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

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul: More Conservative Than Rick Santorum. ZOT
The Street [ website ] ^ | Jan 11, 2012. | Joe Deaux.

Posted on 01/13/2012 11:03:47 PM PST by Republic_of_Secession.

Ron Paul Is More Conservative Than Rick Santorum.

By Joe Deaux 01/11/12 - 04:02 PM EST

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- During a Republican presidential debate Saturday, Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum had a spat about who was more conservative as each clawed for blocks of Republican voters needed to topple front-runner Mitt Romney.

According to a study done back in 2004 though, Paul was the more conservative of the two by a fairly healthy margin.

A list put together at voteview.com found that out of the 3,320 individuals (1 being the most liberal and 3,320 being the most conservative) who had served in the House or Senate from 1937 to 2002, Santorum ranked 2,674, while Paul ranked 3,320.

"Four or five times he voted to raise the national debt, so that tells you how conservative he is," Paul said Saturday about Santorum. Based on the survey, Paul could question pretty much any politician's conservative record against his own.

The scores were based on all roll calls cast in the period. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich slotted in at 2,893.

Paul finished second in the New Hampshire primaries Tuesday night partly thanks to independent voters in the state who turned out, while Santorum -- who's social conservative message found traction in Iowa -- slid into a virtual tie with Gingrich behind third-place finisher Jon Huntsman.

"I sorta have to chuckle when they describe you and me as being dangerous," Paul said to supporters in a speech after the primary. "That's one thing they are telling the truth about, because we are dangerous to the status quo."

The GOP field will canvass South Carolina through Jan. 21 as each candidate attempts to pitch a conservative message to Southern voters who are skeptical of Romney's record.

A Rasmussen Reports poll released Jan. 3 found that 26% of likely U.S. voters regarded Romney as a moderate.

Interestingly, Paul also ranked next to Romney as the perceived least conservative option in the GOP presidential field.

-- Written by Joe Deaux in New York.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: bye; conservative; joedeaux; lewrockwell; paulbot; pimpin4shrimpin; ricksantorum; ronpaultruthfile; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-147 last
To: SmithL

Ron Paul is neither.


101 posted on 01/14/2012 5:15:22 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Now that is a decision I disagree with him on.

How many of the GOP candidates are running to get them back out of the military?

102 posted on 01/14/2012 5:18:54 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Yes, the fact is that Paul endorsed Cynthia McKinney, you think that she or Ralph Nader should be President? Paul does.

Ron Paul’s endorsement of 2008 given on September 10th.

“This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates – Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)”

“Ron Paul was joined by third party candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader who issued the following joint statement and agreement:”

http://www.ronpaul.com/ronpaul2008/events/ron-paul-press-conference/


103 posted on 01/14/2012 5:26:50 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

IIRC Santorum and Gingrich (or was it Perry?) said they would reverse the removal of DADT. Of course it would be up Congress (unelss the jackal is found ineligible, removed, and all his signed crap made null and void.)

But just because tons of Rs are cowards and RINOS doesn’t make Paul any less of a creepy nutcase who appears to be trying to spoil the election and get either Mitt the candidate (most likely) or the jackal re-elected (which is what would happen if Mitt got the nomination anyway).

Libertarianism is NOT Constitutional.


104 posted on 01/14/2012 5:27:53 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Paul's voters are not coming from either Santorum or Gingrich and Gingrich acknowledged this.

I haven't seen any candidate address this issue, but DADT is unconsitutional, it was used as a transition from forbiding homosexuals in the military, which is constitutional to allowing them in openly.

So, going back to it is not progress.

And the Constitution was made to be followed, which is what Ron Paul advocates.

Many on FR seem to think it is just a bunch of suggestions and have no qualms about ignoring it when it suits their agenda.

105 posted on 01/14/2012 5:34:26 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
You must not have read my last post, Paul DIDN'T endorse Cynthia McKinney.

The purpose of the gathering the various fringe parties was to unite against the two major ones which really are one.

Paul endorsed Balwdin,(who I believe was the Constitutional Party candidate) not McKinney, nor Barr, the Libertarian.

So stop spreading falsehoods.

106 posted on 01/14/2012 5:39:29 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Paul most certainly endorse McKinney along with Nader and Baldwin and Barr. Quit lying and trying to tell people that he did not tell people to vote for her as part of his endorsement.

