Skip to comments.Could Ron Paul Take Down Sarah Palin?
Posted on 12/13/2010 11:36:14 AM PST by pissant
Long before the tea party movement grabbed half a dozen Senate seats, before its early proponents ever even dreamed of wearing Colonial-era garb in public, there was longtime Texas Republican Ron Paul, the one guy in Congress trying to abolish the Federal Reserve and shrink the government into near nonexistence. Paul won a devoted-bordering-on-cultish following during his 2008 presidential run, one which, obviously, didn't work out. But now Paul is telling the Times that "its at least 50-50" that he'll try again in 2012, and this time, with the movement built largely on his libertarian philosophy now a real force in American politics and expected to be decisive in the Republican primaries.
(Excerpt) Read more at nymag.com ...
“Could Ron Paul Take Down Sarah Palin?”
Drugs are bad, mmkay?
>>she is ineluctable.
impossible to avoid or evade:”inescapable conclusion”; “an ineluctable destiny”; “an unavoidable accident”
You’re busy today pissant. Huffington Post or the Daily Kos running a speacial on Anti Palin Stories today?
Ron Paul couldn’t find his way out a wet paper bag. He’s the “Lyndon LaRouche” of his time ...
Why would he do that?
I doubt if he would, or for that matter, could.
He has as much of a chance being the GOP candidate as I do.
At his age Dr. Paul is most likely to take down a spot in a nursing home.
Now you are humping Ron Paul? I really feel sorry for you and your case of PDS. Once again how much executive experience does he have?
No. Not without a wide variety of crew-served weapons.
But seriously, I think we'd all be surprised at the number of issues they probably agree on.
i don't have an opinion on that subject.
i do know that Paul has the plumb assignment of his career in Congress. We need him right where he is.
It looks to me like the MSM is trying to play divide and conquer with the Tea Party Movement by playing off one person against another.
Last i checked, Sarah Palin wasn't running for anything, and Ron Paul was only running for his seat in Congress.
This stuff is starting to get nuttier than Ron Paul is supposed to be (according to some so-called conservatives on this board).
LOL!! Not physically or mentally.
I’d never heard of it either ‘til a couple of months ago.
Well, people keep citing Palin’s run as Mccain’s toadie VP as “experience”. Paul has run 3 times now, I think, for Prez. Once at the top of the Libertarian Party, I think. ROFL
Your Wiki article is misguided and wrong. Both Jefferson and Washington rejected non-intervention arguments and intervened and waged war in order to protect American interests abroad during the first Barbary war. Many at the time argued that we shouldnt be concerned with interests in the Old World but that argument was rejected by both Jefferson and Washington. Thus the pervert Ron Paul is dead wrong and clueless about the Founders.
Ron Paul is an isolationist or a non-interventionist depending on the issue. He has a love for Islamic dictatorships and terrorists. He hasnt a clue though about freedom and would be a disaster if ever given enough power.
Last night pissant was humping Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee as having done "yeoman's work" during the 2010 campaign.
The guy is a way out there troll.
I think that a Ron Paul campaign could help Palin by positioning her as the moderate between the “kook right” and RINO left of the Republican party. If Paul eventually withdrew, he could throw his support behind Palin as a payback for her early endorsement of Rand and promise of Treasury Secretary appointment.
The Barbary pirates were seizing American ships in the med - a legitimate reason for the actions the US took and completely in line with the good doctor's foreign policy positions.
...pervert Ron Paul...
A violation of FR's posting rules and a good reason to want no further interaction with you.
Ron Paul is an isolationist or a non-interventionist depending on the issue. He has a love for Islamic dictatorships and terrorists. He hasnt a clue though about freedom and would be a disaster if ever given enough power.Good summary of RP.
Even Jefferson the ulimate constutionalist saw the need to occasionally ‘punch a international bully in the nose!’
“Michael Oren thinks that he made the decision reluctantly, finally forced into it by the arrogant behavior of Tripoli, which seized two American brigs and set off a chain reaction of fresh demands from other Barbary states. I believebecause of the encounter with the insufferable Abd Al-Rahman and because of his long engagement with Jonesthat Jefferson had long sought a pretext for war. His problem was his own party and the clause in the Constitution that gave Congress the power to declare war. With not atypical subtlety, Jefferson took a shortcut through this thicket in 1801 and sent the navy to North Africa on patrol, as it were, with instructions to enforce existing treaties and punish infractions of them. Our third president did not inform Congress of his authorization of this mission until the fleet was too far away to recall.”
How is “pervert Ron Paul” a “violation of FR’s posting rules”?
Dan Amira is drinking a very strong mix of the Ron Paul Koolaid.
Don’t discuss. Just cheer. Got it?
