Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul People (Southern Avenger)
American Conservative ^ | 2010-02-22 | Jack Hunter aka Southern Avenger

Posted on 02/22/2010 11:33:11 PM PST by rabscuttle385

When Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina was censured by various GOP county committees in his own state recently, Graham dismissively blamed it on “Ron Paul people.” When Florida governor and U.S. Senate candidate Charlie Crist was defeated in a Republican straw poll by challenger Marco Rubio in December, Crist complained it was nothing more than “Ron Paul people”

At this year’s 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C/, there were plenty of “Ron Paul people,” enough to deliver the congressman a first-place victory in the annual CPAC straw poll, long considered a decent gauge of conservatives’ mindset. But when Paul’s victory was announced much of the CPAC crowd booed, showing disdain for the congressman not unlike that expressed by Graham and Crist. Those pesky “Ron Paul people” had struck again, it seemed, and many Republican establishment types quickly dismissed the poll. But one glaring question remains: Who is it that Paul’s critics prefer to him? What kind of “people” are they?

What, for example, are Mitt Romney people, who placed second this year and won CPAC’s straw poll the last three years? Romney was introduced at CPAC by newly elected senator Scott Brown, and the Massachusetts politicians stood side by side before a cheering conservative audience that seemed oblivious to the fact both men implemented government-mandated healthcare in their state, similar to the Democrats’ current national plan. President Obama and his party have even often cited the Massachusetts plan, known as “Romneycare,” as the model for “Obamacare.” In his speech, Romney also had much praise for George W. Bush. The crowd went wild.

What are “Dick Cheney people,” who received a standing ovation at CPAC? Said Cheney, “A welcome like that almost makes me want to run for office,” which elicited chants of “run, Dick run!” from the audience. Cheney promised that Obama would be a “one-term president” and said that conservatives could look forward to victory in 2010. Considering his big government track record, Cheney giving conservatives’ prospects is sort of like Tiger Woods giving marital advice. Yet loudly and with zero irony, CPAC cheered Cheney.

We could go down the list — what are Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, or Tim Pawlenty “people?” What solid, tangible conservative platform or agenda are any of these people suggesting, other than defeating Obama and the Democrats? Is a return to Bush Republicanism really a desirable goal, as Romney and Cheney’s warm welcomes seemed to suggest? Rush Limbaugh claims Paul’s straw poll victory means CPAC wasn’t conservative this year, which raises the question, “well, who was ‘conservative’ this year, Rush?” Since CPAC’s inception in 1973, what has actually been done to shrink the size of government? What in the last Republican administration, something Romney praises and Cheney represents, gives anyone who isn’t completely brain dead hope for a better, more conservative future?

When you boil it all down and though they won’t admit it, here’s what those who complain about “Ron Paul people” really care about — GOP victory. They don’t really care why, how, or to what ideological end — only that Democrats lose elections and Republicans win them. The tolerance of the big-government George W. Bush years proved as much, and the current nostalgia for Cheney only underscores this point. Those at CPAC who cheered Romney, Cheney, and the conventional rest have no intention of ever challenging the status quo precisely because they are the status quo.

Then there are the “Ron Paul people.” Paul’s CPAC speech was not simply partisan Democrat bashing, but a lesson on how any GOP worthy of challenging the status quo must finally deliver on the conservatism it has always promised. Paul said Republicans must finally show true fidelity to the Constitution. Considering the conservative movement’s abysmal failure in stopping government growth, Paul asked the crowd to reexamine first principles, casting a critical eye upon the Right’s enthusiasm for wars that don’t make much sense and cost too much money, incurring massive debt. In short, Paul called for an end to big government — all of it. Asks Pat Buchanan, “Who in the Republican Party today is calling for a Barry Goldwater-like rollback of federal power and federal programs? Except Ron Paul.” Answer: no one. Paul’s CPAC speech proved as much.

