[Ron] Paul rally draws hundreds (Wyoming)

Star Tribune ^ | 10/29/07 | Joan Barron

[Grunthor]

“[Ron] Paul rally draws hundreds (Wyoming)”

The whole state turned out? Wow!

[goodnesswins]

Casino66 brought up the idea of a Gravelle/Paul debate....what a laugh it WOULD be!

[bray]

Is that GWB or EEE??? Great pic!

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[mnehring]

Don't be fooled.. Paul is no Conservative. Votes speak louder than rhetoric.

Ron Paul's 2006 American Conservative Union rating: 76% Lifetime Rating: 82.3%

Ron Paul's Voting Record (ya, ya, I know, there is an excuse for all of these, state's rights are more important than stopping abortion and fixing the border, Ronnie is making a statement, or everyone else was voting against it and he was just playing the game, yadda, yadda, yadda)

Here are some more ‘Conservative(sic)’ votes by Paul:

Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes.

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.

Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons.

Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime.

Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism.

Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror.

Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools.

Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy.

Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy.

Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.

Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects.

Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding.

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers.

Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers

Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse.

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.

Voted NO on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill.

Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers.

Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers.

Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients.

Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks.

Let's also not forget Paul's Pork Projects (that he voted for before he voted against when he calls them unconstitutional but he is just playing the game when he submits them because everyone else does it.. yadda yadda yadda..)

Paul also supported the NAU superhighway by funding the TransTexas Corridor

[oneamericanvoice]

So history repeats itself. Like Taft, the Left and Ron Paul are wrong. Why do you think that this war isn’t the will of the people? Because the Left says so? The country has never been Fascist. Not then and not now. I take great offense at those that think so. Furthermore, I can’t understand why people would stay in a country that they have so little regard for. I wouldn’t.

[traviskicks]

This post was actually supposed to be directed towards you:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917988/posts?page=11#11

I suggest you check out the CFG article.

[mnehring]

For the sake of folks here, I'm copying my post from that thread:

The area that many give Paul credit for (economic Conservatism) is also another weakness of his. In his demand for what he defines as 100% in his mind, he actually makes no progress on any anything he claims to stand for. Ronald Reagan preached incrementalism, knowing that you cannot achieve 100% in one step. Paul's inability to take an incremental or Kaizen approach, instead demanding perfection (by his definition) results in much of the backward momentum we have seen in Conservatism. Instead of being a champion of Conservative principles, he has become the bane of Conservatism, not allowing it to grow.

In a way, he reminds me of a parent suffering from Munchausen by Proxy- they poison their own children in order to keep them dependent on the parent. Paul attempts to kill any incremental step toward Conservative growth in order to continue to feed his need to have people dependent on him for the mythical perfection of Constitutional Conservativism.

[traviskicks]

you tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKVvgyIEqbQ

from someone who was there:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=29575

[WWTD]

Paul is not a Republican. He is a Libertarian.

A truly moronic comment. His political philosophy is libertarian, but is a member of the Republican party. He was the Libertarian party candidate for president in '88, but that was after he served several terms as a Republican. He has a 20 year track record as a Republican congressman, and only one failed election as a Libertarian.

The Republican party has lots of factions. Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, paleo conservatives, neo conservatives, moderates, libertarians, Rockefeller republicans, and even that most strange breed - Log Cabin republicans. For the party to regain Congress, and hopefully retain the presidency, none should be shown the door.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Just curious, is there a Mrs. Ron Paul?

Carolyn Paul. Ron and his wife have been married for 50 years.

[casino66]

Thanks. C-SPAN did a thing with all(most) of the candidates’ wives and no mention was made of a Mrs. Paul.

Felt sorry for Jeri Thompson, she was not used to all of the politics and all of them had trouble getting a word in because Mrs. O’bama and Mrs. Edwards tried/did dominate it.
Mrs. Edwards is another Hillary. Bossy b....

[oneamericanvoice]

You just shot yourself in the foot. I am far from moronic. I also have manners, which you have demonstrated a lack of.

