Ron Paul's Last hurrah

[Avatar4321]

The money is going to be spent anyway....

Not if you dont stick it in the damn bill!

 

[Paulie]

Iowa is not winner take all. There are several conventions to be held all the way up the ladder to the national, before Iowa delegates are chosen and pledged.

No one has won a damn thing yet.

 

[Paulie]

The money is going to be spent anyway....

Not if you dont stick it in the damn bill!

What are you talking about? The administration will spend every penny of the appropriated funds. An earmark doesn't create an aditional expenditure, it simply redirects money from executive branch agencies to congressional projects.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think this was a decent showing for Paul, the difference is only a few percentage points. This might knock out a few of the stragglers and all of the candidates will get more exposure now. I don't think he is done yet.

Paul does better with LESS exposure so that his supporters can continue to build a mystique around him. When he talks constitutional government and fiscal responsibility, all of us like what he says. But when he accuses the USA of inviting and deserving 9/11 and sees the Iranian government as nothing more than another country doing what all countries do and being of no concern to us, most thinking people back off quickly. He is an interesting guy but with lots of that kind of yin and yang that makes most of us see him as a good congressman, but somebody who would be a terrible POTUS.

 

[Paulie]

I think this was a decent showing for Paul, the difference is only a few percentage points. This might knock out a few of the stragglers and all of the candidates will get more exposure now. I don't think he is done yet.

Paul does better with LESS exposure so that his supporters can continue to build a mystique around him. When he talks constitutional government and fiscal responsibility, all of us like what he says. But when he accuses the USA of inviting and deserving 9/11 and sees the Iranian government as nothing more than another country doing what all countries do and being of no concern to us, most thinking people back off quickly. He is an interesting guy but with lots of that kind of yin and yang that makes most of us see him as a good congressman, but somebody who would be a terrible POTUS.

First of all, Paul has never said we "deserved" 9/11, so lets put crap like that to rest.

Second, do you trust Romney to veto any bill that hits his desk that either increases the size of government, or isn't a balanced budget?

 

[ShackledNation]

I think this was a decent showing for Paul, the difference is only a few percentage points. This might knock out a few of the stragglers and all of the candidates will get more exposure now. I don't think he is done yet.

Paul does better with LESS exposure so that his supporters can continue to build a mystique around him. When he talks constitutional government and fiscal responsibility, all of us like what he says. But when he accuses the USA of inviting and deserving 9/11 and sees the Iranian government as nothing more than another country doing what all countries do and being of no concern to us, most thinking people back off quickly. He is an interesting guy but with lots of that kind of yin and yang that makes most of us see him as a good congressman, but somebody who would be a terrible POTUS.

Ron Paul does not accuse the US of inviting and deserving 9/11, and does not believe the Iran is no concern. Those are the lies you call exposure. They are complete strawman arguments. The only people who fall for them are the ones who don't actually research a candidates views and follow whatever the media says without question. That is not called thinking.

Conservatives constantly blame government for causes economic problems in the country. And rightly so. But does that mean conservatives are "blaming America" for economic problems? Imagine someone saying "you conservatives blame america for its economic problems. The patriotic thing to do would be to help americans by spending more money on them." You would say such an argument is absurd and deceptive. The same arguments are used to twist Ron Paul's foreign policy views. Ron Paul says military action on the part of the US angers those who we are using the action against, and thoughtless people say he is dangerous for thinking such a thing and he must be blaming America. Ron Paul says bombing Iran would be a huge mistake because it would result in more threats against the US and major wars we cannot afford, and critics twist that to mean he doesn't care about Iran. That is truly disgusting.

Ron Paul says that 9/11 was a predictable consequence of US government action abroad. Why is it so hard to comprehend the idea that just as government intervention at home has unintended consequences, government intervention abroad also has negative consequences?

Do you realize that in the 1980s the US government actually supported Osama Bin Laden, supplied him with weapons, and even built him a base? Then in the late 1990s the US government then bombed that very base they created, and infuriated Osama bin Laden and his followers. They were further angered by the US government keeping troops in Saudi Arabia. Why is it so hard for you to believe that big government is just as bad for America abroad as it is at home?

Ron Paul does not blame America. He blames the government. When did blaming the government become contrary to conservative thought?

 

[JoeB131]

Tonight is the last time Ron Paul actually had a chance to win anything. It's all down hill from here for that wack job...Thank G-d.