Derided as “kids,” or irrelevant “college students,” the many young people who support Paul are the heart and soul of what has been dubbed the “Ron Paul Revolution,” and they are a force to be reckoned with. Writes National Review Online’s Robert Costa, “Paul supporters were the most visible and vocal throughout CPAC.”

Expect Paul supporters to become even more visible and more vocal in the future, because it will be impossible to silence a genuine movement driven by actual conservative passion, and not just the two-party horse race the Republican establishment continues to mistake for principle. In their ignorance, conservatives who boo Paul, at CPAC or anywhere else, are essentially dismissing the only force in contemporary American politics serious about smaller government. And despite the constant media spin and gnashing of teeth, Ron Paul and his “people’s” onward march does not represent some sort of confusion within the conservative movement-but the only conservative movement.


TOPICS: Issues
KEYWORDS: braindeadzombiecult; cpac; cpac2010; larouchies; liberterians; lronpaul; paulestinians; paulkucinich08; paulkucinich12; ronpaul; southernavenger; southernwanker; youknowhesnuts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 next last

1 posted on 02/22/2010 11:33:11 PM PST by rabscuttle385
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bamahead; djsherin; Bokababe; dcwusmc; Captain Kirk; sickoflibs; Favor Center

fyi


2 posted on 02/22/2010 11:34:01 PM PST by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

“In 1988 Ron Paul was nominated by the Libertarian Party for president and ran against the Reagan agenda, at one point telling the Dallas Morning News, Reagan was a “dramatic failure” as President. Paul also said, “I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration”, Reagan was “a failure, yes, in, in many ways”. Transcript of Paul’s remarks on Meet the Press. Also, see Youtube video of Paul on MTP”.


3 posted on 02/22/2010 11:37:16 PM PST by rbmillerjr (I'm praying for Palin....if not I'll vote 4 conservatives...Mitt won't get my vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Expect Paul supporters to become even more visible and more vocal in the future...

Groan...don't we have enough problems without having to contend with that?

4 posted on 02/23/2010 12:01:34 AM PST by Allegra (It doesn't matter what this tagline says...the liberals are going to call it "racist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
When you boil it all down and though they won’t admit it, here’s what those who complain about “Ron Paul people” really care about — GOP victory.

I'll admit it. GOP victory stands on three legs: economic, social, national defense.

Ron Paul has one full leg and one partial leg. One leg is missing.

But wait! There is more! If Ron Paul were strong on defense, much of his support would evaporate overnight. Why? Because he would not be useful to the left. The media would drop him. We would not see threads on leftist forums saying "Please Mother Earth, Let Ron Paul Win the GOP Nomination"

5 posted on 02/23/2010 12:07:06 AM PST by Brugmansian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I watched a video yesterday of Rue Paul saying that 9/11 was the result of our “occupation” of arab countries. I wouldn’t pee on him if he was on fire.


6 posted on 02/23/2010 1:01:28 AM PST by HospiceNurse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HospiceNurse

Ron Paul on Glenn Beck show for the full hour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pme20JHPkwk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y4j4m90-XM


7 posted on 02/23/2010 1:09:14 AM PST by Irenic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: HospiceNurse
I wouldn’t pee on him if he was on fire.

There's always Number 2. Wear Nomex.

8 posted on 02/23/2010 1:12:57 AM PST by Stentor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Irenic

Beck has lost his mind.


9 posted on 02/23/2010 1:17:47 AM PST by HospiceNurse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Irenic

I guess there are several to make the hour (links to the side)

I’m watching them now, so not sure how many there are.


10 posted on 02/23/2010 1:17:50 AM PST by Irenic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Ron Paul is not conservative, he is more like a libertarian.


11 posted on 02/23/2010 1:29:56 AM PST by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irenic

I didn’t know we gave 3 times more foreign aid to the Arabs than we give Israel...


