Who Is Ron Paul? As the Iowa Caucus Approaches, We Are Learning a Great Deal About Paul. What We Know is Not Good for Him
As to Paul’s foreign policy, Dondero makes the cogent point that Paul favors a foreign policy that most Republicans, indeed most Americans, find abhorrent. He writes:
Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.
To put it another way, Paul agrees with the theories Pat Buchanan spelled out in his various books: an isolationist ideology that harks back to the 30s and the works of Charles A. Beard, Harry Elmer Barnes and others who first propagated the theory that FDR got us into an unjust war through the back door of Pearl Harbor. So it is not too much of a surprise to find that Paul believes in various 9/11 truther conspiracy theories, and finds that like FDR, Bush and Cheney were lying the U.S. into another imperialist war.
Ron Paul indeed has nowhere to go. The more he speaks what he believes, the further his appeal will prove itself to be very, very narrow. So, let us hope that come Iowa caucus day, the weather is indeed splendid and not too cold.
Ron Paul is probably being significantly helped by Obama supporters! Iowa’s rule allows non Republicans to cast votes. Obama has the Democrat nomination locked up. It therefore behooves left-wingers to hijack the GOP nomination process.
Yet, Paul is strongest amongst independents and Democrats. Republicans just grumble about him now, but he’ll get their vote in 2012. Neocons would pick him over Obama, for certain.
Couldn’t be farther from the truth. If it snows in Tartarus and Paul ends up the Republican nominee, I’ll run to the polls to vote for Obama, and so will plenty of other conservatives. Better a thumbless, errant foreign policy that occasionally does the right thing out of incompetence or cynicism, than one that’d cut off our allies and serenely watch them burn out of principle.
Well, I have voted for Republicans every election since I was old enough to vote and I detest Obama. But I would not vote for Ron Paul under any circumstances given his noxious foreign policy positions. I’d stay home, and I bet that there are many more Republican voters like me than you think.
Yes indeed. The same youth who followed Obama in 2008 and voted for him, treating his like King, Saint and even an icon follow this chicken Perdu guy Ron Paul, all those who smoke pot and voted for Obama now believe that they have gained advance knowledge (hahaha…)and have become fanatic Paul’s followers!!!
Hey even the NEW AMERICAN IDOL has endorsed him. This is the State of America people, a nation like sheep following one dog after another…
I always knew that Paul is nothing but a hippie at heart, a leftist dressed as a fake capitalist. Him and his fantasy bubble of world view is tantamount to America’s demise for sure, if he gets the job.
You left Sen. Robert “Mr. Republican” Taft and Congressman Howard Buffett (R-NE) among your list of “isolationist” losers.
Listen to Buffett in 1950:
“Even if it were desirable, America is not strong enough to police the world by military force. If that attempt is made, the blessings of liberty will be replaced by coercion and tyranny at home. Our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns. Persuasion and example are the methods taught by the Carpenter of Nazareth, and if we believe in Christianity we should try to advance our ideals by his methods. We cannot practice might and force abroad and retain freedom at home. We cannot talk world cooperation and practice power politics.”
And that Leftist Robert Taft:
“My conclusion, therefore, is that in the case of Korea, where a war was already under way, we had no right to send troops to a nation, with whom we had no treaty, to defend it against attack by another nation, no matter how unprincipled that aggression might be, unless the whole matter was submitted to Congress and a declaration of war or some other direct authority obtained.”
Isolationism has been very widespread in the U.S. See for instance http://clarespark.com/2011/06/03/neo-isolationists-and-the-jewish-problem/, especially the quotes from Lindbergh’s notorious Des Moines speech. And don’t forget America First, a large organization in coalition with the CPUSA during the Pact period, opposing aid to England and any other involvement in the war against Nazism and Fascism.And for more on Robert Hutchins and Chester Bowles see http://clarespark.com/2010/06/19/committee-for-economic-development-and-its-sociologists/. It was not just a few cranks who were isolationists, but powerful men of the “middle.”
