a leading propagator of 9/11 kook conspiracies.
For example, of these four, identify who's voting record each is.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Answer: A. Fred Thompson, B. Rudy Guiliani, C. Ron Paul, D. Joe Lieberman - Source: http://www.ontheissues.org C.
“Ron Paul makes a lot of sense. I wonder if we are seeing the repeat of the 1850’s and the end of the Whigs, what with this split of Big Gov repubs with ideological conservatives.”
That is an intersting question. With the GOP mainstream supporting two North Eastern establishment liberals like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney it is definately time for some sort of change. Having two wings of the Democratic Party (both support Statism)to choose a president from is getting old.
Who the Hell cares?
Ron Paul for dog catcher.
Not.
You're not asking the correct question.
Think GHWB, not GWB.
Ron Paul foreign policy would have ceded Kuwait as the 14th (?) provence of Iraq. Whether the Arabian peninsula would have been taken by force or simply the threat of Sadaam's vastly superior military, post US withdrawl from the Persian Gulf, can be debated.
However since 1991 you would have had Sadaam, with active WMD and terrorist training programs, astride over half the world's oil reserves. Half presuming he harbored no ambitions toward Iran.
I'm sure he would have simply sold us oil at discount prices, the region basking in peace, since the troops that weren't there before being invited in by the Saudis wouldn't be there, and our naval presence would be gone.
Neither the Soviets nor Chinese would perceive opportunity, any more than they will in the power vacumn left by an immediate withdrawl from the region today.
I really don’t want a “Shrimpocracy”.
-------------------------------------------
Statement by the founder of Free Republic:
. . .
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
Yep.
Are you sure you are?
Seems I am not at odds with either statement...
So...
Wasn't one of the justifications for the Iraq War to "enforce UN Security Council" resolutions?
When was the last time Ron Paul was on Alex Jones's radio show? The last date I can find is 5/31, over 3 months ago.
Alex Jones is a leading propagator of 9/11 kook conspiracies.
So what? Fred Thompson is a member of the CFR along with George Soros. Should I tar Fred with all of Soros' nuttiness?
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.