12 posted on 02/23/2010 1:35:27 AM PST by Irenic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All

Ron Paul on Glenn Beck for an hour 12/18/07
________________________________________________________

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pme20JHPkwk
Opener, Free Market, personal liberty, constitution

2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y4j4m90-XM
Globalism, NAFTA

3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNjnvp5z6kM
North American Union, Economy

4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGrlZTlD-Sc
Currency, IRS, Taxes

5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF_92PpCyUs
Foreign Policy

6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnm1nPHdATQ
Military, Troops etc

7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD1qMXMOjfo
9/11, Tea Parties, Paul supporters

8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kze69_lmGmA
Summary by Paul, Taxes, Responsibility
__________________________________________________
Listed a ROUGH idea of what segment has what.


13 posted on 02/23/2010 2:06:54 AM PST by Irenic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Allegra
Groan...don't we have enough problems without having to contend with that?

So you like the GOP's continued slide into big governemnt & internationalism? Why does having a pro-Constitution & America First President bother you so much?

14 posted on 02/23/2010 2:07:16 AM PST by ChrisInAR (You gotta let it out, Captain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man; Allegra; death2tyrants; freedumb2003; Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; AdvisorB; ...

ping


15 posted on 02/23/2010 2:11:38 AM PST by ChrisInAR (You gotta let it out, Captain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

I have no problem w/ what Paul said about Reagan. I am kinda curious as to whether or not Reagan started to lose his conservative bona fides after having to deal w/ a Dim Copngress & being in the Oval Office for 8 years.

IIRC, Reagan & Paul were good friends early on in the 70’s, & I have heard that Reagan either supported &/or helped campaign for Paul when he originally ran for the House back then. Feel free to read what Reagan said about Paul on my profile page. :-)


16 posted on 02/23/2010 2:18:49 AM PST by ChrisInAR (You gotta let it out, Captain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Conservatives are becoming more vocal. The anger has been pent up for yrs now.
Has nothing to do with Ron Paul and his screwball followers.


17 posted on 02/23/2010 2:25:51 AM PST by rrrod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greeneyes
So I guess you disagree w/ what Reagan said about conservatism in his July 1975 interview w/ Reason magazine?

Here is Reagan's 1st comment in the interview:

REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

18 posted on 02/23/2010 2:26:55 AM PST by ChrisInAR (You gotta let it out, Captain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
I'm sure the "Southern Avenger" has his cape on and is hanging out with his sidekick Handiman as we speak.


19 posted on 02/23/2010 2:33:25 AM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Libertarians are anti-war and small government supporters. Most are not interested in moral conservatism, although some support it. That is why Paul sees nothing wrong with abortion, and supports it. I would wonder what kind of supreme court justices a libertarian would promote.


20 posted on 02/23/2010 2:54:05 AM PST by Shery (in APO Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shery
That is why Paul sees nothing wrong with abortion, and supports it.

If you're going to attack Paul, and it's not as if there aren't legitimate reasons to do so regarding national defense, at least try to be factual.

Ron Paul is not pro-abortion.

- Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008)
- Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008)
- Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
- Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
- Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
- Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
- Save “snowflake babies”: no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
- No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
- Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
- Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
- Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
- Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
- Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
- Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
- Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
- Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
- Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
- Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
- Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
- Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
- No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
- Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

21 posted on 02/23/2010 3:06:45 AM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR

There is no doubt that both the libertarian and conservatives share a desire for limited government. For some libertarians, the ideal government can be so limited, that they are closer to being anarchists, just as Reagan pointed out.

It’s kinda like Baptists. There are several types which share some basic tenets, but have differences. There are obvious differneces between the two political philosophies which share some classical liberal ideas. Are you saying that conservatives and libertarians are the exact same on every issue?


22 posted on 02/23/2010 3:14:03 AM PST by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: All

found a 2007 Ron Paul Tea Party video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0h69EazA0M

Beck mentioned the Ron Paul Tea Party on #7 youtube video, from 2007.


23 posted on 02/23/2010 3:23:26 AM PST by Irenic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

We need a Ron Paul who understands the disease that is islam.


24 posted on 02/23/2010 3:31:51 AM PST by Therapsid (Communism has killed 50-60 Million people in only 50 yrs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR

“I have no problem w/ what Paul said about Reagan”

We know that here at FR, because we know that RonPaul people are not conservative.

LOL, “Reagan lost his bonafides”....

Enjoy your 1-2% in the real election.


25 posted on 02/23/2010 4:55:42 AM PST by rbmillerjr (I'm praying for Palin....if not I'll vote 4 conservatives...Mitt won't get my vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Therapsid
We need a Ron Paul who understands the disease that is islam

He understands islam just fine. I've never heard him say once that "islam is a religion of peace".

I remember him advocating (and voting for) crushing the Taliban gov't that allowed terrorist attacks to be planned and launched from Afghanistan.

I remember him criticizing idiotic invasions and occupations of muslim nations that didn't pose a threat to us, thus radicalizing tens of millions of muzzies.

I remember him pointing out the stupidity of destroying muslim infrastructure and then rebuilding it, time after time.

I believe he is totally against things Bush did, like starting the program that imports muslims from terrorist-supporting countries into the US, or leaving the borders wide open to anyone who wants to walk across, which leaves this nation open to attack from inside.

I think he knows that muzzies are like primitive, stupid and dangerous animals - the ones not bothering you, you leave alone. The ones that do attack you, you pound mercilessly, time and time again as required, until they finally learn to associate the terrorist attacks they launch with death and destruction of themselves, their families and neighbors, along with their possessions and other property.

In other words, I think he believes in going back to the policies that western civilization used to keep the cancer of islam in check in the period between when islam was driven out of europe in the 1400's to when the west empowered muslims by sending them trillions of dollars in oil money and allowed them complete access to our technology, education and very nations.

26 posted on 02/23/2010 5:31:16 AM PST by LIBERTARIAN JOE (Don't blame me - I voted for Ron Paul!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Stentor

ROTFLMBO!


27 posted on 02/23/2010 5:44:08 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (We're right, we're free, we'll fight and you'll see!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

Can you give me links? Couldn’t find it on YouTube. I’d love to drop that like a 16 ton weight on the Paul psychos around here.


28 posted on 02/23/2010 5:55:48 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (We're right, we're free, we'll fight and you'll see!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR; Allegra

Why does having a semi-pro-Constitution & Blame America First President bother you so much?

There, fixed it for you.

Be careful, Allegra, next he’ll be asking you when you stopped beating your husband.


29 posted on 02/23/2010 6:01:26 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (We're right, we're free, we'll fight and you'll see!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR
I have no problem w/ what Paul said about Reagan.

Well, doesn't that say it all.

30 posted on 02/23/2010 6:03:55 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (We're right, we're free, we'll fight and you'll see!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR

There’s a difference between the philosophy of libertarianism and the batch of goofballs and malcontents who call themselves Libertarians these days.

For example, true libertarianism wouldn’t be on the NARAL side of the abortion issue.


31 posted on 02/23/2010 6:08:57 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (We're right, we're free, we'll fight and you'll see!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Brugmansian
But wait! There is more! If Ron Paul were strong on defense, much of his support would evaporate overnight. Why? Because he would not be useful to the left. The media would drop him. We would not see threads on leftist forums saying "Please Mother Earth, Let Ron Paul Win the GOP Nomination"

****************************

You got that right.

32 posted on 02/23/2010 6:14:41 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry; wagglebee

He’s not pro life, either.


33 posted on 02/23/2010 6:15:54 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: trisham

Someday all Republicans will get it. Whoever in the party gets the most media attention, whoever the media touts as a challenge to the party in a positive way —be they McCain or Ron Paul—whoever the leftist forums want Republicans to elect or nominate is, with roughly a 99.99% certainly, exactly who the GOP should dump.


34 posted on 02/23/2010 6:21:41 AM PST by Brugmansian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LIBERTARIAN JOE
I've never heard him say once that "islam is a religion of peace"

Blaming America for Al Qaida attacks is as bad or worse.

I remember him advocating (and voting for) crushing the Taliban gov't that allowed terrorist attacks to be planned and launched from Afghanistan.

Yes, but you left something out, didn't you? Or maybe, like so many of his supporters, you never even considered it.

Ron Paul has been saying for years that the authorization that allowed us to go into Iraq was unconstitutional, but in 2001 he voted for an authorization that had every single flaw he's cited as unconstitutional or was even worse. Heck, the 2001 authorization didn't even mention Al Qaida or Afghanistan, but he voted for it.

This guy's just a Beltway gameplayer. He calls other GOP members enemies of the Constitution because they voted for OIF, but when the chips were down he voted the same way to save his butt. If he had voted against the authorization, even his district wouldn't have tolerated it.

Ron Paul is a poser. When you RP supporters are mystified as to why he doesn't have more support on FR, that's your answer...we can smell the BS. He's just Newt Gingrich with libertarian flavor, another beltway insider who runs to the head of the movement to declare himself the only viable leader.

I think he knows that muzzies are like primitive, stupid and dangerous animals - the ones not bothering you, you leave alone.

Which is why he thinks it's no big deal if a "primitive, stupid and dangerous animal" like Ahmadinejad has a nuclear arsenal at his disposal. Yeah, he really understands radical Islam.

35 posted on 02/23/2010 6:22:55 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (We're right, we're free, we'll fight and you'll see!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Brugmansian

Agreed.


36 posted on 02/23/2010 6:23:17 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: trisham

What do you mean?


37 posted on 02/23/2010 6:23:50 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (We're right, we're free, we'll fight and you'll see!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Brugmansian

100% correct.


38 posted on 02/23/2010 6:24:41 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (We're right, we're free, we'll fight and you'll see!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

If we look at just these votes, he is not pro life.

- Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
- Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)

- Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)

- Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)

- Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)


39 posted on 02/23/2010 6:32:05 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The only thing I have against Ron Paul being the 2012 nominee is his age, and I’ll accept that. Every other person mentioned who might be electable is worse — way worse, usually.

Paul is the *only* one I trust to seriously try to rein in out-of-control spending.

Palin isn’t ready to be president, and probably never will be.


40 posted on 02/23/2010 7:01:10 AM PST by postoak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Blaming America for Al Qaida attacks is as bad or worse

Pointing out that US interference into other nation's affairs can motivate them to strike at the US is not the same as blaming us for the attack, it's just stating fact.

Ron Paul is a poser. When you RP supporters are mystified as to why he doesn't have more support on FR, that's your answer...

He doesn't have a lot of support here because most freepers are big-gov't republicans - you know, people who think massive, all-intrusive fedgov is good as long as the guys running things have an (R) next to their names.

A lot of y'all know that if you admit that Iraq & the endless occupation of Afghanistan were mistakes, then you admit that hundreds of thousands of unecessary deaths and trillions of dollars in wasted capital is your fault.

Also, many (most? all?) of you neocon war-lovers are parasites, sucking up the tax-dollars of productive workers like me. The thought of a principled reformer like Ron Paul gaining power and cutting you off from the gov't cheese scares the crap out of you.

Which is why he thinks it's no big deal if a "primitive, stupid and dangerous animal" like Ahmadinejad has a nuclear arsenal at his disposal.

Maybe he thinks that...

a. he doesn't have one.

b. if he gets one, and there's a credible threat that he'll use it, the Israelis will deal with the threat long before it threatens the US.

The world's full of potential threats, my FRiend. Cower under your bed in fear of them if you must, but otherwise just sit back & let the adults deal with those threats, if they ever become actual problems.

41 posted on 02/23/2010 7:04:00 AM PST by LIBERTARIAN JOE (Don't blame me - I voted for Ron Paul!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The only thing I have against Ron Paul being the 2012 nominee is his age, and I’ll accept that. Every other person mentioned who might be electable is worse — way worse, usually.

Paul is the *only* one I trust to seriously try to rein in out-of-control spending.

Palin isn’t ready to be president, and probably never will be.


42 posted on 02/23/2010 7:06:16 AM PST by postoak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LIBERTARIAN JOE

“Pointing out that US interference into other nation’s affairs can motivate them to strike at the US is not the same as blaming us for the attack, it’s just stating fact.”

This is so true, it deserves being repeated. It’s amazing how many on the right can’t understand this.


43 posted on 02/23/2010 7:08:22 AM PST by postoak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Mitt Romney has a better chance at President than Ron Paul does.


44 posted on 02/23/2010 7:08:25 AM PST by rintense (Only dead fish go with the flow, which explains why Congress stinks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR
CPAC has been trending more libertarian in recent years. The inclusion of GOProud and the John Birch Society at CPAC 2010 is another sign of that trend. Having libertarian Glenn Beck close the conference and with libertarian kook Ron Paul winning the straw poll, albeit, “a stuffed ballot box”, libertarians like you are jumping for joy. BFD!

Libertarians are not conservatives.

And Ron Paul is a surrender monkey!

45 posted on 02/23/2010 7:10:29 AM PST by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Brugmansian

“But wait! There is more! If Ron Paul were strong on defense, much of his support would evaporate overnight”

Then NONE of the GOP standard bearers you prefer are strong on defense. None of them have any interest in defending United States territory.

Maybe Palin does, but the rest don’t.

I see the term “conservative” bandied about on this forum by people who agree, fundamentally, with the Democrats on the purpose of government.


46 posted on 02/23/2010 7:24:39 AM PST by Favor Center (Targets Up! Hold hard and favor center!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: postoak
This is so true, it deserves being repeated. It’s amazing how many on the right can’t understand this.

I think most of them understand it just fine - it's just an excuse to attack Dr. Paul. If GW Bush had said the same thing, they'd have no problem with it.

It's kind of like when they attack Dr. Paul with the earmark thing... he forwards on requests from his constituents to get some of their tax dollars back from DC, and he's viciously attacked for it. If he refused to pass on those requests, he'd be attacked for that too ("old, crazy Run Paul - the people in the district he's supposed to represent just want back a few cents on the dollar of the taxes they pay, and he refuses to help them get it").

47 posted on 02/23/2010 7:24:52 AM PST by LIBERTARIAN JOE (Don't blame me - I voted for Ron Paul!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: LIBERTARIAN JOE
He doesn't have a lot of support here because most freepers are big-gov't republicans - you know, people who think massive, all-intrusive fedgov is good as long as the guys running things have an (R) next to their names.

...

Also, many (most? all?) of you neocon war-lovers are parasites, sucking up the tax-dollars of productive workers like me. The thought of a principled reformer like Ron Paul gaining power and cutting you off from the gov't cheese scares the crap out of you.

Ah...posting from an alternate reality, I see. Ooh, I'll bet the version of me over there is clean-shaven, since I wear a goatee. Pretty cool.

48 posted on 02/23/2010 7:58:54 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (We're right, we're free, we'll fight and you'll see!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR; Mr. Silverback; Eaker; humblegunner
So you like the GOP's continued slide into big governemnt & internationalism? Why does having a pro-Constitution & America First President bother you so much?

Yeah, we're all such a bunch of neocons and statists and we love people like McCain and Romney and we want HUGE government. We realize that Ron Paul is the only one in the world who isn't like that. < /sarc>

"Ron Raul peolple" {shudder!} have been around here for a long time now. We've heard all of the talking points and the tired old insults/accusations hurled at those of us who do not drink the Koolaid.

We want conservative leadership. Not weak, lily-livered, cult-driven, truther kooks running the show.

49 posted on 02/23/2010 8:07:05 AM PST by Allegra (It doesn't matter what this tagline says...the liberals are going to call it "racist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: trisham

Hmmm...You make a good point.


50 posted on 02/23/2010 8:11:11 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (We're right, we're free, we'll fight and you'll see!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 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
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

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