Ron Paul has been in the House 30 years. Has he any victories to his credit? I have heard of none*. Certainly he has been monumentally ineffective in persuading his fellow Representatives to follow his supposed devotion to small government and the Constitution.
This means that if—God forbid—he were to be catapulted into the Oval Office, he would be even more at odds with the Congress than Barack Obama, who has had the benefit of a large number of far-left allies in Congress to carry his water for him. In other words, if Paul attempted to do what he claims to want to do he would either be stopped cold or would have to resort to flexing powers at least as dictatorial and anti-Constitutional as those the current occupant has used.
__________________
*While I have not heard of Ron Paul winning any victories for small government and the Constitution, I have heard rumors that Paul has been adept at “bringing home the bacon” during his term of office. If true, this means that the advocate of small, lean government has spent his 30 years in the government avidly doing, for his own district, precisely what he decries the government doing for every other district—which makes him a fraud and hypocrite of the first water.
Why does he keep getting re-elected?
Yawn.
The only person I can think of to come across worse than Obama would be Paul. I’ve listened to some of his comments and explanations. Even without a teleprompter Obama would come across better than Paul. I can imagine that if Paul were to win the nomination the media, democrats, and other would be able to find more than enough to make a lot of people question the viability of Paul as President (and the anti-Obama sentiment would not be enough to get Paul the win).
Leaves Romney as the last man standing in the Republican circular firing squad. Paul will have to be one hell of a salesman to beat Romney. If he can do that, maybe he can educate the voters for better or worse. If he can beat Romney he can beat Obama. I don’t see it happening though. I would be happy to see him as VP. The military industrial complex has too much say so in our government. We have little to show for Vietnam, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. We can show enough inflation to greatly weaken our economy however, and lost many good men, and many came home wounded. We do have the greatest military in the history of the world, and the most experienced modern fighters. Do we want to be a warrior society, and maintain an empire? If not, should we continue to spend more, on our military, than the rest of the world spends together?
The results of the Iowa cacus might say more about Iowa than about Ron Paul. It is a weird state in which a judge collaborated with the prosecution of the Rubashkin family, and in a notorious miscarriage of justice, gave him a stiff sentence. If Ron Paul wins, I recommend that we recognize the independence of Iowa and support its claim to membership as the 194th country to the UN
Amen to that, Herb! Lived there for two years, left last year. I love some of the Hawkeye State (it is surprisingly lovely, especially the eastern half), but some parts of it are nuttier than squirrel crap.
Interesting, as I find that historians also consider WWII blowback of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI. Indeed the treaty was not negotiated with Germany or any country, but demanded of them. Only in 2010 did Germany finally pay the “reparations”. Wilson however had not necessarily do anything but accept the treaty to get the deed done, he apparently preferred that Europe work at rebuilding itself with Germany a part of Europe rather then punish Germany. The treaty was overly harsh and did not lead to reunification.
Republicans are not on a winning path at this point, as hard as I (an independent) find it to believe, as much as I wish it were not so, the Republicans with their constant attacks on each other have put themselves on a path to losing the Presidency and Congress. How about the Republicans quit attacking each other so venomously and instead focus on winning, on showing they can do a better job.
“….historians also consider WWII blowback of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI.” Yes, this is the leftist historians’ interpretation. However, many of us who understand military theory (and practice) recognize that the rise of Nazi Germany is owed more to the fact that they were not utterly crushed and demoralized in WWI, but allowed to back up, re-group and fight another day.
Props to you though. You’re the first Paulistinian I’ve seen comment here who doesn’t come off sounding as kooky as your dear cult leader.
