*snicker*
Yeah right... Pull my other leg.
Posted on 05/30/2008 9:22:26 AM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo
Ron Paul continued his push for a speaking role at the Republican National Convention with an address Friday to supporters outside the Minnesota state convention.
Paul has continued his presidential bid despite Sen. John McCain's status as the presumed nominee. With state GOP leaders refusing to allow him to speak inside the convention hall, Paul told about 400 supporters he was more concerned about spreading his libertarian message than preserving party unity.
"The campaign that is going on right now is the campaign for the freedom revolution, which is going to be going on for a very long time," Paul told the crowd.
In a long speech, he criticized the Federal Reserve and U.S. monetary policy, argued that the Bush administration misled the U.S. into the war in Iraq and touted his strong opposition to federal spending, taxation and legalized abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
America... Where everyone likes a poor loser!
5 out of 6 on that volley.
Ron Paul is kinda a kook, but I fully support him in his quest to thumb the GOP in the eye. If we actually had a viable conservative candidate, I’d reverse that. But that ain’t the case.
Why bother giving another Leftist mole any attention? Maybe next time instead of wasting their time and energy on lunatics like Paul, “Conservatives” might try rallying behind a viable sane canidate.
‘”As far as we’re concerned, John McCain is the nominee. Game over,” said Mark Drake, spokesman for the state GOP. “The national party is united behind John McCain.”’
-Snicker-
Factually he is a flaming idiot and propagator of enemy propaganda. Politically he is a flaming idiot by mixing foreign policy lunacy with much needed political goals such as reducing the size of DC and increasing our personal freedoms. However, his core supporters mostly care about losing in Iraq, and legalizing pot.
I hope you can reconcile thumbing the US military in the eye while you are at it. I may very well be alone in thinking this, but there's no way I'm going to give up while we are at war, just because I'm not getting 100% of what I want in a presidential candidate. Make no mistake about it. If the Dem candidate wins, they will make sure our troops come home defeated. You can’t fix that in 4 years.
Ron Paul is the closest thing the republican party has right now to two operative balls.. The rest are cross dressing as democrats..
If the Republicans think they can win without paleoconservatives, best of luck to them.
SOooo let me get this straight 'Roon".. You're gonna VOTE for John McLaim?.. and surrender to the socialists.. Not a white flag surrender by voting for Obama or the beast but a behind the scenes surrender... You know a cowardly capitulation.. for a VICHY(WWII) government..
Who is this Paul guy? Haven’t we been paying his salary for decades and decades? What has he done? Any accomplishments? Any results? What has he produced?
*snicker*
Yeah right... Pull my other leg.
So then you want to believe that McLaim will not aid and abet the democrats in all they have planned?.. You know like he has proven HE WILL DO.. already DOES.. and will continue to do..
Insanity is continuing to do what is proved not to work..
You really ought to get a check up..
"Factually...his core supporters mostly care about losing in Iraq, and legalizing pot."
Factually, Lormand is wrong.
Officially, we aren't at war. Ron Paul tried to get Congress to declare war, and they wouldn't.
Good comeback.. Creative negative comments are allowed..
But they are graded.. I give you a "C"..
That's funny. The soldiers I know think we are in a war. And their opinion counts more to me than Ron Paul's does.
That's what we're desperately searching for.
I'm surprised you don't remember the overwhelming success we had in Viet Nam, and which party it was that finally "surrendered".
Maybe you're just too young.
Exactually.. However who do you declare war agianst.. 50 eleventeen different organizations plus many that have no name?.. War is something you do against a nation.. But declaring War against Iran, Syria, Egypt and Jordan Oh and the Soviet Union if they dont change their ways.. would be a start..
Or better just covertly pit them against EACH OTHER.. which SHOULD be happening with the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias in Iraq.. Divide and conquer has ALWAYS WORKED.. Iraq should be a republic not a democracy.. SUpport the WEAK one so the carnage continues.. then THEY will kill off all the negative factors THEMSELVES..,
Note: Russia could USE an underground capitialist cabal.. Russia has not changed much.. But then the Russian people have never ever known freedom in a western sense.. EVER.. the same with China..
