So much fail, in such a short post. And you're an old-timer, too.
Posted on 01/09/2012 1:12:37 PM PST by Kaslin
I don't know what he thinks, but I think so. The difference between that position and Paul's being, he'd never declare war on anybody. He'd be dead in the enemy's first strike.
There's a place for Paul in American political life:
Vivisecting Alan Greenspan. With a dull scalpel. While we make Ben Bernanke, Hank "the Shank" Paulsen, and Little Timmy Geithner watch. On the "you're next" bench.
But it isn't in the White House.
Thought you might find this interesting. I decided to do a search on LaRouche because there are some who are comparing him to Paul.
I found no less than five sites of LaRouche supporters going nuts because of the comparison.
Their theory is LaRouche is a reasonable and thoughtful man and Paul is just a nut case.
And it just gets better and better.....
(Read up again on LaRouche and just not seeing much difference at all between the two, except he is/was running as a democrat and Paul keeps sticking it the Republicans.)
Hi, kid, nice of you to stop by. And express contempt for conservative "talk radio".
You know without Rush and Clear Channel, there'd be a liberal monopoly of information and comment? That Fleet Street wouldn't be able to review, from their remote perch, the misdeeds of our Marxist cabal for American readers?
No Rush, no Levin or Savage or Ingraham or .... or you name it. And no conservative Internet sites either, probably -- I mean, where would they get content, to attract and hold eyes?
But thanks for stopping by to spit on us. Good deal that your daddy is wealthy enough to afford you access to one of Europe's great libraries, while people over here are struggling to get and keep jobs in the face of a privileged leisure class and their mandarin footmen who are determined to drive them down into helotry, ignorance, and serfdom.
Please finishing reading the contents of your library before you post up again. We'll be sure to check with you.
There are two groups that remind me of Lyndon LaRouche and his soldiers. That's the Paulbots, with their fervor and ubiquity, and the hardfaces on Obama's staff (Plouffe, Axelrod, Jarrett) who are sticking it to this country despite their Dear Leader's fecklessness and ineffectuality. I'd number ex-Sen. Tom Daschle among the latter, since he's a) a hardface (just look at him) and b) he was the political godfather and imagineer of the Obama "blank movie screen" ballyhoo campaign.
LaRouche was a KGB Active Measures asset who (supposedly) went indie after a while. (Not necessarily.) And of course Obama's crowd were all CPUSA, SDS, and/or Weather Underground and ACORN and Move veterans (or survivors) from back in the day. Notice that the connections between the New Democratic Party and the Obama Administration are mostly Old Left, i.e. CPUSA, Saul Alinsky, Wade Rathke, rather than New Left (the Mobe, CORE, Panther Party, Bill and Hillary's SDS -- which last was also mentored by Active Measures back in the 60's and 70's).
Yeah he still has his 20 million or so stragglers. BTW, how many people take YOU seriously? Not counting your mother?
Rush makes excellent sense. He’s right in saying that the Democrats are dissimulating when they say they are afraid of Romney. Rush is right on the money in declaring that the Democrats want Romney as the opponent. They’ve been attacking every other Republican contender.
So much fail, in such a short post. And you're an old-timer, too.
The Constitution demands our defeat? Yup, I should really take you seriously. /s
That's what Dr. Paul Demento thinks, genius. It's what you're so rabidly supporting, remember?
Do you have a link where Ron Paul say that "the Constitution demands our defeat"? Or am I suppose to just take your word on that?
I am curious what do you have against some one that is simply advocating for small honest constitutional government? I find it very strange that so called conservatives are up in arms against the idea that the Constitution should in fact be the rule of the land. But like you say I am an old timer and I have old fashioned ideas.
I don’t think that a formal declaration of war in anyway sums up either the Ron Paul foreign policy, or that of George Soros. They both want to isolate the US from its allies, as well as from its enemies.
The ONLY difference between Ron Paul’s political philosophy and George Soros’ philosophy is that Ron Paul wouldn’t agree to ceding US jurisdiction to a world governing power, but he would allow the world governing power to take over the rest of the world. US sovereignty wouldn’t last long under those circumstances.
There just is very little difference between Ron Paul and George Soros.
“he would allow the world governing power to take over the rest of the world.”
... sigh ...
I guess I really do have to explain to you that the picture I posted was a parody. It's satire. Do you understand that?
Whoever created that image inserted the phrase, "The Constitution Demands Our Defeat" as a slam on Ron Paul's lunatic foreign policy, which certainly would lead to our defeat if he were elected.
My mother's dead so I reckon she ain't taking anyone seriously, including me.
I don't find Ron Paul to be a liberal and it's amazing to me that Rush thinks everyone else is leeming enough to believe it.
But maybe they are.
Who voted to approve the war in Iraq? First of all, I was talking about George Soros. The UN resolutions were a result of US pressure. The US went to the UN as part of the PR campaign.
The fact is that we had accomplished just about as much as we were going to in Afghanistan. We had made our point and were ready to greatly reduce our presence in the country. Afghanistan is the true “no-man’s” land, where nothing good happens from staying too long. But..., we still needed to stay in the M.E. to try to quell the growing unrest and destabilization of the area, as well as put a lid on the radical Islamic movement that was determined to wage an ideological and religious war against the west, our economic system and our culture. Saddam was financing and aiding that war against the west.
Obama took us back into Afghanistan and turned a relative success into a failure, with a very high cost in lives and money. Killing Osama does not make up for the loss of lives, money and respect that Obama’s war in Afghanistan has cost us.
Obama’s lack of spine in Iraq has also cost us. The radical Islamists were waging a war against us for years before 9/11 and we reacted like we were swatting at flies. We got their attention in Afghanistan and then tried to stabilize Iraq, with less than perfect results, but to have not tried would have made us look weak and would have simply invited more attacks by the Islamists.
Ron Paul and George Soros want to see a weakened US, with no allies that will rush to our sides because our allies will know that we cannot reciprocate. Ron Paul hates America as much as George Soros does.
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.