Maybe your historians consider WWII blowback from the Treaty of Versailles at the end of first world war. Mine consider it “blowback” for not defeating the Germans in the first world war. Mine wrote: General Pershing was set on blasting the German army out of existence, while it was (President Woodrow) Wilson’s hope to stage-manage “peace” negotiations at the 1919 Paris “Peace” Conference. Wilson wanted Germany to come to the peace table with strength. “Germany must not have surrendered unconditionally. She must have an army…”
“If they had given us another ten days,” Pershing complained, “we would have rounded up the entire German army….What I dread is that Germany does not know she was licked. Had they given us another week, we’d have taught them.” Even as he reached this conclusion, German officers were originating the theory of the “stab in the back” — the popaganda notion so successfully exploitd by Hitler that the German Army had never really been beaten, would never have surrendered, had it never been betrayed by enemies within the German state.
You see Mr. “win,” herein lies the difference between conservatives and Ron Paul and his libertarian-leaning supporters. Genuine conservative internalize the harsh lessons from history. Ron Paul and his supporters continue down dangerous paths of surrender and appeasement trod by Utopian “Wilsonians” and other useful idiots from our past.
It is interesting watching him troll for an Obama exemption from consequences–I had no idea Rev. Wright was preaching bigotry for twenty years. I wonder if Ron had the audacity to inhale or drop acid or do a line? A little consciousness raising could help.
I think ron paul’s a kook, mainly for his economic and foreign-policy ideas. But the way the right is piling on the guy, I’m starting to actually like him. A hint: When criticizing somebody for doing something, it’s a good idea to make sure they actually DID it first. People can check. The story about him “storming out” of an interview was a great belly-laugh. How long did CNN think they’d get away with that once people started demanding the unedited video? People don’t believe edited videos anymore – o’keefe made sure of that (is he in prison yet?).
As for whether paul would make a good president … well, he couldn’t do worse than bush. The US is still paying for what happened on his watch, and paying BIG. And none of it needed to happen. Of course, when ron paul pegs the exchange rate and trashes the economy, trashes trade agreements and provokes retaliatory export hurdles, takes his eye off the middle-east long enough for egypt and syria to attack israel, then you guys can all pin it on whichever democrat inherits the mess. That’s just how history works.
“As for whether paul would make a good president … well, he couldn’t do worse than bush. The US is still paying for what happened on his watch, and paying BIG. And none of it needed to happen. Of course, when ron paul pegs the exchange rate and trashes the economy, trashes trade agreements and provokes retaliatory export hurdles, takes his eye off the middle-east long enough for egypt and syria to attack israel, then you guys can all pin it on whichever democrat inherits the mess. That’s just how history works.”
First, the total debt under Pres. Bush was $1.2 T; under Zero it has grown $5.5T and now he wants $1.2T more.
Second, Paul wants to move our economy back to the gold standard. Since moving to the dollar has done so well; the reason is that we are printing paper which is becoming more meaningless; we will become Zimbabwe sooner than you think. What do you think will happen when Japan, UK, SA, and China call in their markers??? What if China and other nations un-peg from the dollar? So why not beat them to the punch?
Third, China has recently increased their import taxes against our exports to them. Plus they manipulate their money to their advantage. So if we lower our corporate tax rates, lower regulation, reinvigorate our industry and start making our own textiles, steel, and other products, we can afford to place some restrictions on “fair trade” which is a misnomer and has not helped us.
Fourth, Egypt and Syria attack Israel?? Only Iran is stupid and irrational enough to even contemplate attacking Israel. And Iran knows what will happen. Paul was the only Congressman to support Israel when they attacked Iraq’s nuke plants in 1981.
Going back to a Gold Standard would be problematic in the extreme. There simply isn’t enough gold in existence to back any major nation’s currency.
From “Mises on Money” Part II by Dr Gary North:
The optimum quantity of money should be determined by. . . “?
A. The national government
B. A national government-licensed central bank
C. A world central bank of central banks
D. The economics department of the University of Chicago
E. The unhampered free market
F. Allston (just kidding :^))
Who decides the central question of what is money and how much should be in circulation? Unless you answer “the unhampered free market” you are advocating some form of statism. Please do us the favor of familiarizing yourself with monetary theory before pontificating on the topic.
