Skip to comments.
RON PAUL: REACTIONARY OR VISIONARY?
CNS News ^
| 2/3/2012
| Patrick J Buchanan
Posted on 02/04/2012 5:31:16 AM PST by IbJensen
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
The establishment Republican party is rapidly becoming the enemy as much as the marxist progressive pukes that currently Occupy the government institutions of Washington. Ron Paul won the CPAC straw pole in 2010 and 2011. Ron Paul has been "not invited back" to CPAC in 2012. So, we're supposed to choose between a stunningly sterile corporatist, i.e. Mitt Romeny, or the la-la land Pillsbury doughboy, i.e. Newt Gingrich. What mother would name their babies Mitt or Newt? Yes... they're sure to invoke fear in our enemies.
1
posted on
02/04/2012 5:31:19 AM PST
by
IbJensen
To: IbJensen
IBTZ!!
2
posted on
02/04/2012 5:51:27 AM PST
by
2ndDivisionVet
(You can't invade the US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.~Admiral Yamamoto)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
3
posted on
02/04/2012 5:52:41 AM PST
by
IbJensen
(Sic semper tyrannis)
To: IbJensen
Zinga!.... oh you mean you weren’t being sarcastic?
4
posted on
02/04/2012 6:05:01 AM PST
by
Nifster
To: IbJensen
RON PAUL: REACTIONARY OR VISIONARY? IS DELUSIONAL,
and so are his supporters.
5
posted on
02/04/2012 6:31:51 AM PST
by
svcw
(For the new year: you better toughen up, if you are going to continue to be stupid.)
To: IbJensen
Which one means “nutcase”?
6
posted on
02/04/2012 6:44:46 AM PST
by
BibChr
("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
To: IbJensen
Ron Paul represents my core values. However, the reality is that we’ll be at war within a year..
To: IbJensen
RON PAUL: REACTIONARY OR VISIONARY? If those are the only choices, I'll have to write-in "nutcase smacktard".
To: IbJensen
Neither . . . “COMPLETE NUTJOB” is the most appropriate description.
9
posted on
02/04/2012 6:58:56 AM PST
by
Sudetenland
(Anybody but Obama!!!!)
To: All
Just left a church where the pastor was all over public forums on the internet making derogatory and sometimes very judgemental statements about all in the GOP field except Ron Paul, his candidate. He even went so far as to manipulate a sermon to buck up Paul while hitting Gingrich over the head with the ex-wife’s “She said, he said Open Marriage” interview. I’ve not met many Ron Paulbots as these folks are called. But now that I have it’s almost cult like in their devotion. That’s kind of scary.
10
posted on
02/04/2012 7:03:43 AM PST
by
navymom1
To: IbJensen
Hey Pat, your arguing in support of Paul does nothing for Paul, you are just as insane as he and just as much of a Nazi sympathizer and Israel hater.
As for you IbJensen, your arguments are as compellingly well thought our and logical as I have come to expect from Paulbots.
"So, we're supposed to choose between a stunningly sterile corporatist, i.e. Mitt Romeny, or the la-la land Pillsbury doughboy, i.e. Newt Gingrich. What mother would name their babies Mitt or Newt? Yes... they're sure to invoke fear in our enemies."
Such compelling reasoning! Such stunning logic! Such awe-inspring logic! Only a true Paultard or any run of the mill liberal could come up with arguments of this emotionally driven irrationality.
"OH!!! Mitt is boring! Newt is fat!" LOL!!!!! Yeah those are such compelling arguments, I feel the need to go out and get a lobotomy so I can also become a Paulbot.
"Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Money-bomb. Liberty. Constitution. Free Marijuana. Ron Paul."
Hey, I think I've got it!
HAR-HAR-HAR-HAR!!!!
11
posted on
02/04/2012 7:08:51 AM PST
by
Sudetenland
(Anybody but Obama!!!!)
To: IbJensen
>> RON PAUL: REACTIONARY OR VISIONARY?
If it’s ElRon we’re being asked to label, I would expect “douchebag” to be among the choices, and I didn’t see it.
12
posted on
02/04/2012 7:16:10 AM PST
by
Nervous Tick
(Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
To: IbJensen
13
posted on
02/04/2012 7:23:20 AM PST
by
Thunder90
(Fighting for truth and the American way... http://citizensfortruthandtheamericanway.blogspot.com/)
To: IbJensen
Sorry, Ib... that's the environment here. Those who advocate for Ron Paul on FR are called names and, if they persist, banned.
Which is JimRob's prerogative, given that this is privately owned web-space. Just FYI.
14
posted on
02/04/2012 7:24:31 AM PST
by
Oberon
(Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
To: IbJensen
Ron Paul is a self-serving creep.
15
posted on
02/04/2012 7:28:29 AM PST
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: Oberon
I would say to you that Congressman Paul has some great ideas about the monetary system. I don’t advocate for him because of his foreign policy, which I find completely out of touch with the reality of today’s technology and the lengths our enemies are committed to go to destroy us. I truly wish the Congressman had a different view, but he refuses to change his position. That’s a big problem for him. He needs to get out of the race.
16
posted on
02/04/2012 7:44:49 AM PST
by
navymom1
To: navymom1
'Tehran has arguably been among the biggest beneficiaries, albeit inadvertently, of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Not only has the United States neutralized Irans historical nemesis, namely the Baathist Sunni regime in Baghdad, but it also facilitated the commencement of a new chapter in Tehrans bilateral relations with Iraq. I remember when Palin got tripped up on the Bush Doctrine question. Being a political junky I knew all about the Bush Doctrine, and had serious questions about it since it when against all of our precedent in military affairs. You obviously have bought into the idea that preemptive military strikes are justifiable. While I can see the merit of say Israel striking Iraq in 1981 to take out Iraq's nuclear weapons program I fail to see why we had to invade Iraq and spend 1000s of lives and 100s of billions of dollars building Iraqis schools, roads and water treatment plants. And why with Bin Lauden Dead are we still in Afghanistan?
The neocons have used the pretext of a justifiable preemptive strike (Bush Doctrine) on a physical treat to our security to engage in a ruinous policy of expanding the "Empire". The bush Doctrine as now practiced means we do what we want, where we want, when we want with out regard to costs either in US lives/dollars or easily foreseen "blowback".
Considering we are past broke, deeply in debt and grossly over extended militarily perhaps a reset on foreign policy is not such a bad idea? Maybe a return to the Monroe Doctrine? "Mexican officials said Wednesday almost 13,000 people died in drug violence in the first nine months of 2011" Maybe our backyard needs attention? Just saying.
17
posted on
02/04/2012 8:39:18 AM PST
by
jpsb
To: Oberon
I help pay for the space.
18
posted on
02/04/2012 9:04:36 AM PST
by
IbJensen
(Sic semper tyrannis)
To: IbJensen
Pat is building up Paul knocking Newt, all in the hopes of saving his sister’s new crush mittens.
19
posted on
02/04/2012 9:18:32 AM PST
by
Sybeck1
(Mitt Romney, a piss poor choice)
To: trisham
I usually use self-serving, un-principled, and slimey but your descrirtion is short, accurate and to the point.
20
posted on
02/04/2012 10:02:07 AM PST
by
duffee
(NEWT 2012)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson