MSNBC - The bane of conservatives - is one of the few outlets acknowledging Paul wins

[Google]

Wins what? As for MSNBC, they'll try to paint Paul as a racist when it suits them.

He came in third in Iowa.

Won a NH young republican straw poll.

Ron Paul Wins New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll

I like a lot of what Ron Paul says--BUT--he really doesn't have a shot in winning the nomination--primarily over his foreign policy stance. It's hard to get Americans to believe that if we knew where OSB was--that we shouldn't violate foreign air space to get him. That's what Ron Paul says. Also--Iran getting a Nuke is a very dangerous policy. The birth of terrorism starts and ends in Iran--and I believe they would have no qualms what-so-ever is using a nuke. So that's where Ron Paul goes wrong with the sentiment of the American public.

However--I do see a real up and comer in his son Rand Paul--and he may be President one day because of his stances. He just needs to tweek a little on his dad's foreign policy.

Perhaps, and I don't want to prejudge you, you didn't live through the Cold War, but a world power with a military that rivaled ours with nuclear technology was much more of a threat to America than a nuclear Iran.

That is a excuse for our military intervention in other countries.

By the way, Ron Paul isn't an isolationist, he is a non-interventionist.

 

[dblack]

I am sick of hearing "I like what he says, but he can't win", it is god damned bull shit.

I think I've figured out what this means. Along with it's counterpart "Ron Paul has good ideas on fiscal policy, but he loses me on foreign policy..."

The people uttering this rationalizations are neo-cons trying to dodge the embarrassment of the Bush legacy. They want to slip out from underneath the shame of the Bush administration, but they still hang on to the neo-con version of American Exceptionalism - which translates roughly to "We rock! And we should rule the world!"

 

[Avorysuds]

I am sick of hearing "I like what he says, but he can't win", it is god damned bull shit.

I think I've figured out what this means. Along with it's counterpart "Ron Paul has good ideas on fiscal policy, but he loses me on foreign policy..."

The people uttering this rationalizations are neo-cons trying to dodge the embarrassment of the Bush legacy. They want to slip out from underneath the shame of the Bush administration, but they still hang on to the neo-con version of American Exceptionalism - which translates roughly to "We rock! And we should rule the world!"

It means they are Progressive big Government liberal Neocons that don't mind debt growing at a rate that will leave us un able to pay it back... Of course these same people usually don't want to cut anything meaningful.

 

[Synthaholic]

Rand Paul has done well so far. He is carrying on his father's legacy in the Senate.

Not even close. He's a hypocrite and a disaster.

You'll understand, of course, if us conservatives don't exactly accept the opinion of a partisan liberal

Don't take my word for it!

The charge? Paul, who strongly opposes government handouts, receives a large amount of Medicare and Medicaid payments from his ophthalmology practice. These are pretty damning accusations. If there’s anything in politics that’s worse than being called a racist, it’s being called a hypocrite. From the Associated Press:

His campaign has said about half of Paul’s medical income in Bowling Green has come from Medicare and Medicaid payments — which it says is in line with the average for eye doctors around the country.



Since 2005, Paul has received slightly more than $130,000 in Medicaid funds, about one-third of the amount he billed the program, according to the Kentucky cabinet that administers the state-federal health insurance program for the poor and disabled.
​

As for the exact figures on his Medicare payments, those are unclear as Paul and his campaign have refused to disclose them. This refusal has worked as even more ammunition from the Conway team.




So, is this a fair criticism? A little bit, yeah. The problem is, Libertarianism is a tough ideal to hold to, especially when you run a medical office that caters primarily to the elderly.
From the Associated Press:

“Paul campaign manager Jesse Benton defended Paul’s acceptance of Medicare and Medicaid payments, saying that to shun the two health care programs would “penalize his older patients or his poor patients.”



Paul said he sees patients who rely on the government programs, private insurance or who pay for their own care.



‘I don’t discriminate in my practice, and though I’d prefer to have less government intervention in … medicine, I put my patients first in this matter,’ the Republican said. ‘My medical practice has never been about any ideology or running for office.’”
​

 

[Synthaholic]

Wins what? As for MSNBC, they'll try to paint Paul as a racist when it suits them.

He came in third in Iowa.

Won a NH young republican straw poll.