Except of course gold and silver currency does not exist as a result of an unhampered free market.
It must still be minted, according to some standards. That inevitably means a limit on how much is issued.
Each unit is inevitably assigned a value. By that very act, a specific value is assigned to a specific quantity, irrespective of the free market.
The supply, being limited, is subject to biased alterations. It can be hoarded, released, mined, not mined, and otherwise varied.
The solution to achieving a theoretical “perfect” “unhampered free market” in currency is not to have gold and silver currency, but to return to an absolute pre-currency barter system, in which case there is no currency at all.
By default, currency requires an authority, be it State or private, which will inevitably work to its own interest and aggrandizement.
Please do us the favor of familiarizing yourself with socio-econo-political function, and not merely a single ideology regarding it, before pontificating on the topic.
Please. You CAN find the figures online, you know. Bush ran up 2.4 trillion in a boom time, then jumped … just as a finacial fubar struck that he should have been paying attention to and taken steps to minimize. Obama’s been cleaning up that mess since day one and STILL manages to pursue a more effective domestic policy reform agenda.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist07z1.xls
Whether or not there is enough gold in the world, the US just plain can’t afford to peg its exchange rate. Particularly if it spooks the world’s central banks and causes them to reconsider it as a reserve currency, or leads to major commodities being priced in something else. It’s just wishful thinking dressed up as ‘economics’ – that the US can decide what its currency should be worth globally and not pay any price for trying.
China manipulates its currency, yes. But ‘advantage’ depends what you’re referring to. They’re fixed on boosting exports, at the expense of their population’s standard of living (I think they’re taking advantage of a closing window of opprtunity before their population starts to get uppity about about that … after all, they’re still pretty well used to it). Is the US willing to lower its standard of living to compete? Is the US willing to allow the same labour practices? The same willingness to accept pollution, medical impacts and environmental damage? Or maybe is it time to accept that there will be competition and reassess a few assumptions? Coz the gold standard isn’t going to prevent the inevitable, and the world recently got a lot bigger. To me, ron paul seems like a guy who wants the country to stick its head in ground and pretend nothing’s changed since 1960. It won’t work, and the rest of the world isn’t going to play along.
But he does seem like a nice enough guy.
Excellent remarks by all. What I am trying to get at is that RP wants to curtail our unrealistic spending habits. Sure returning to the gold standard is pretty much out the window, but he knows we need to do something. Something that Dear Leader, the communists (dems) and our RINOs do not want to do.
At least he is thinking of ways to help America regain her strength and status as the best nation this planet has seen. Unlike Dear Leader who wishes to destroy her. If you hold that against him then we are surely doomed.
Oh techno I was not counting the $800billion in TARP because that was right at the end of his term and everybody wanted it.
“Obama’s been cleaning up that mess since day one and STILL manages to pursue a more effective domestic policy reform agenda.”
After this gem I decided not to comment to the rest of your post. Obviously rationality and truth was not imbued into your character during your growth and development stages of life.
“After this gem I decided not to comment to the rest of your post”
I assume then that you got to the bit about china’s currency, realized that your grasp of economics and finance was insufficient and elected to vacate the field.
It’s hard when the facts don’t suit your ideology. I recommend that you find a new set of talking points, bring them back and I’ll tell you why they’re wrong.
And if you don’t count the financial bailouts as part of bush’s legacy, then there’s really not much point arguing. You might as well believe the moon is made of cheese if you think TARP wasn’t on his tab.
Oh, and you’re still 400 billion out, even if you add the TARP.
O’Keefe is brilliant, and he isn’t done yet.
“O’Keefe is brilliant,”
And he makes michael moore look honest and principled.
The Mittens coalition has become completely unhinged. The Trotskyites would have it no other way. Socialist heavy vs socialist lite. Less filling to be sure. It will be just as it was in the old country!
Ron Paul wants to save what’s left of the Republic. Which bugs the heck out of the Ron Radoshes of the world who are all gaga for the American Empire.