Ron Paul’s endorsement of 2008 given on September 10th.

“This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates – Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)”

“Ron Paul was joined by third party candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader who issued the following joint statement and agreement:”


107 posted on 01/14/2012 5:47:47 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Of course DADT was bad enough. I haven’t seen what the other candidates have said in detail. To be honest, I don’t have enough time to follow what they are saying in detail. DADT should have been repealed and back to “ask, tell, and out the door if the answer is wrong”.

That said, Paul directly said (I read the direct quotes) that he supports “gay rights” and that in itself, plus his vote to force faggots into the military, shows that any spew he spews about the Constitution is window dressing for his ultra kook Libertarian crap. He is also a liar and a hypocrite. He now claims after decades of his newsletter that he not only didn’t write it, but didn’t even read it! So he either knowingly allowed a newsletter, signed in his name, to be sent out purporting to be written by him but in reality he didn’t even READ it, or he is lying that he didn’t write it or even read.

How such disgusting lies and hypocrisy can be touted as “conservative” is beyond my ken. And palling around with the likes of Code Pinko, Stormfront, and saying stuff about the evil US and nicey Muslims that could be coming right out of Tehran is more madness.


108 posted on 01/14/2012 5:50:38 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration; ansel12

You’re using the Daily Paul as a source and now you’re accusing others of not getting it right ?

Arrogant little Paulbot, ain’tcha ?


109 posted on 01/14/2012 6:10:15 PM PST by Absolutely Nobama (NO COMPROMISE! NO RETREAT! NO SURRENDER! I AM A CONSERVATIVE! CASE CLOSED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Feel better?


110 posted on 01/14/2012 6:11:11 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
What is the matter with you-can you read?

He listed four POSSIBLE people to vote for in FOUR different minor parties.

When asked which INDIVIDUAL he supported, he endorsed BALDWIN, not Mckinney.

So get your facts straight.

111 posted on 01/14/2012 6:14:07 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration; Absolutely Nobama

Quite the reasonable rebuttal to my points!

Another factor in the “why Ron Paul is an insane loser” is his cultlike puerile followers.


112 posted on 01/14/2012 6:14:46 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Republic_of_Secession.

“The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the
lightning ain't distributed right."

~ Mark Twain ~

113 posted on 01/14/2012 6:18:32 PM PST by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Actually since you made no points but just ranted, by response was quite reasonable.

The nonsense about the newsletter's are simply a red herring.

And Paul doesn't claim to be a conservative, he claims to be a constitutionalist, and sometimes that means he is a conservative and sometimes it means he is a libertarian.

114 posted on 01/14/2012 6:18:48 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Paul endorses 4 candidates in 2008.

He listed the 4 candidates in alphabetical order that he wanted his cult followers to vote for and he brought three of them on stage with him, according to his transcript at ronpaul.com

“This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates – Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)”

“Ron Paul was joined by third party candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader who issued the following joint statement and agreement:”

http://www.ronpaul.com/ronpaul2008/events/ron-paul-press-conference/


115 posted on 01/14/2012 6:24:47 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration; TheOldLady; darkwing104; 50mm

There is a live Ronulan on this thread who is still here and IMHO shouldn’t be.

Why, pray tell, is the fact that Paul either lied about writing his newsletters, or lying now about NOT writing (nor reading!) them, “ranting”?

And do tell me about this - how is not only voting for put homos in the military but ALSO being completely on board with “gay rights” (his own words!) being a “constitutionalist”? Plus the fact that he thinks abortion should be up the states! Should murder be up to the states? Yes or no?


116 posted on 01/14/2012 6:38:49 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Fred Phelps hides behind the Bible as he states that “Gods Hates Fags”

Ron Paul hides behind the Constitution as he seeks to disband our military.

Fred Phelps hides behind the Bible as he protests at military funerals.

Ron Paul hides behind the Constitution as he ignores the nuclear threat in Iran.

Ron Paul hides behind the Constitution as he says nothing about his stormfront endorsements.

Ron Paul hides behind the Constitution as he makes alliances with Barney Frank to legalize dope and whores.

Ron Paul hides behind the Constitution as he takes funding from George Soros.