Ron Paul Wins New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll

I like a lot of what Ron Paul says--BUT--he really doesn't have a shot in winning the nomination--primarily over his foreign policy stance. It's hard to get Americans to believe that if we knew where OSB was--that we shouldn't violate foreign air space to get him. That's what Ron Paul says. Also--Iran getting a Nuke is a very dangerous policy. The birth of terrorism starts and ends in Iran--and I believe they would have no qualms what-so-ever is using a nuke. So that's where Ron Paul goes wrong with the sentiment of the American public.

However--I do see a real up and comer in his son Rand Paul--and he may be President one day because of his stances. He just needs to tweek a little on his dad's foreign policy.

That sounds just like "It's hard to get Americans to believe that if this terrorist has information we want, that we shouldn't torture him to get it."

It's a bullshit argument, especially from a group who profess their love for the Constitution.

 

[Google]

Not even close. He's a hypocrite and a disaster.

You'll understand, of course, if us conservatives don't exactly accept the opinion of a partisan liberal

Don't take my word for it!

The charge? Paul, who strongly opposes government handouts, receives a large amount of Medicare and Medicaid payments from his ophthalmology practice. These are pretty damning accusations. If there’s anything in politics that’s worse than being called a racist, it’s being called a hypocrite. From the Associated Press:

His campaign has said about half of Paul’s medical income in Bowling Green has come from Medicare and Medicaid payments — which it says is in line with the average for eye doctors around the country.



Since 2005, Paul has received slightly more than $130,000 in Medicaid funds, about one-third of the amount he billed the program, according to the Kentucky cabinet that administers the state-federal health insurance program for the poor and disabled.
​

As for the exact figures on his Medicare payments, those are unclear as Paul and his campaign have refused to disclose them. This refusal has worked as even more ammunition from the Conway team.




So, is this a fair criticism? A little bit, yeah. The problem is, Libertarianism is a tough ideal to hold to, especially when you run a medical office that caters primarily to the elderly.
From the Associated Press:

“Paul campaign manager Jesse Benton defended Paul’s acceptance of Medicare and Medicaid payments, saying that to shun the two health care programs would “penalize his older patients or his poor patients.”



Paul said he sees patients who rely on the government programs, private insurance or who pay for their own care.



‘I don’t discriminate in my practice, and though I’d prefer to have less government intervention in … medicine, I put my patients first in this matter,’ the Republican said. ‘My medical practice has never been about any ideology or running for office.’”
​

What is your point?

 

[Synthaholic]

Ron Paul will never be president for the same reason Rand Paul won't, Dennis Kucinich won't, Paul E. Tsongas wasn't, Hubert Humphrey wasn't, Gary Bauer wasn't: they are all wimpy men. Americans will not vote for a wimpy man for president, no matter what his ideas are.

The only reason Wimpy Bush won was because Dukakis was even wimpier. Perot was wimpy in stature, but talked tougher than anyone else and had proven his toughness in business. But losing his nerve in the summer of 1992 kept him from maybe being the exception to the wimpy rule.

 

[dblack]

Ron Paul will never be president for the same reason Rand Paul won't, Dennis Kucinich won't, Paul E. Tsongas wasn't, Hubert Humphrey wasn't, Gary Bauer wasn't: they are all wimpy men. Americans will not vote for a wimpy man for president, no matter what his ideas are.

That's pretty fucking hilarious. Let's talk about penis size!!!

 

[Synthaholic]

Ron Paul will never be president for the same reason Rand Paul won't, Dennis Kucinich won't, Paul E. Tsongas wasn't, Hubert Humphrey wasn't, Gary Bauer wasn't: they are all wimpy men. Americans will not vote for a wimpy man for president, no matter what his ideas are.

That's pretty fucking hilarious. Let's talk about penis size!!!

No thanks, dude. Maybe you should go here for that, if that's your thing:

GaySpeak Gay Forums | Online Community | Chat

 

[Wicked Jester]

I'm a Libertarian and I like Paul.

Still, Paul supporters DO have a problem. Too many racists embrace Paul. The Stormfront JOOOOOO haters just love him. I'm not sure why, but they do. Trust me, I always encourage them to go support Obama, but often they come back to Paul. The Paul camp needs to loudly and publicly disavow these neo-Nazis.