Oh I don’t doubt he wants to save the republic. Nor do I doubt that Obama wants to bring people to a more equal footing with eachother.
Neither will make me object.
Until I hear how the plan is to be undertaken that is.
And that is where Paul gets shafted because his plan sounds like crap unless you’re in his cabal.
Israel IS more trouble than it’s worth. HOW much MONEY should the United States be spending on defending the strongest military power in the Middle East (by a huge margin).
The United States SPENDS 40% MORE than it earns and it’s debt has officially entered Banana Republic status of OVER 100% GDP/Debt ratio. Change indeed.
What happens when our creditors stop lending us money? United States of Greece/Argentina/Zimbabwe? How’s the Soviet Union empire after it’s collapse? How’s Russia doing today or Argentina after their financial crisis due to endless “gorge the beast” spending sent them off the cliff?
Empires cannot run on hope and change or the delusion that the United States is TBTF because we say so. They require MONEY, money which the United States is fast running out of despite the denials of those who carry water for the failing ideology of endless infinite war.
The United States WILL suffer Total Economic Collapse if “business as usual”, especially in foreign policy, continues much longer.
We CANNOT afford the endless, infinite wars on everything anymore. It really is that simple.
Destitute nations CANNOT maintain empires, they often struggle to even hold themselves together.
Economic collapse – Change your getting…
Oh, for God’s sake, Israel gets $3 billion in loan guarantees which it uses to purchase military equipment made in the USA. Foreign aid in total is less than 3% of total expenditures. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the scope of the deficit, which is a function of burgeoning and unaffordable entitlement spending, particularly Medicare and Medicaid. And, with the idiotic payroll tax holiday, Social Security revenues are inadequate to its expenditures. Until someone has an intelligent plan to deal with the entitlements, the deficit will not be fixed.
“Israel gets $3 billion in loan guarantees which it uses to purchase military equipment made in the USA”
You’d be shocked to find out how often that’s how military equipment gets paid for
The permanent members of the security council also happen to be the world’s largest arms exporters, and all of them use loan guarantees, export credits and other kinds of “aid” to underwrite their local arms industry. They all see it as a strategic investment. The US is no different, and Israel is a fairly normal sort of customer as it goes. It’s a prosperous country, but it’s also very small and faces a number of large challenges. So it’s not too surprising.
Mr. Paul seems to attract the most extreme and eccentric amoungst us to his campaign.
Casper “Odinson” Crowll endorced Ron Paul back in 2007. Mr. Crowell is a celebrity dropout from the Aryan Brotherhood Prison Gang.
He whiles away his life sentence promoting both Mr. Paul & the racialist religion of Odinism from Corcoran (California) State Prison.
And now you see why I support a brokered convention. So, my fellow conservatives, how desperate are you? Are you willing to risk everything on one last all-in bet, or are you just going to cower and lose by attrition?
Nevermind his policies. Ron Paul is too old to be President!
Watch a youtube video of Paul from the early 1990′s or before. He’s much more articulate, measured, and coherent than he is now. Nowadays, at the age of 76, he’s cantankerous, impatient, hurried, easily flustered, sometimes incoherent and rigidly set in his ways. He’s no longer a viable candidate for a position in which he’d have to solve enormous problems, thoughtfully and intelligently. He’s deteriorating intellectually, and it’s becoming conspicuous. Imagine how noticeable it’ll be when he’s in his first year in office at the age of 78.
Add to that the fact that he’s unleashing the hounds of hatred, and he’s simply bad news. He’s got the Stormfront vote locked up, that’s for sure. Jews, blacks, gays and other minorities should be VERY troubled by the hate-spewing fanatics crawling out of the woodwork, energized by their cult leader Paul. I’ve never seen so much vicious hatred spewed online as I have in recent weeks, much of it coming from the pro-Paul fanatics.
I will not vote for Ron Paul….period.