You confirm my statement that he is a Libertarian in your second sentence. One can be a member of any Party, yet not espouse their beliefs.

I know the Republican Party has many factions. Why do you think the Log Cabin Republicans are strange? Where would you expect them to be? The Republicans are more inclusive than the Democrats who have only one faction due to their intolerance for anything except the far Left.

[WWTD]

Therefore his running as a Republican is a fraud. He will not be the nominee. He is only in this to garner the money.

Now, what were you saying about manners? All I did was accuse you of a moronic comment. You are the one committing libel. Pot, meet kettle.

[oneamericanvoice]

I wasn't being nasty. You shouldn't be talking since you seem to be well acquainted with cooking ware. I presented my opinion. You do believe in free speech for all I hope. And no, it is not libelous. If you think so, then sue me.

[WWTD]

Actually, I am an attorney. What you said about Ron Paul is libel. However, there is a "public figure" exception to libel, a result of the Falwell v. Hustler case. Also, even if your statement were actionable, I would have no standing to sue. That would be up to Dr. Paul.

Therefore, you can cook up all of the absurd lies you want about him with impunity. But your particular slur of Dr. Paul is not only offensive on its face, but one which has absolutely no substance. Even Paul's detractors would know is a flat out lie. Ron Paul, as a physician, would treat patients for free rather than accept Medicare or Medicaid. He has exempted himself from the Congressional pension program. He returns money from his office budget to the government each year because he views these budgets as excessive. Whatever his motives are, whether good or bad, he's not in it for the money.

The animosity towards Ron Paul on FReerepublic is so pervasive that people who are probably nice most of the time turn into bile-spewing idiots - they are getting in touch with their inner trolls. His candidacy has certainly struck a nerve with some people. I'm thinking that's a good sign.

[isthisnickcool]

Actually, I am an attorney.

There are things worse than Ron Paul.....

[WWTD]

In my career as a lawyer, I was an assistant district attorney. I also did some work for the U.S. justice department. I thought of myself as a "good lawyer". Kind of like Wizard of Oz, where there is a good witch. I retired from law several years ago and became a teacher.

But I agree with your sentiment. My preferred presidential candidate is a physician, not a lawyer.

[oneamericanvoice]

Glad to know that all those years in law school paid off. Hint: I wasn’t concerned, Counselor. It is also called “free speech”. Further, I’m glad that you recognize that you would have no standing, before making further threats.

I didn’t “cook up” any absurd lie. I didn’t slur Dr. Paul, nor defame him in any way. The statements about Dr. Paul have nothing to do with his commendable treatment of patients, nor running of his office. However, these are not germain. FYI, I think he has several good ideas. It is his Libertarian nature that takes him over the edge into a place that I disagree with. One is his foreign policy, or lack of knowledge thereof. Isolationism is not reality when you are “the” superpower in the world. It is not the way in which to implement security. One should always find out how things work in the macro.

For the record, I couldn’t be a “bile-spewing idiot” nor “troll” if my life depended on it. However, the attacks by Paulites like yourself are rather detracting from the candidate. There is a reason that many do not take Paul seriously. Perhaps you will entertain that it is “defenses” like this one that are one of the reasons.

[griswold3]

For the better part of my life, I’ve wondered the same thing.
My grandmother was a ‘Taftie’, all my uncles served in WWII, though.
My German mother spent WWII keeping her ‘head down’ avoiding the Gestapo, targeted by refusing to join the ‘party’. While my aunt was a ‘Hitlerjunge’.

Each had a story. I could never reconcile any of them.
Only through experience can one determine their course. The likes of the left’s experiences have all proven wrong. Why do we even listen to them? What do they hope to accomplish?

[oneamericanvoice]

The likes of the left’s experiences have all proven wrong. Why do we even listen to them? What do they hope to accomplish? The hope to abolish the America in favor of a Socialist or Communist nation. This is the "great experiment" and the Trotskyites are in every sector. They vowed they would implant themselves into the major sectors: education, entertainment, financial and politics. They have done that. "Beating back the hordes" is not just a catch phrase.