Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why are Ron Paul Detractors so Frightened? (American Chronicle)
American Chronicle ^ | 9/26/07 | Szandor Blestman

Posted on 09/26/2007 11:45:25 AM PDT by traviskicks

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-237 next last
To: ravingnutter

In the latest Gallup Poll, Ron Paul has moved from 1% to 3% of Republicans and Republican leaners who were polled. Since the margin of error for the poll is plus/minus 5%, any movement could be nothing more than statistical noise. Paul is currently a non-entity for the nomination.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm


201 posted on 09/27/2007 10:31:05 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
You reckon without the bold and cunning brilliance of Ron Paul's super-duper Top Secret master plan to keep the government fiscally solvent, in the absence of its existing revenue streams: once elected President (*snicker*), he'll take back that $200 million in gold Giuliani stole during 9/11!

Geez, SJ... don't you know anything about economics...? ;)

202 posted on 09/27/2007 10:39:07 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("Proudly keeping one iron boot on the necks of libertarian faux 'conservatives' since 1958!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

I know that and you know that, but try telling Paul supporters that, LOL!


203 posted on 09/27/2007 10:49:19 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Do your own research.

Almost a thousand articles and speechs by Ron Paul.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php


204 posted on 09/27/2007 11:23:44 AM PDT by KDD (A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist; Badeye; SJackson; ravingnutter; lormand; elhombrelibre; mnehrling; ...
What are you guys going to do if Paul wins the nomination?

Well, I don't know.

I haven't figured out what I'm going to do when large denominations of US currency start raining from the sky or what I'll do when that flock of pigs flies over my house and whether the freezing over of Hell will have any impact on this global warming stuff.

Once I figure all of those out, I'll work on that one. :-)

205 posted on 09/27/2007 11:25:46 AM PDT by Allegra (The Surge Works While the Democrats "Betray Us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Allegra

Whats telling are the comments in the Ron Paul forums. They undermine the ‘push’ the Paulies have launched in this and other conservative forums.


206 posted on 09/27/2007 11:30:43 AM PDT by Badeye (Most human problems can be solved by the correct application of a mini gun in my experience.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

“I know that and you know that, but try telling Paul supporters that, LOL!”

I’ll wait until the actual primaries, then remind them.


207 posted on 09/27/2007 11:34:25 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: KDD
So you want to play? OK.

Simple challenge to you Paulites. With NO slogans. NO demagoguery. NO sliming everyone else who doesn’t share your faith. Tell me WHAT and HOW Paul would do anything. Here is his “Issues page”. NOT a word about what or how he would do anything. Just a bunch of slogans strung together basically screaming bile at everyone and everything.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

So, you Paulites want civility? Then explain to us WHAT and HOW a Paul Administration would do. Do that with OUT sliming any one. No name calling, no hysteric hyper emotive rhetoric. None of the usual Paulite personal attacks in place of reason argument. No cut and pasting of sound bite statements from Paul speeches. NO statements of what YOU think Paul means. REAL plans with documented links so we can read them for ourselves

208 posted on 09/27/2007 11:36:46 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/ vrs the "Worse than Watergate Congress")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Do your own research.

Almost a thousand articles and speechs by Ron Paul.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php


209 posted on 09/27/2007 12:43:27 PM PDT by KDD (A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

The great message of Ron Paul sells itself!


210 posted on 09/27/2007 12:49:00 PM PDT by KDD (A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
Historically corporate taxes always paid for military spending. Corporate tax rate cuts have forced the federal government to borrow manufactured notes from the Federal Reserve to take up the slack. Add corporate tax revenues and debt borrowings to get 23% of all federal dollars. The military is exactly 23% of federal dollars. This is not a coincidence. And it is not associated with Ron Paul, it’s a fact, look it up. And calling people names brings you no support. As far as your FairTax questions, they are all answered thoroughly here:

In 2006 corporate income tax, which Paul will eliminate but we're just playing games here, was 10.1%. Defence spending was 18%. Why you're discussing corporate income tax is beyond me, but the numbers don't work. Why don't you start again with post 167, 2006-the most recent available, or if you want to choose another year, post your figures.

The question I had about the Fair Tax is whether Ron Paul supports it as a remplacment for the income tax, citations please, and, if the income tax is unconstitutional due to not being cited in the Constitution, only an amendment, how the Fair Tax would pass the Paul smell test.

Personally I question whether Paul is a Fair Tax Supporter.

I referred to Paul as Paul is a curmudgeon good for sound bites and nothing more. The classic empty suit. That's a perfectly reasonable assessment of his non-positions. I added that he's irresponsible, and I stand by all of it.

As you demonstrate, there's nothing to back his "positions" up.

211 posted on 09/27/2007 2:18:42 PM PDT by SJackson (isolationism never was, never will be acceptable response to[expansionist] tyrannical governments)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
What are you guys going to do if Paul wins the nomination? Are you going to vote 3rd party, despite the fact that Paul will still be a better Commander-in-Chief than all the Dummycrats and maybe even better than Rudy, Romney, and Huckabee?

What are you going to do when the moon melts, it's made of green cheese you know.

As I'm mentioned to you before, we'll get to see the political acumen of FR's Paul supporters put to the test.

Keep in mind that this post shouldn't be construed as me shilling for Paul, but you guys need to look at some reality here. Now I've attended Paul rallies and seen pics and videos of them, and these folks could easily have been your next door neighbors. Women with kids and babies in the audience. Funny, but I didn't see any 9/11 "Truthers", anti-war kooks, or anarchist anti-gov't types.