PJ Media and others are sure spending alot of time and talent on a guy who has no chance of winning anything, let alone the GOP nomination. He will not win Iowa because his support is from basement dwellers and children who will not go to anyone’s house or God forbid a government building to vote.
I know what the polls say, just ask President Dean about their accruacy. The GOP nominee will be either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich and that is what the choice will be. Time to get on with this thing and target the real threat to America, Barack Hussein Obama.
As for Iowa, they voted for Bush over Reagan in 1980. They should have lost their place in line just for that stupidity.
Ron Paul considers World War II “unnecessary.”
WELL THEN: Let’s imagine Paul’s little world AFTER 1945 with a victorious Nazi Germany and Japan…
*NOW*, imagine what that suggests for TODAY’S America with a NUCLEAR IRAN.
*That’s* the real-world deadly consequence of this man’s blindly rigid ideology…BUT HE’S “CONSISTENT”!!!
It didn’t matter that the Soviets beat the Nazis; why would it matter the other way around? Europe has always been irrelevant to America. We should stick to our own hemisphere and be happy with it.
End the wars. Ron Paul 2012.
Actually it did matter because it was not the Soviets who defeated the Nazis but the United States.
Had the U.S. avoided WW II the Nazis would have won and the U.S. would have been Minor Power rather than a Superpower, and thus severely hampered in any attempt to resist further expansion by both the Nazis and the Japanese.
*eye roll*
Seriously? The US defeated the nazis all by itself? Makes me wonder why the US took so long to get involved, if it was that easy. Also makes me wonder how the US managed to get so many russian-speaking troops into berlin.
Did the US win WWI as well?
I find myself asking similar questions about Paul that I asked when Obama started his campaign. Is he naive? Is he willfully dangerous? Etc. But I’m beyond those questions now because what matters is the world view and the policies they enact. I don’t care about their motives. It’s enough to know they are dangerous. Paul is a menace. It is deeply disturbing to see how much support he is getting. Are his supporters ignorant or naive, or are they willfully dangerous? I know not.
While Paul’s fiscal policies are appealing to me, he loses me on ALL of the rest of his policies.
The epiphany I got about Ron Paul, his supporters and about the Ron Paul campaign was when his supporters were compared and contrasted with the supporters of Obama: Both groups of supporters WORSHIP THEIR LEADERS. This alone should be THE warning sign to all interested parties.
Whenever you try to debate one of Paul’s followers, their worship of him becomes evident in their personal attacks on you. His policies can’t be debated, simply because, in a supporter’s mind, he is “the annointed one, the golden child, who can do no wrong, and the only VISIONARY with the solution to our problems.
I think we can officially declare the existence of PDS among Republicans. Mention Paul and the lamestream goes straight out of their minds. Most entertaining.
I was surprised at Paul’s sudden popularity. Somehow, I gt the feeling nobody recalled his presence in the 2008 GOP debates, when every question he was asked was answered with a screed about the existence of Israel and why it was the source of all our problems.
But even if you disregard that, Paul and his followers exist in a very strange reality tunnel. As shown here courtesy of Ace of Spades (hat tip to Real Clear Politics);
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/325080.php
Based on this, I would have to say that neither Paul or his supporters are too tightly wrapped.
Never mind their geopolitical views. Paul and his people are living in their own parallel universe.
We have a bunch of those in the White House now. That’s one of our major problems.
More of the same is not a viable alternative.
clear ether
eon
The Republicans have no principles to speak of except “it’s bad when they do it and good when we do” (c.f. John McCain). Paul gets support because the Republicans more or less disowned the libertarian wing of the Reagan Coalition under Bush Sr and Jr and even the prospect of McCain, who were truly awful (and recall, o ye erstwhile guardians of liberty, who refused to veto McCain-Feingold?). So yeah, he’s a kook, but creating an electoral threat is getting play as a means of forcing people to pay attention (which is, of course, the time-honored play of any political minority).