It's not that mysterious. Ron Paul represents the only significant challenge to the status quo. Naturally, people dissatisfied with the status quo, people who find themselves shut out by the current establishment, will be in favor of shaking things up. They also make the same mistake that many on he left make and see Paul's principled opposition to identity politics as an endorsement of their bigoted beliefs. But fringe groups with bizarre agendas support mainstream candidates as well; it's only an issue with Paul because it goes well with the establishment's campaign to portray him as a nutjob.

Nobody's "portraying" him as a nujob........He is a friggin' nutjob.

 

[Google]

Ron Paul will never be president for the same reason Rand Paul won't, Dennis Kucinich won't, Paul E. Tsongas wasn't, Hubert Humphrey wasn't, Gary Bauer wasn't: they are all wimpy men. Americans will not vote for a wimpy man for president, no matter what his ideas are.

The only reason Wimpy Bush won was because Dukakis was even wimpier. Perot was wimpy in stature, but talked tougher than anyone else and had proven his toughness in business. But losing his nerve in the summer of 1992 kept him from maybe being the exception to the wimpy rule.

Alright Miss Cleo, perhaps you should look into that crystal ball and get the lotto numbers. Or at least get a 800 number.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Ron Paul will never be president for the same reason Rand Paul won't, Dennis Kucinich won't, Paul E. Tsongas wasn't, Hubert Humphrey wasn't, Gary Bauer wasn't: they are all wimpy men. Americans will not vote for a wimpy man for president, no matter what his ideas are.

The only reason Wimpy Bush won was because Dukakis was even wimpier. Perot was wimpy in stature, but talked tougher than anyone else and had proven his toughness in business. But losing his nerve in the summer of 1992 kept him from maybe being the exception to the wimpy rule.

So, care to explain how whimpy Obama got elected?

Paul won't be elected because he's a friggin' nutter to the core.

 

[dblack]

No thanks, dude. Maybe you should go here for that, if that's your thing:

GaySpeak Gay Forums | Online Community | Chat

Is that your usual hangout? What do they think of Ron Paul?

You seem most interested in diverting the discussion away from the ideas and toward your insecure notions of 'wimpiness'. Were you picked on as a kid? It's ok to admit. Tell us about it.

 

[Charles_Main]

The Bane of Conservatives? You do realize that MSNBC's Ratings are TERRIBLE. Only very far left idiots watch it. All they do is preach to the Choir. Nothing more than the Democratic parties Propaganda Arm. Far more so than even FOX is to the Republicans.

The Far left Ideologues running that Network should be ashamed to call themselves Journalists at all.

 

[Google]

Ron Paul will never be president for the same reason Rand Paul won't, Dennis Kucinich won't, Paul E. Tsongas wasn't, Hubert Humphrey wasn't, Gary Bauer wasn't: they are all wimpy men. Americans will not vote for a wimpy man for president, no matter what his ideas are.

The only reason Wimpy Bush won was because Dukakis was even wimpier. Perot was wimpy in stature, but talked tougher than anyone else and had proven his toughness in business. But losing his nerve in the summer of 1992 kept him from maybe being the exception to the wimpy rule.

So, care to explain how whimpy Obama got elected?

Paul won't be elected because he's a friggin' nutter to the core.

Really? I don't think we need to rehash the facts of the 2008 presidential election. How Obama got elected is well documented.

20% of Americans are satisfied with the direction of this country. Nutter? The hell are you saying? Oh, an ideological consistent 12 term Congressman has no chance.

Do you actually have something to contribute instead of the same bullshit?

 

[Charles_Main]

I'm a Libertarian and I like Paul.

Still, Paul supporters DO have a problem. Too many racists embrace Paul. The Stormfront JOOOOOO haters just love him. I'm not sure why, but they do. Trust me, I always encourage them to go support Obama, but often they come back to Paul. The Paul camp needs to loudly and publicly disavow these neo-Nazis.

It's not that mysterious. Ron Paul represents the only significant challenge to the status quo. Naturally, people dissatisfied with the status quo, people who find themselves shut out by the current establishment, will be in favor of shaking things up. They also make the same mistake that many on he left make and see Paul's principled opposition to identity politics as an endorsement of their bigoted beliefs. But fringe groups with bizarre agendas support mainstream candidates as well; it's only an issue with Paul because it goes well with the establishment's campaign to portray him as a nutjob.