Upset at Paul because he doesn't put Israel's interests above America's?

no one puts israel's interest above america's...

not even israel (given that they back down and don't finish what they need to every time the U.S. asks... )

ask israeli's what it was like to take SCUD missiles during Gulf I because daddy bush asked them to so his "coalition" of arabs wouldn't cry.

but you and the other anti-semitic paulian idiots can keep lying... but there's a reason that racists and anti-semites adore ron paul... what's not for them to love in a guy who hates israel and hates the civil rights laws.

but good to know your hate isn't only directed at mormons.

Considering the Zionists were the ones who instigated the war against Saddam in 1991, they really shouldn't have whined when he hit them with SCUD's.

It wasn't a matter of the Arabs "crying", it was a matter of if it became a war between Iraq and Israel, the whole Arab world would side with Israel. And that is why Israel is worthless as an ally. No Arab leader would be caught having a drink with it.

Incidently, Israel is kept entirely afloat by us. they haven't won a war on their own since 1967. We'll keep propping them up until we're broke and tired of fighting their wars.

 

[Rocko]

Many of the prominent conservatives in the media are cautioning Conservatives to be respectful to Paul, and his supporters, so we don't have the problem of him running as a third party candidate. I don't think he'll run as an independent, no matter what, because in doing so he would sabotage his son's career, but never underestimate a politician's ego.

 

[dblack]

Many of the prominent conservatives in the media are cautioning Conservatives to be respectful to Paul, and his supporters, so we don't have the problem of him running as a third party candidate. I don't think he'll run as an independent, no matter what, because in doing so he would sabotage his son's career, but never underestimate a politician's ego.

I'm not sure it matters much. The majority of us won't vote for establishment candidates anyway.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think this was a decent showing for Paul, the difference is only a few percentage points. This might knock out a few of the stragglers and all of the candidates will get more exposure now. I don't think he is done yet.

Paul does better with LESS exposure so that his supporters can continue to build a mystique around him. When he talks constitutional government and fiscal responsibility, all of us like what he says. But when he accuses the USA of inviting and deserving 9/11 and sees the Iranian government as nothing more than another country doing what all countries do and being of no concern to us, most thinking people back off quickly. He is an interesting guy but with lots of that kind of yin and yang that makes most of us see him as a good congressman, but somebody who would be a terrible POTUS.

Ron Paul does not accuse the US of inviting and deserving 9/11, and does not believe the Iran is no concern. Those are the lies you call exposure. They are complete strawman arguments. The only people who fall for them are the ones who don't actually research a candidates views and follow whatever the media says without question. That is not called thinking.

Conservatives constantly blame government for causes economic problems in the country. And rightly so. But does that mean conservatives are "blaming America" for economic problems? Imagine someone saying "you conservatives blame america for its economic problems. The patriotic thing to do would be to help americans by spending more money on them." You would say such an argument is absurd and deceptive. The same arguments are used to twist Ron Paul's foreign policy views. Ron Paul says military action on the part of the US angers those who we are using the action against, and thoughtless people say he is dangerous for thinking such a thing and he must be blaming America. Ron Paul says bombing Iran would be a huge mistake because it would result in more threats against the US and major wars we cannot afford, and critics twist that to mean he doesn't care about Iran. That is truly disgusting.

Ron Paul says that 9/11 was a predictable consequence of US government action abroad. Why is it so hard to comprehend the idea that just as government intervention at home has unintended consequences, government intervention abroad also has negative consequences?

Do you realize that in the 1980s the US government actually supported Osama Bin Laden, supplied him with weapons, and even built him a base? Then in the late 1990s the US government then bombed that very base they created, and infuriated Osama bin Laden and his followers. They were further angered by the US government keeping troops in Saudi Arabia. Why is it so hard for you to believe that big government is just as bad for America abroad as it is at home?

Ron Paul does not blame America. He blames the government. When did blaming the government become contrary to conservative thought?

Okay, I can split hairs too and say that 9/11 being a 'predictable consequence of U.S. action abroad' is not the same thing as saying the "U.S. invited and deserved" 9/11. But I think there is a really slim margin of difference there wouldn't you say?

The only clip I could find quickly of that segment of that debate is about in the middle of this clip. You can defend what he is saying until the cows come home, but most Americans will still hear comments like that in a very negative way and perhaps less colorful than the damning words of Jeremiah Wright, but pretty much the same thing.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRlL0BbN_Gg]Ron Paul: We Deserved 9/11. REALLY? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[tinydancer]

How does anyone think he's out of the race.

I'm all over the net with the data showing that the poll by Suffolk U. out of Mass only has 10% surveyed (50 out of 500) in the 18 to 34 bracket.

18 to 34 is pretty well Dr.Paul's base. So right from the get go, even though the questions were fair, simple and to the point 10 % skewers the whole poll.