If he didn't think it was a war, he wouldn't have asked for a declaration. It's the rest of them that talk about war, but look down and kick at the dirt when it comes time to get serious about actually having one.
What Republicans did 30+ years ago has no bearing on what Democrats will do in the future.
I know.. but the Attila the Hun chair at the top is a definite burden.. Swinging the Ann Coulter scepter and shooting the rabbit pellet gun at defectors can be tiring..
Its too late.. "so be it so let it be written"..
We went in against the leaders, established government and military forces of Iraq. What else do you have to do to qualify?
Perhaps not, but as long as some folks attempt to characterize the respective parties, I figure it leaves them wide open for criticism in the same vein.
FWIW: Designer sees very little difference between the two major political parties with respect to their goals and tactics.
"What else do you have to do to qualify?"
It would sure be nice to actually win one, and I hope we do.
But since this one is another U.N. operation, I frankly don't see much chance of that ever happening.
If the recent past history of the last 50 years is any indication, we will be forced to stop and withdraw, no matter which political party is in the WH.
The thing missed is that chaos in Iraq would have been a good thing.. managed chaos.. Didnt happen because the CIA was taken over by Clintons leftists.. and was and still is like Dorothy in OZ..
If Ron Paul were gung-ho for the war in Iraq, most of his platform would be looked at, and there is a good chance those Constitutionally based ideas would have overwhelming conservative support.
In order to marginalize those ideas, (things like smaller government (within Constitutional bounds), enforcing our borders, reigning in the Fed and a return to fiscal sobriety, disbanding several Cabinet level departments, not caving to the UN and, maintaining our soverignty), BOTH parties have done everything they can to push him away from the podium, because those ideas are a threat to 'bidness as usual' as done on Capitol Hill.
How hard would it be to emphasize the fringe elements who support any candidate in order to make the candidate's other supporters appear to be a nutcase? Not very, if the desire to do so is present.
If similar was done with Obama, he would be out of there.
For example: Wright hates "whitey", Obama has been in Wright's congregation for years, therefore, Obama hates "whitey". Obama supporters know this, so they hate "whitey", too (even if they are "whitey").
Well, the same logic has been applied to Ron Paul with 'troofers' and dopers and a donation from Stormfront, when in reality, a great many of his supporters are none of those.
While I disagree with his stance on Iraq, (We are there, we have to finish the job, we can't back down.), much of the rest of what he has to say is right.
However, those ideas will never get consideration and will instead be piled in with "nutcase" ideas as long as alleged conservatives have knee jerk reactions to the position Ron Paul has taken on the war.
If going off half-cocked is a requirement for being a Republican nowadays, count me out.
Whatever you think of him, his ideas deserve examination.
As for accomplishing anything in Congress, think of just how far Jefferson or Madison would get in today's Congressional mess. Anyone who adheres to their ideas won't get a lot passed either.
Screw the UN.
I simply take Democrats at their word.
FWIW: Designer sees very little difference between the two major political parties with respect to their goals and tactics.
It all depends how closely one looks. For me, the idea that a candidate chooses to join the Dem party speaks volumes about their goals and tactics. I'll take a benign tumor over a malignant tumor any day. And I certainly won't sit idle if given the chance to choose between the two.
There is no other party to go to. Although The Republican Party has been infiltrated by moderates and liberals, the party still belongs to conservatives. We just have to take it back, not take our ball and go home.
So RP will be that "bad guy", and Clinton wins.
Personally, I would hate to touch the U.N. even with your 10-foot pole.
Nothing but evil there.
I know. I've attempted to "take it back" for several years, now. I am not one to advocate "take our ball and go home", but I also am running out of ideas on how to increase the percentage of conservatives in the Republican Party.