Nobody's "portraying" him as a nujob........He is a friggin' nutjob.

All you have to do is listen to he talk for more than a 30 Second Canned Response in a debate. Dude intertwines Great ideas and periods of Lucidness, with rants that make little sense and Border on the Hysterical and Insane. His Ideas on defense, I think anyways, are shortsighted and fail to learn from History.

The Man simply has 0 Chance of winning a General Election. He is a SURE way to assure a Second Term for the disastrous one.

 

[Google]

It's not that mysterious. Ron Paul represents the only significant challenge to the status quo. Naturally, people dissatisfied with the status quo, people who find themselves shut out by the current establishment, will be in favor of shaking things up. They also make the same mistake that many on he left make and see Paul's principled opposition to identity politics as an endorsement of their bigoted beliefs. But fringe groups with bizarre agendas support mainstream candidates as well; it's only an issue with Paul because it goes well with the establishment's campaign to portray him as a nutjob.

Nobody's "portraying" him as a nujob........He is a friggin' nutjob.

All you have to do is listen to he talk for more than a 30 Second Canned Response in a debate. Dude intertwines Great ideas and periods of Lucidness, with rants that make little sense and Border on the Hysterical and Insane. His Ideas on defense, I think anyways, are shortsighted and fail to learn from History.

The Man simply has 0 Chance of winning a General Election. He is a SURE way to assure a Second Term for the disastrous one.

First of all your proper nouns are all F-ed up. Dude, general election isn't a proper noun. Either use proper grammar or just let it go.

Second, what specifically do you disagree with?

 

[Wicked Jester]

It's not that mysterious. Ron Paul represents the only significant challenge to the status quo. Naturally, people dissatisfied with the status quo, people who find themselves shut out by the current establishment, will be in favor of shaking things up. They also make the same mistake that many on he left make and see Paul's principled opposition to identity politics as an endorsement of their bigoted beliefs. But fringe groups with bizarre agendas support mainstream candidates as well; it's only an issue with Paul because it goes well with the establishment's campaign to portray him as a nutjob.

Nobody's "portraying" him as a nujob........He is a friggin' nutjob.

All you have to do is listen to he talk for more than a 30 Second Canned Response in a debate. Dude intertwines Great ideas and periods of Lucidness, with rants that make little sense and Border on the Hysterical and Insane. His Ideas on defense, I think anyways, are shortsighted and fail to learn from History.

The Man simply has 0 Chance of winning a General Election. He is a SURE way to assure a Second Term for the disastrous one.

Seriously, CM.........Could you imagine him sitting down with world leaders, and then he starts running his mouth?

The man is dangerous on many levels.......He's definitely a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Nobody's "portraying" him as a nujob........He is a friggin' nutjob.

All you have to do is listen to he talk for more than a 30 Second Canned Response in a debate. Dude intertwines Great ideas and periods of Lucidness, with rants that make little sense and Border on the Hysterical and Insane. His Ideas on defense, I think anyways, are shortsighted and fail to learn from History.

The Man simply has 0 Chance of winning a General Election. He is a SURE way to assure a Second Term for the disastrous one.

First of all your proper nouns are all F-ed up. Dude, general election isn't a proper noun. Either use proper grammar or just let it go.

Second, what specifically do you disagree with?

So, who made YOU the boards official grammer police?

And, who are you to tell anybody to "let it go"?

 

[Google]

Nobody's "portraying" him as a nujob........He is a friggin' nutjob.

All you have to do is listen to he talk for more than a 30 Second Canned Response in a debate. Dude intertwines Great ideas and periods of Lucidness, with rants that make little sense and Border on the Hysterical and Insane. His Ideas on defense, I think anyways, are shortsighted and fail to learn from History.

The Man simply has 0 Chance of winning a General Election. He is a SURE way to assure a Second Term for the disastrous one.

Seriously, CM.........Could you imagine him sitting down with world leaders, and then he starts running his mouth?

The man is dangerous on many levels.......He's definitely a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

Really, ignore my post and move on to the one that you agree with. All you have done so far is say such insightful things as "few fries short of a Happy Meal", and I'm sure you are familiar with happy meals.