Of course not. You’d never shill for Paul. And he gets no support at all from truthers, anti-war folk, or haters. That’s just an internet thing, and we all know the internet isn’t reliable. Is that why Paul’s supporters tout his internet performance?

All your name-calling and cheesy photo-shops are apparently having no impact on the thousands of grassroots supporters who are enthusiastically supporting Paul. Paul has the GOP in a delicate situation.

Oh, please, the whining accomplishes nothing. I’ll stand by everything I’ve said about Ron Paul. For your own credibility, please provide links to 5 of my photoshops.

212 posted on 09/27/2007 2:25:06 PM PDT by SJackson (isolationism never was, never will be acceptable response to[expansionist] tyrannical governments)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Why bother publishing it? Those that are against him are not against him because of his stance on limited government. As I said he could lay it out tomorrow and you'd still be railing against him...Oh well you didn't mention you believe in fairy tales. You should have said something before starting this conversation

I see, so he has double secret probation plans that he doesn't publish since he is, after all, the source of wisdom, put upon by all the big government Republicans and Freepers. Right.

Well I believe he's said that it would take time to get rid of SS and I honestly believe he understands that it would take time to get rid of the IRS. However trying to pass off 'privatization' of 1-2% of SS as some sort of huge change isn't very responsible, or truthful....But I don't see why you say it would be irresponsible to get rid of SS tomorrow either. It was irresponsible to rely on government in the first place. I'm not related to those getting it so why should I have to pay for it?

He's said he will get rid of the income tax. If he thinks it's going to take "time", or he has a plan for alternative revenue, this would be a good time to let the world in on it. And yes, I think it's irresponsible to simply scrap social security tomorrow, as would be scrapping the income tax.

213 posted on 09/27/2007 2:30:41 PM PDT by SJackson (isolationism never was, never will be acceptable response to[expansionist] tyrannical governments)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
What are you going to do when the moon melts, it's made of green cheese you know.

I don't know, I'll probably starve, I guess.

As I'm mentioned to you before, we'll get to see the political acumen of FR's Paul supporters put to the test.

I don't care about the Paul supporters here. I'm talking about the thousands that exist outside of this website. The folks that got you guys in serious denial.

Of course not. You’d never shill for Paul. And he gets no support at all from truthers, anti-war folk, or haters. That’s just an internet thing, and we all know the internet isn’t reliable. Is that why Paul’s supporters tout his internet performance?

It's been explained to you a million times that there is a relatively small minority of fringe individuals that are trying to exploit Paul's campaign. Now if you want to believe that Paul's support entirely consists of truthers, nutjobs, neo-Nazis, and skinheads, that's your perogative but the folks at the rallies and in the audience says otherwise.

Oh, please, the whining accomplishes nothing. I’ll stand by everything I’ve said about Ron Paul. For your own credibility, please provide links to 5 of my photoshops.

No whining, I'm just pointing out that actions have consequences, like Paul's supporters not supporting the GOP nominee, that's all.

214 posted on 09/27/2007 2:42:11 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt presidential candidate to ever run for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
You reckon without the bold and cunning brilliance of Ron Paul's super-duper Top Secret master plan to keep the government fiscally solvent, in the absence of its existing revenue streams: once elected President (*snicker*), he'll take back that $200 million in gold Giuliani stole during 9/11!

Smart move on Rudy's part. He's clearly a member of the global ruling elite.

215 posted on 09/27/2007 2:42:45 PM PDT by SJackson (isolationism never was, never will be acceptable response to[expansionist] tyrannical governments)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
I don't care about the Paul supporters here. I'm talking about the thousands that exist outside of this website. The folks that got you guys in serious denial.

Then he needs to turn the thousands into millions and clearly disassociate himself and his campaign from the less savory parts of the internet realm who support him. I wouldn't support him for that, but it would restore some level of respect. I believe I've cited to you the indicted drug dealer in Canada organizing meetings. Is a drug dealer and a dozen of his pals important, no. But when a political campaign is asked about the support of someone under indictment, the Paul campaign response that we'll take support from anywhere is unacceptable in my mind. In fact a disqualifier, because in the highly unlikely event a politician like that were successful, those early supporters would be the only he'd have a moral obligation to.

216 posted on 09/27/2007 2:47:10 PM PDT by SJackson (isolationism never was, never will be acceptable response to[expansionist] tyrannical governments)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
"All your name-calling and cheesy photo-shops are..."

Like this one?


217 posted on 09/27/2007 7:13:03 PM PDT by lormand (Anti Iraq War Freepers should GTFO, permanently)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: billbears
And if you think only $38 billion was spent on foreign aid, I've got this great seaside property in Montana you might be interested in.

Would you care to point out how that is inaccurate? Do you have the numbers from another source to verify your gut feeling?

218 posted on 09/27/2007 9:06:21 PM PDT by the808bass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2
And that was the point I was originally trying to make here in the beginning when I responded to a poster suggesting the candidate was not serious about the WOT, when in reality, neither is this current president of the United States.

The fact that our current president is making mistakes in the war on terror is in no way an argument in favor of another candidate who we know prospectively will make large mistakes in the same war. If that's not addressing your point, then I'm not sure why you responded to the thread at all.

219 posted on 09/27/2007 9:17:06 PM PDT by the808bass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2
And that was the point I was originally trying to make here in the beginning when I responded to a poster suggesting the candidate was not serious about the WOT, when in reality, neither is this current president of the United States.

The fact that our current president is making mistakes in the war on terror is in no way an argument in favor of another candidate who we know prospectively will make large mistakes in the same war. If that's not addressing your point, then I'm not sure why you responded to the thread at all.

220 posted on 09/27/2007 9:17:15 PM PDT by the808bass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-237 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson