Question for Paul supporters

[Crackerjack]

Well I'm sorry, but knowing what Ron Paul supporters generally say that they believe in, I can't see it any other way if they intentionally re-elect Barack Obama to a second term.

Intentionally?

You are quite delusional.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Well I'm sorry, but knowing what Ron Paul supporters generally say that they believe in, I can't see it any other way if they intentionally re-elect Barack Obama to a second term.

Unsubscribing now. No hard feelings. Ya'll have a good night.

How am I 'intentionally re-electing Barack Obama' if I'm NOT voting for him? You've really gotten twisted over this, Fox, and I'm glad you're going to bed. Maybe when you wake up and re-read this thread tomorrow you'll realize what a (insert denigrating adjectives here) you've been tonight and apologize for it.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Ron Paul is at the bottom of my preference list for a few reasons, but I would vote for him in a heart beat if he wins the nomination. Which he won't of course. I don't expect him to endorse somebody he doesn't feel is right for the job any more than most of the other candidates who have suspended their campaigns have been expected to endorse somebody. But I don't hold as negative a view of him as you seem to hold in this post.

I would hope that the Ron Paul supporters would put country ahead of ideology; the best interests of America ahead of their emotional support for Congressman Paul. If a Ron Paul or nobody is their choice, they will probably re-elect Obama. And in my opinion, that cuts of their collective noses to spite their collective faces. Nobody who is a Ron Paul supporter could possibly not know how destructive that would be.

That's what we're doing. It isn't "emotional support" either. It's integrity and conviction. I'm not gonna vote to put the (R) in just because it is an (R). I'll never NOT vote ideologically. Never. That's for the "lesser of two evils" crowd.

Ahem. What you are saying here is exactly what voting ideologically is. You would throw the country into the toilet if you can't have your way. That, my friend, is a very large reason that we are in the mess we are in.

What your advocating for is exactly what we fell for in 2000 and were stuck from 2001-2007 with a bunch of gov't growing libs under the R blanket.

I don't think I have unreachable standards. All someone has to be is a fiscal conservative and i'll support them. I'm pro-choice, Paul isn't, I think his stance on evolution is embarassing especially coming from a doctor, and i think a fed can work. Just this one doesn't. He's not a good speaker and he's not Mr. Charisma either.

But i still have great support for him because he's the only fiscally conservative politician.

 

[PredFan]

I am a Ron Paul supporter and I voted for him in the Florida Primary.

If RP doesn't get the nom, I will support who does. It doesn't matter if he picks a cold turd for VP.

 

[JWBooth]

Nope

The only GOPer I'd consider voting for as potus is Paul.
The Vice-Presidency is "not worth a bucket of warm piss" according to one of those who held the office.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Seriously, the only true conservative there is Paul.

Study: Only Ron Paul's budget plan would cut deficit | Bryan/College Station, Texas - The Eagle

By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press


WASHINGTON -- Massive tax cuts proposed by GOP presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would cause the national debt to explode while Mitt Romney's budget plan could generate red ink in line with current projections, according to a new study released Thursday.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Washington-based budget watchdog group, estimates that the wrenching budget cuts proposed by Ron Paul would lessen the flow of red ink compared with current policies but still leave the government running a sizable deficit.

The candidates' budget plans provide a sharp contrast with President Barack Obama, who released his latest fiscal blueprint just last week. Like Obama, the GOP candidates have the luxury of suspending political reality and assuming lawmakers would quickly enact their ideas into law.

That translates into a tax code in which taxes on investments and capital gains are sharply reduced or eliminated. Each candidate would eliminate inheritance taxes on large estates. And tax rates on individuals would be cut as well -- all in the face of deficits that economists say would eventually cripple the economy.

The results, according to the study, would be higher deficits, except in the case of Paul, whose spending cuts dwarf anything being considered by his three rivals.

According to the study, Gingrich's plan would add $7 trillion to the nation's debt over the coming nine years -- almost doubling the deficits that would be recorded if the government basically ran on autopilot. Santorum's plan would add $4.5 trillion over the period, or about $500 billion to the deficit every year on average.

What's a fiscal conservative to do? There is only one clear choice.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Seriously, the only true conservative there is Paul.

Study: Only Ron Paul's budget plan would cut deficit | Bryan/College Station, Texas - The Eagle

By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press


WASHINGTON -- Massive tax cuts proposed by GOP presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would cause the national debt to explode while Mitt Romney's budget plan could generate red ink in line with current projections, according to a new study released Thursday.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Washington-based budget watchdog group, estimates that the wrenching budget cuts proposed by Ron Paul would lessen the flow of red ink compared with current policies but still leave the government running a sizable deficit.

The candidates' budget plans provide a sharp contrast with President Barack Obama, who released his latest fiscal blueprint just last week. Like Obama, the GOP candidates have the luxury of suspending political reality and assuming lawmakers would quickly enact their ideas into law.

That translates into a tax code in which taxes on investments and capital gains are sharply reduced or eliminated. Each candidate would eliminate inheritance taxes on large estates. And tax rates on individuals would be cut as well -- all in the face of deficits that economists say would eventually cripple the economy.

The results, according to the study, would be higher deficits, except in the case of Paul, whose spending cuts dwarf anything being considered by his three rivals.

According to the study, Gingrich's plan would add $7 trillion to the nation's debt over the coming nine years -- almost doubling the deficits that would be recorded if the government basically ran on autopilot. Santorum's plan would add $4.5 trillion over the period, or about $500 billion to the deficit every year on average.

What's a fiscal conservative to do? There is only one clear choice.

You should make a thread with this link, it needs exposed to the neocons.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Feel free, doc. I'm not one to open the curtains and cause the cave dwellers to scramble.

 

[Crackerjack]

Seriously, the only true conservative there is Paul.

Study: Only Ron Paul's budget plan would cut deficit | Bryan/College Station, Texas - The Eagle

By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press


WASHINGTON -- Massive tax cuts proposed by GOP presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would cause the national debt to explode while Mitt Romney's budget plan could generate red ink in line with current projections, according to a new study released Thursday.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Washington-based budget watchdog group, estimates that the wrenching budget cuts proposed by Ron Paul would lessen the flow of red ink compared with current policies but still leave the government running a sizable deficit.

The candidates' budget plans provide a sharp contrast with President Barack Obama, who released his latest fiscal blueprint just last week. Like Obama, the GOP candidates have the luxury of suspending political reality and assuming lawmakers would quickly enact their ideas into law.

That translates into a tax code in which taxes on investments and capital gains are sharply reduced or eliminated. Each candidate would eliminate inheritance taxes on large estates. And tax rates on individuals would be cut as well -- all in the face of deficits that economists say would eventually cripple the economy.

The results, according to the study, would be higher deficits, except in the case of Paul, whose spending cuts dwarf anything being considered by his three rivals.

According to the study, Gingrich's plan would add $7 trillion to the nation's debt over the coming nine years -- almost doubling the deficits that would be recorded if the government basically ran on autopilot. Santorum's plan would add $4.5 trillion over the period, or about $500 billion to the deficit every year on average.

What's a fiscal conservative to do? There is only one clear choice.

You should make a thread with this link, it needs exposed to the neocons.

You think they don't know this? They do, they just don't care.

This is exactly why I left the GOP -- they talk a good game, but when the rubber meets the road, they're into big government and handouts just as big as anyone else. It's not even worth the ones and zeroes to point this out to them, as they're comfortable with their hypocrisy.

Hell, if I were one to vote out of spite I would go vote for one of these assclowns just to hasten the demise we're headed towards.

 

[Oddball]

Well I'm sorry, but knowing what Ron Paul supporters generally say that they believe in, I can't see it any other way if they intentionally re-elect Barack Obama to a second term.

Unsubscribing now. No hard feelings. Ya'll have a good night.

Hate to break it to you, but your one, single, (1) vote isn't going to swing the election either way.