I haven't attended a central committee meeting for about two years. Just about the time one member stood up and proudly declared she is a liberal. She was also on the Republican Senator's re-election committee.
Runnimg out of ideas.
"She was also on the Republican Senator's re-election committee."
Correction: she was the chairman of his re-election committee.
I understand....the whole situation is a real test of our resolve. I wish I had something spectacular to offer but I don't. I have locked down all my political contribution funds and have started sending suggestions instead of money. I can't stand McCain on a personal level and think he is a fair-weather conservative at best. But the alternatives are far more disastrous for the country. McCain generally gets it right with defense, foreign policy, and 2A. I'll take that...for now.
Semper Fi
I can back it up. You could be an exception as there are always exceptions, but I doubt it.
Only fools would deny that being anti-iraq war AND a Ron Paul supporter go hand in hand. But I contend that there is another issue, based on the local observations inside a Ron Paul stronghold, Austin, Texas. As everyone knows, Austin Texas is Texas' little piece of Berkeley California. The crazies that have 20 or so bumper stickers vulgarly denouncing Republicans, Bush, Cheney, etc, also have Ron Paul Stickers on them.
If you are around the Austin area, I can show you a bunch of head shops which looks like the headquarters for Ron Paul. (See Planet K)
Ron Paul ads are all over High Times Magazine. Peak in the last few issues, and you will see them.
I have nothing against adults enjoying weed, but to make that one's main issue is suicide if the candidate you support will make Jimmy Carter look like a foreign policy giant. No domestic freedom is worth a dime if you defeat yourself militarily within.
I'm sure you will deny his "we can defend the US with two submarines" comment and accuse me of again being factually wrong? At least Jimmy Carter didn't make such stupid comments or actions.
I don't read that. Not interested. I hope you are not simply noticing the dopers, and failing to notice the conservates who also support Ron Paul.
I have a number of friends who wouldn't do drugs if their lives depended on it, but who support Ron Paul and any other constitutionalist for public office.
Yes, I realize Ron Paul's comments are off-putting, and his stance on the war is not something to attempt to defend here, but I believe he is still the most correct candidate on more issues than anyone else we have seen in many years.
Too bad he didn't get your support.
There are no Conservatives who support Paul. Appeasement is a disqualifying trait.
Actually, when I look at what our legislators actually do, Ron Paul, by "accomplishing" very little, may be the best of the lot. Just because a particular congressthing is writing bills and passing laws doesn't mean he's doing anything good.
“McCain generally gets it right with...and 2A”
Don’t agree. The last few years he has an “F” rating from GOA.
Open borders/amnesty/treason are show stoppers too.
The last year they show a rating is 2006. And although I am a member of GOA, they are hacks for Ron Paul. That in itself doesn't disqualify them, but removes an element of their objectivity. Plus, Obama has pulled no punches with his dislike of guns and gun owners.
Open borders/amnesty/treason are show stoppers too.
You're going to get at least that with Obama. It's a wash.
I have no problem picking the best out of the worst. It's a reality we face in this election year.
Are we referring to the same GOA? I’m a life member, a regular donor, and I read all of their literature. Although they have been very supportive of RP for his pro-gun leadership, they also graded Hunter & Huckabee very favorably. Here are McCain’s rankings; RP was obviously not a presidential candidate until 2007.
http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm
2006: F minus
2004: F minus
2002: C minus
2000: C minus
I’d say that a vote for McCain, Hillaroid or Hussein Obama amounts to a vote against the Second Amendment.
Even if I grant you that, the speed at which our 2A rights would be stripped would be drastically different between McCain and the other two. Remember what I said initially, McCain generally gets it right on 2A. McCain has a fairly lengthy set of his 2A positions on his website. I couldn't even find anything about 2A on Obama's website. (I wonder why?)
Speaking of GOA, the amount of time they have spent criticizing the NRA has almost guaranteed that I will not renew with them.
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.