Posted on 08/16/2011 4:17:26 AM PDT by Rufus2007
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann’s victory in Saturday’s straw poll in Ames, Iowa has earned her a lot of media attention for her 2012 presidential bid. But nipping at her heels only 152 votes behind was Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who has gotten little-to-no attention from the media for his feat on Saturday.
And although one might think attention is deserved for Paul, according to Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, Paul is being ignored for one reason: He doesn’t stand a chance. Krauthammer explained this on Monday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel.
...more (w/video)...
(Excerpt) Read more at thedc.com ...
...a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.” To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were “the only people to act like real Americans,” it explained, “mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England.”
As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.”
More words of wisdom from the self proclaimed genius. Go away Charlie.
That being said, what they don't seem to understand is that Paul will never win the Republican nomination, let alone the presidency. The reason? His support tops out at about 15% - 20% of primary voters, while the other 80% - 85% would never vote for him under any circumstance whatsoever. He will never win them over no matter what he says or does, they simply will never support him, even if he was the only candidate on the ballot they still wouldn't, they would run a third party challenge first.
When you tell him this, does he call you an idiot? Does he suggest to you that maybe you should study up on the federal budget process before opening your mouth?
Dr. Paul votes against the budget because of the unconstitutional spending within it. After that budget passes and is signed into law, he does his job of representing his constituents by passing on requests from them to get some of their tax money back. Money that is already budgeted and money that will be spent on something.
What would you do different? Oh, sorry - you already implied the answer... you'd tell your constituents that you were fine with them paying fed taxes but that you wouldn't lift a finger to help get some of that money back to the district.
Nah, its a truth thing.
I said the same thing on a thread last week. We'll never have a perfect candidate, but we can do our best to rid the country of barky.
Ron Paul would be a foreign policy disaster. There is a slight chance he’d come around, as Obama did (remember closing Guantanamo?) once he get’s his first Security Briefing and they open up, in the words of the great Dennis Miller, “The Big Book of How F*cked Up Everything Really Is”. However, that isn’t really a chance we can take, is it?
Your definition of what constitutes non ideological is wrong.
The beauty of our Constitution is that is is not ideological. Nor is capitalism ideological. In fact they are anti-ideological.
Ideologies include Marxism, socialism and fascism. All of these ideologies are anti-God. They believe they have the answer to everything. The fact that all of them have, or are in the process of, failing where ever they’ve been tried falls on ideologue’s deaf ears.
Our Constitution and Bill of Rights is rooted in a belief that humans have inalienable rights conferred on us by a superior being. That is summed up in the declaration that people have an inalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The ideologues believe the state controls these essential components of human life.
Our Constitution does not tell us how much we can earn, where we can live, what vehicles we will be allowed to drive, what clothes we will be allowed to wear or what food we will be allowed to eat.
No sir, I’m not a moderate. Nor do I respect people who seem unable, on their own, to arrive at what they believe in life. The have no persistent principles. Anyone who proudly and smugly says they listen to both both sides and then decide which argument they like has no side.
Yes, sir, I’m a principled Constitutionalist. My principles are not negotiable. I believe in right and wrong. And I’m very very judgemental.
I don’t think any thing I’ve said bears any resemblance to a moderate. Do you?
Reagan announced he was running on Nov. 13th 1979 with the Statue of Liberty as the backdrop.
Thanks. I didn't remember the date but recalled it being much later than now in the campaign cycle. It's a real shame that Newt messed in his nest. Newt is an expert at communicating the conservative concept.
How about only earmarking those things only permitted under the Constitution such as military spending.
Dr. Paul makes a good argument that all federal spending should be earmarked - i.e. every budgeted dollar should be allocated to a specific purpose.
I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. Paul could simply earmark those things passed in the spending bills which are authorized by the Constitution like defense spending and still bring back some of his constituents money to his district. Instead he earmarks all types of unconstitutional spending while wrapping himself in the Constitution. He’s a hypocrite.
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.