On and on I could go. But let me tell you something. I could show you example after example of Barack Obama paying lip-service to the Constitution as Paul is doing. But so what? If all you can do is (falsely) claim Paul is a Constitutionals, then beware the zot. As you see - another long time FReeper has already been zotted.

And you will be next.


117 posted on 01/14/2012 7:32:14 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS! This means liberals AND libertarians (same thing) NO LIBS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

A lot of odd ones seem to have 2001 sign up dates.


118 posted on 01/14/2012 8:54:17 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

My goodness...I don’t know if that is the most absurd attempt to explain something Paul did away, but it certainly ranks near the top.

I’ll give you credit for actually responding to what was said rather than just pretending you never saw it and then reverting back to talking points.


119 posted on 01/14/2012 10:41:49 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Ron Paul doesn't want to disband the military, he believes it should be used constitutionally.

Ron Paul isn't ignoring Iran getting a nuke, he understands that there isn't much we can do to stop them from getting one.

Unless you want to invade Iran?

Haven't seen any stormfront endorsements, I saw some people take a photo with him.

I am sure many people are getting funds from Soro's who don't know about it.

So far, all I have seen is a bunch of smears and a clear understanding of what the Constitution says and what Ron Paul believes.

Save the threats.

120 posted on 01/14/2012 10:43:58 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
As I said, the newsletters are a red herring.

And you are ranting.

When abortion was up to the States it was illegal in every State.

Ron Paul is a doctor who has delivered thousands of babies and is anti-abortion.

More red herrings.

121 posted on 01/14/2012 10:52:37 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Paul was endorsing the 4 PARTIES, as running against the two major ones, which, as many on FR have noted, are really one with two wings.

He endorsed as an individual Baldwin, a member of the Constitutional Party.

Try to deal with the facts.

122 posted on 01/14/2012 10:55:11 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

A person cannot vote for all four people, so Paul was advocating that a person cast their vote for EITHER ONE of those parties INSTEAD of the Democrat/GOP Party, taking votes from BOTH the Democrats and Republicans.


123 posted on 01/14/2012 10:58:24 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Gee, you are starting to recognize the fact that Paul endorsed them. “Them”, including Cynthia McKinney. ‘Spread your votes as you choose, I endorse these four.’

Paul endorses 4 candidates in 2008.

He listed the 4 candidates in alphabetical order that he wanted his cult followers to vote for and he brought three of them on stage with him, according to his transcript at ronpaul.com

“This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates – Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)”

“Ron Paul was joined by third party candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader who issued the following joint statement and agreement:”

http://www.ronpaul.com/ronpaul2008/events/ron-paul-press-conference/


124 posted on 01/14/2012 11:05:54 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Ron Paul endorsed the PARTIES, that seems to be a distinction that escapes you.

So, he was saying vote for either one of these 4 parties INSTEAD of the other major two ones.

It is not an endorsement of what they believe but a way to fight against the two-Party monoply.

So, he was not endorsing Cynthia McKinney, and to say so is to drop the context and missrepresent what the intent of the endorsement of the 4 parties were for.

And if you keep posting me this nonsense, I will simply send you the same reply.

By saying that Ron Paul endorsed McKinney you are giving the false impression that he agrees with her political views, and ignoring the context in which he said that people should vote for her party.

In other words, you are lying.

125 posted on 01/14/2012 11:17:18 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

We dealt with you Paul cult people in 2007. Stormfront has cut and pasted my responses to you guys.

Paul endorses 4 candidates in 2008.

He listed the 4 candidates in alphabetical order that he wanted his cult followers to vote for and he brought three of them on stage with him, according to his transcript at ronpaul.com

“This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates – Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)”

“Ron Paul was joined by third party candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader who issued the following joint statement and agreement:”


126 posted on 01/14/2012 11:21:46 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
“The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it’s more so than ever.

Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.

Influential forces, the media, the government, the privileged corporations and moneyed interests see to it that both parties’ candidates are acceptable, regardless of the outcome, since they will still be in charge. It’s been that way for a long time. George Wallace was not the first to recognize that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties. There is, though, a difference between the two major candidates and the candidates on third-party tickets and those running as independents.

The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and private-property ownership.

Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with the status quo are held in check by the two major parties in power, making it very difficult to compete in the pretend democratic process. This is done by making it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballots, enter into the debates, raise money, avoid being marginalized, or get fair or actual coverage. A rare celebrity or a wealthy individual can, to a degree, overcome these difficulties.

The system we have today allows a President to be elected by as little as 32% of the American people, with half of those merely voting for the “lesser of two evils”. Therefore, as little as 16% actually vote for a president. No wonder when things go wrong, anger explodes. A recent poll shows that 60% of the American people are not happy with the two major candidates this year.

This system is driven by the conviction that only a major party candidate can win. Voters become convinced that any other vote is a “wasted” vote. It’s time for that conclusion to be challenged and to recognize that the only way not to waste one’s vote is to reject the two establishment candidates and join the majority, once called silent, and allow the voices of the people to be heard.

We cannot expect withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the Middle East with either of the two major candidates. Expect continued involvement in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia. Neither hints of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Do not expect to hear the rejection of the policy of supporting the American world empire. There will be no emphasis on protecting privacy and civil liberties and the constant surveillance of the American people. Do not expect any serious attempt to curtail the rapidly expanding national debt. And certainly, there will be no hint of addressing the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationship with big banks and international corporations and the politicians.

There is only one way that these issues can get the attention they deserve: the silent majority must become the vocal majority.

This message can be sent to our leaders by not participating in the Great Distraction – the quadrennial campaign and election of an American President without a choice. Just think of how much of an edge a Vice President has in this process, and he or she is picked by a single person – the party’s nominee. This was never intended by the Constitution.

Since a principled non-voter sends a message, we must count them and recognize the message they are sending as well. The non-voters need to hold their own “election” by starting a “League of Non-voters” and explain their principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would guess.

Write-in votes should not be discouraged, but the electoral officials must be held accountable and make sure the votes are counted. But one must not be naïve and believe that under today’s circumstances one has a chance of accomplishing much by a write-in campaign.

The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates – Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)

Yes, these individuals do have strong philosophic disagreements on various issues, but they all stand for challenging the status quo – those special interest who control our federal government. And because of this, on the big issues of war, civil liberties, deficits, and the Federal Reserve they have much in common. People will waste their vote in voting for the lesser of two evils. That can’t be stopped overnight, but for us to have an impact we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates.

For me, though, my advice – for what it’s worth – is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.

A huge vote for those running on principle will be a lot more valuable by sending a message that we’ve had enough and want real change than wasting one’s vote on a supposed lesser of two evils.”

Ron Paul was joined by third party candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader who issued the following joint statement and agreement:

We Agree

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations. Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

Ron Paul advocated voting for either one of the 4 minor parties as a protest vote.

127 posted on 01/14/2012 11:25:06 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Got it?


128 posted on 01/14/2012 11:25:49 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
See my last post.

Paul endorsed four different Parties as a protest vote.

That is the CONTEXT of issue, and it has nothing to do with supporting any particular one of the Parties.

129 posted on 01/14/2012 11:28:54 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I am curious, is Rand Paul part of the Paul ‘cult’?


130 posted on 01/14/2012 11:31:19 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

No wonder they don’t like me at that Nazi site called Stormfront.

Nazis, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader Chuck Baldwin, the Paul cult is tough.


131 posted on 01/14/2012 11:38:12 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I asked you a question-is Rand Paul a member of the Paul ‘cult’?


132 posted on 01/14/2012 11:41:52 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

I supported Rand Paul in his race against Tray Greyson for the Senate seat.

Will Rand prove to be a good Senator, we don’t know yet.

Ron, we do have a history on, the man is an unscrupulous cult leader who feeds on humans, and craves celebrity and wealth.


133 posted on 01/14/2012 11:44:05 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

In your lexicon, “red herring” means “something that reveals some crap about R.Paul and you need to shut people up by tossing crap at them.”

1. Anyone who thinks states should be allowed to kill the unborn in the name of the “constituiton” is not pro-life.

2. Newsletters written by Ron Paul for decades that now he says he didn’t write, or even read, while making big bucks from them is not a red herring.