I would not vote for RP, however in a poll I might say I am. Many of us describe ourselves these days as libertarian-leaning conservatives to separate ourselves from RINOs/establishment Republicans. Republicans know they have their grassroots (conservatives) as we would never vote for Obama (and we do vote) and feel they can choose anyone for us. After all if you think you have your base wrapped up, why kowtow? I consider this a warning shot over the bow to Republicans. We conservatives are feeling closer to Libertarian candidates these days than Republicans and as soon as there is one that is not RonPaul they may really be surprised- they ARE noticing now, aren’t they? (I don’t think they realize how angry many of us are about McCain/Romney and are tired of their ‘fear’ of democrats/media).
I seem to recall Ron Paul having formally left the Republican Party, whose presidential nomination he now seeks. Paul is a Constitution-loving Conservative one moment, and Libertarian Isolationist spouting whacky ideas the next.
My fear is not that Paul would become the Republican candidate, but would run as an idependent and syphon enough votes away ala Ross Perot to ensure Obama’s re-election, the final triumph of Marxism…and the end of America as our Founding Fathers established it.
“My fear is not that Paul would become the Republican candidate, but would run as an idependent and syphon enough votes away ala Ross Perot to ensure Obama’s re-election”
Give that man a cigar!….
why else is he being covered favorably the press normally hostile to all things “conservative”?
You dang fools. You’ll have us all hanging by the noose of the progressives for your support of candidates who have no intent of any real cuts. Take your Gingrich and your Romney, if you must! Watch them raise the debt and crush your freedoms beneath their feet. But never say we didn’t warn you, and know that you called us kooks and crazies for it. We’ll be in a state of perpetual war against vague, shifting enemies. The TSA will expand. The debt will grow. Your 4th Amendment rights will continue to erode. The borders will remain open. You will change nothing, because you’re too busy calling people crazy just for telling the truth.
Read 1984 again and see how much of it applies to modern America, including the GOP.
Why is it that only the Paulistinians are smart enough to see light, and the other 90% of us are just so doggone dumb? hmmmmm….
Ron Paul: crackbrained little quisling garden gnome. Well, at least this’ll be his last real hurrah; in 2016, he’ll be manifestly too old to run (not that it’ll stop him trying)
“Take your Gingrich and your Romney, if you must! Watch them raise the debt and crush your freedoms beneath their feet. But never say we didn’t warn you, and know that you called us kooks and crazies for it. We’ll be in a state of perpetual war against vague, shifting enemies. The TSA will expand. The debt will grow. Your 4th Amendment rights will continue to erode. The borders will remain open. You will change nothing, because you’re too busy calling people crazy just for telling the truth.”
Ah, yes. Everything is proceeding according to my design!
Well, if all you’re doing is arguing with sock puppets, why are you wasting your time here? Why don’t ya go somewhere that isn’t infested with sock puppets?
Romney is not Natural born.. hence the reason he is being pushed as the ‘alternative’ to Barry..
unless you can prove George Romney is an American Citizen though born in Mexico to parents born in Mexico, don’t bother with a reply..
Just because you refuse to accept the 14th Amendment does not mean the rest of us have to.
Mitt Romney was born in the U.S., he is a natural born citizen.
you mean as viewed through a progressive prism.. no thanks.. the 14th does not address ‘natural born’.. nor was it meant for ‘jackpot babies’ like Marco Rubio whos parents were not naturalized yet when he was born.
Ron Paul will be the President the House will crucify..
what’s the point of a President that the ‘ruling class’ hates? Barry has the Sociodems in his corner..
Which party does Ron Paul actually command as a Democrat supported Republican President?
of course, Ron Paul supporters don’t care that the Dem supporters that are buoying him are doing so that even if Obama loses they have a Stormfront target to destroy actual Republicanism forever..
btw.. Greatest vetting process EVAH!!!!
Vote Ron Paul.. because if Congress impeaches him and the Senate convicts him, Dennis Kucinich will take his place!!!