I think Ron Paul would be ill-advised to run for President yet again. Bad idea... he’s better utilized right where he’ll be soon, overseeing the Fed. Maybe later on he can be on Palin’s cabinet. SecTrez, mebbe?
Yes he could, if for some reason she started making comments that she agrees with him on many of his more “esoteric” views...
Wrong. The pervert Ron Paul has already proven that he has no concern for American National Security and has consistently taken the side of dictators and terrorists. He consistently takes positions that would threaten this nation and his foreign policy would never be accepted by Jefferson or Washington as proven by the Barbary war.
Paul has stated that he thinks that homosexuality should be treated by our military as being equal to heterosexuality. That makes him a pervert. I doubt that telling the truth about someones political position is not a violation of any FR rule.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
An untrue and uncivil statement, a personal attack, etc.
There's a lot of people in the world who are discussed here at FR that I strongly dislike and/or disagree with, but I don't have to make vulgar insults about because I have the ability to make rational, fact-based arguments against them - Paul-bashers are like those people who call others nazis... it's all they got.
Get real, Ron Paul is a shady lifetime politician that enhances his lifestyle by running a Presidential cult campaign.
The guy can never escape his little district and win an election out of it.
A personal attack against a poster is one thing (though even that I see all the time here on FR).
A “personal” attack against a public figure is an entirely different matter. Please show me in the FR rules where I can’t say “Ron Paul is a putz” or “Mitt Romney is a schmuck”, or “Barak Obama is an anti-American commie”.
Paul has stated that he thinks that homosexuality should be treated by our military as being equal to heterosexuality. That makes him a pervert.
My statement about the pervert Paul is factual.
It is simply another example of the pervert Paul attacking our National Security and lying about the position of the Founders. Paul claims that the perversion of practicing homosexuality should be open in the military and treated as being equal to heterosexuality. Paul is a pervert.
Short answer - no.
THE HAIR DRESSER VS. ANNIE OAKLEY
Pearl Harbor put an end to the isolationism or non-interventionism of Robert Taft the Elder who returned to conventional patriotism thereafter along with Colonel McCormack, John Flynn and the America First Committee generally. Lindbergh volunteered to fight the Nazis and was allowed to do so late in the war. Neville Chamberlain (the British paleoPaulie) was unceremoniously dumped in the trash can of history by Winston Churchill and Parliament and the Tory Party after his disgraceful cowardice at Munich. But for Churchill the Brits would have wound up a goose-stepping and German speaking nation which would not have bothered Chamberlain.
Your definitions from Wikipedia which will post anything, true or not, seem to suggest that non-interventionism amounts to isolationism PLUS plenty of trade deals and diployak.
Personally, I believe that the United States military has generally proven to be a far more effective diplomatic means than any stripe suited diployakking nation betraying aristocrat carving up our interests to get along with the similar good old boys on the other side of the table enjoying caviar, Dom Perignon and exotic taxpayer provided entrees as they take care of one another's privileged personal and family interests at the expense of those of normal citizens.
If there ever was a day for the paleoPaulie cowardice, eccentricity and general insanity masquerading as his foreign policy, it is long gone and it won't be back again.
I wish paleoPaulie well on his one and only area of competence: going after the Federal Reserve Bank. He should chair the subcommittee unless and until the moment he deviates into the avenues of his insanity. Then, he should leave public life.
We have an opportunity to form an alliance which can banish RATS from sea to shining sea forever. Paul with fiscon, Sarah with Socon/generalcon, and Petraeus with milcon.
Throw in a few Willaims, Kane, Sowell for — YES!— the concons, and it’s a done deal.
What do you think of this proposal?
In a three rounder, my money’s on Sarah! I’ll bet she packs a punch!
I forgot to rank: Sarah Prez, Petraeus VP, Paul Fed.
I have been of the opinion for six years back to his Fort Campbell days that Petraeus is a Democrat. He was a darling of Rick Atkinson in his book about the start of the Iraq war and I think Rick is a guy who has spent too much time in DC to write good military history.
Oh, you are much smarter than that Piss.
Your posting this thread shows that you prefer Paul over Palin.
Which you do, you have to.
Paul isn't a woman.
You also support Romney,Huckabee, Ginrich and other "men" in the same way and for the same reason in lieu of Sarah Palin a dreaded.....WOMAN!!!
If you don't support Paul, ask the mods to remove this thread. If not, well there you go Piss.
Whatever you imagine there, bloss.
Libertarian does not equal conservative
Tea Party does not equal libertarianism
And, Ron Paul certainly does not equal Sarah Palin. I doubt there's much crossover in supporters for these two at all.
Actually, only rock-ribbed Reaganites. No liberaltarians, no amnesty queens, no globalists, no surrender monkeys, no bailout queens, no flipfloppers, and no big government stooges.