In case you’re totally illiterate or stoned out of your mind, a “red herring” is a something that has no bearing on the situation. But since the situtation is discussing why R.Paul is a screaming lunatic hypocrite non-conservative non-constitutionalist liar cultleader scam artist jihadi suckup Jew hating Libertarian, any and all idiocy by R.Paul is entirely germane to the discussion.


134 posted on 01/14/2012 11:56:00 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
1. You assume that the States would allow it, they didn't in the past.
2. Pass a constitutional amendment forbidding it.
3. Newsletter's written over 20 years ago are irrelevant, that is they are a red herring.
4. I have yet to find anyone on FR who actually state what was so bad about those newsletters, probably because they agree with them, but want to follow the MSM in using them against Paul. So, what Newsletter offended you?
5.More inflammatory rhetoric.
135 posted on 01/15/2012 2:38:57 AM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
So, Rand Paul, who is supporting Ron Paul is not part of a cult?

I didn't ask if he would be a good senator, I asked you if he was part of a cult because he was supporting Ron.

Well, Rand would know that and yet he still supports him-why the hestitation in condemning him like you guys do all the rest of the Ron Paul supporters?

136 posted on 01/15/2012 2:42:46 AM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
No one is threatening you with being zotted!

Talk all you want, constitutionalists believe in free speech, unlike some 'conservatives'.

137 posted on 01/15/2012 2:45:21 AM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Wow, you seem to be a nut.

Good luck with your troubled life.


138 posted on 01/15/2012 2:48:45 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

?

?

?

You’re totally insane.


139 posted on 01/15/2012 5:08:01 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Someone posted a lot of stuff from the newsletters and they were nutz.

In your mind, “red herring” means “anything other than genuflection at the altar of Herr Doktor Ron Paul.”

You should seek help. You’re totally insane.


140 posted on 01/15/2012 5:10:51 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Thanks for the link to that Nader-Paul article. Wow, that was great reading.

Two guys who are polar opposites. An authoritarian Statist communist and a libertarian quasi-anarchist.

All they have in common is their hatred of the status quo. At least they are in touch with their anger.

I’d love to see the debate once they got past the 25% of issues they agree on like drugs, gays, hookers, war.

When they got to other issues like the final solution to the tobacco and obesity problem, I would pay $49.95 on pay per view to watch that. There may be gun play involved!


141 posted on 01/15/2012 5:50:00 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084 (I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer to drink a bunch of them. Stay thirsty my FRiends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Again, what in particular?

No 'red herring' means anything that is not germane to the actual issue of what Ron Paul is running on now.

Ah, the final ad homine.

142 posted on 01/16/2012 3:10:49 AM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Absolutely Nobama

I hate to burst your bubble, but I am not a member of the Republican party. I’m a conservative. ;o)

I quit the party during the comprehensive immigration reform fiasco. When Bush said, “See you at the bill signing”, I quit.

So, I’m unaffiliated , and a conservative.

You have to be encouraged that I’m not the only “independent” who agrees with you. ;o)

It’s very good to “see” you, too! Thank you for all of your postings.


143 posted on 01/17/2012 12:24:42 AM PST by dixiechick2000 (Proud barbarian TEA Party SOB and an evil Capitalist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000

“I quit the party during the comprehensive immigration reform fiasco. When Bush said, ‘See you at the bill signing’, I quit.

So, I’m unaffiliated , and a conservative.”

I stand corrected, as is often the case when I shoot off my mouth without thinking. I didn’t mean to sound like such a moron.

Awkward......


144 posted on 01/17/2012 8:10:20 PM PST by Absolutely Nobama (NO COMPROMISE! NO RETREAT! NO SURRENDER! I AM A CONSERVATIVE! CASE CLOSED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Absolutely Nobama

Not awkward, at all.

You never know...lol!

You’re a good guy, and I thoroughly enjoy your posts. You will never have any reason to apologize to me, or to feel “awkward.”

;o)


145 posted on 01/18/2012 12:28:44 AM PST by dixiechick2000 (Proud barbarian TEA Party SOB and an evil Capitalist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Absolutely Nobama

Right on,


146 posted on 01/28/2012 1:35:02 AM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Republic_of_Secession.

Darnit; missed this one completely.


147 posted on 06/07/2012 2:05:50 PM PDT by carriage_hill (All libs & most dems think that life is just a sponge bath, with a happy ending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-147 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