Ron Paul supporters are morons..
As a Buckeye, I hereby humbly apologize for Cleveland/Cuyahoga County repeatedly sending Dennis the Menace back to Washington. (NB; I’m in the other end of the state.)
I keep hoping he’ll hop a ride on one of those UFOs he claims to see- and forget to come back.
cheers
eon
All I know is my pappy told me never trust a man with two first names.
I am ticked off and amazed at the stupidity of those arguing against Ron Paul.. Does anyone understand that he fights for our freedom?? Racist?? You got to be kidding me.. Has anyone read those articles? Is everyone out there just out of diapers therefore not knowing when our country was filled with hard working individuals taking responsibility for their own actions, and not little cry babies wondering when their next drink for the government teet will be coming?? We used to be embarrassed taking government money. I am aghast at the stupidity of everyone out there who thinks a Constitutionalist is the extremist.. Are you Americans who believe in freedom, or Marxist lovers of the Obamanation we have in the White House?? I won’t even discuss the Rino Republicrats Romney and Gingrich et al.. They support government healthcare and global warming legislation for crying out loud. Ron Paul believe in you, period. You, have your money/freedom, and take care of yourself. It’s disgusting and embarrassing the dumb attacks on Ron Paul.
RON PAUL WILL DIE, BUT ISRAEL WILL LIVE
Let Ron Paul and his army of crackpot, delusional anti-Zionist zealots smear Israel with lies and pro-Palestinian propaganda till hell runs over. Let him theorize that if Israel didn’t exist there would have been no 9/11, no Global War on Terror, no wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, no thousands of US civilians and soldiers injured and dead, no conflict with Iran over nuclear weapons, no hatred of America by the Moslem world. Let him scapegoat Israel all he wants and dream of a world without her, and how it would bring an end to jihad and peace to America. Let him rant and rave till the end of his losing candidacy that he alone can bring peace to a troubled world and prosperity back to America. Like Abdel Nasser, Ayatollah Khomeini, Hafez al-Assad, Yassar Arafat, bin Laden, and an assortment of genocidal Hamas leaders Ron Paul will die and go to his grave but Israel will live remaining America’s closest friend and ally in the civilizational war with totalitarian Islam.
Has anyone noticed the similarity between Ron Paul and Iowa born William Appleman Williams and the Wisconsin school of American History?
I wished we could clone Ron Paul with Rick Perry. That would be a killer candidate.
Just imagine the scenario, Ron Paul, squeeky voice answering a ‘gotcha’
question by MSM “unbaised” debate monitors and the “Voice-in-Chief” responds with his usual debate personna in front of gazillion American voters.
Question: Who looks more Presidential? Squeeky or Mr. Cool? Just take a stab at the answer!
That’s what’s happening in Iowa. Simple! Two-plus-two is definitely four. Two alliances (White House and everything leftist MSM) plus two experts in political machinations: Mr. Axelrod and Emmanuel, equals a resouding four percentage point spread (or more) for Mr. Obama in General Elections.
Culture of Corruption, with its birthplace in We The Elite People of Washington DC is well on its way to another FOUR years of successfully ‘transforming’ Our Blessed USA! Vote massively for Ms. Bachmann. Save Our USA. God Bless America.
You still have to account for Paul’s strength. I don’t believe it lies in his economic or foreign policies. His positions come closest to representing the white male voter. To get up to date approximately about this voter see the book by David Paul Kuhn entitled “The Neglected Voter”. The Democratic Party has been hemorrhaging white male voters to the Republican Party. The two Bush administrations did very little for him so he turned to the tea party movement. The current cast of characters offer him nothing directly but Ron Paul comes closest. That is what makes Paul a serious contender. This analysis is in line with the article (widely ignored) by Thomas Edsall which appeared in the New York Times. It is confirmed by important Democratic Party analysts Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira. The Iowa contender that promises for example to do away with Affirmative Action will surge in the polls.
Ron Paul is a NAZI