When 90% polled are more likely to vote for Gingrich or Romney, this no way in hell is an accurate reflection.

The other polling company have the RNC as their huge clients. Hello? I can't find a PDF for them yet, but I'm dying to find it tonight.

Landslide my ass.

And in the latest straw poll right on the New Hampshire Primary website, Dr. Paul wins.

Now I have no dog in this hunt, but damn it pisses me off when polls are skewed.

 

[ShackledNation]

Paul does better with LESS exposure so that his supporters can continue to build a mystique around him. When he talks constitutional government and fiscal responsibility, all of us like what he says. But when he accuses the USA of inviting and deserving 9/11 and sees the Iranian government as nothing more than another country doing what all countries do and being of no concern to us, most thinking people back off quickly. He is an interesting guy but with lots of that kind of yin and yang that makes most of us see him as a good congressman, but somebody who would be a terrible POTUS.

Ron Paul does not accuse the US of inviting and deserving 9/11, and does not believe the Iran is no concern. Those are the lies you call exposure. They are complete strawman arguments. The only people who fall for them are the ones who don't actually research a candidates views and follow whatever the media says without question. That is not called thinking.

Conservatives constantly blame government for causes economic problems in the country. And rightly so. But does that mean conservatives are "blaming America" for economic problems? Imagine someone saying "you conservatives blame america for its economic problems. The patriotic thing to do would be to help americans by spending more money on them." You would say such an argument is absurd and deceptive. The same arguments are used to twist Ron Paul's foreign policy views. Ron Paul says military action on the part of the US angers those who we are using the action against, and thoughtless people say he is dangerous for thinking such a thing and he must be blaming America. Ron Paul says bombing Iran would be a huge mistake because it would result in more threats against the US and major wars we cannot afford, and critics twist that to mean he doesn't care about Iran. That is truly disgusting.

Ron Paul says that 9/11 was a predictable consequence of US government action abroad. Why is it so hard to comprehend the idea that just as government intervention at home has unintended consequences, government intervention abroad also has negative consequences?

Do you realize that in the 1980s the US government actually supported Osama Bin Laden, supplied him with weapons, and even built him a base? Then in the late 1990s the US government then bombed that very base they created, and infuriated Osama bin Laden and his followers. They were further angered by the US government keeping troops in Saudi Arabia. Why is it so hard for you to believe that big government is just as bad for America abroad as it is at home?

Ron Paul does not blame America. He blames the government. When did blaming the government become contrary to conservative thought?

Okay, I can split hairs too and say that 9/11 being a 'predictable consequence of U.S. action abroad' is not the same thing as saying the "U.S. invited and deserved" 9/11. But I think there is a really slim margin of difference there wouldn't you say?

The only clip I could find quickly of that segment of that debate is about in the middle of this clip. You can defend what he is saying until the cows come home, but most Americans will still hear comments like that in a very negative way and perhaps less colorful than the damning words of Jeremiah Wright, but pretty much the same thing.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRlL0BbN_Gg]Ron Paul: We Deserved 9/11. REALLY? - YouTube[/ame]

This is not splitting hairs, it is about saying two completely different things. Blaming Americans and blaming the government are absolutely not the same thing.

Would you say the current recession is America's fault? Or would you say it is the government's fault? Obviously, the two are not the same. The same goes for foreign policy.

Most most Americans do agree with Paul, so please do not give me that nonsense. Most Americans support Paul's foreign policies views, and, more importantly, most soldiers do too. Who better understands the effects of our foreign policy that the people who are out there living it and seeing its effects firsthand every day? Ron Paul is the only veteran running in the GOP. He is the only one with firsthand military experience.

Also keep in mind that it was the progressive movement that advocated more intervention by the US government abroad. Notice the presidents in charge of both world wars were progressive democrats. The republican party has since strayed from its true conservative roots. Ron Paul is trying to wake us up to that. Big government abroad is not consistent with small government and free markets at home!

 

[ShackledNation]

Many of the prominent conservatives in the media are cautioning Conservatives to be respectful to Paul, and his supporters, so we don't have the problem of him running as a third party candidate. I don't think he'll run as an independent, no matter what, because in doing so he would sabotage his son's career, but never underestimate a politician's ego.

I'm not sure it matters much. The majority of us won't vote for establishment candidates anyway.

Exactly. The only GOP candidate I will support is Ron Paul. I will vote third party otherwise whether Ron Paul is the third party ticket or not.

 

[WatertheTree]

Romney is a corporate liberal. He thinks tax dollars are unlimited and they should be used for legal plunder of the treasury by corporate power. He is only concerned with 'getting his'. He made his millions by purchasing a corporation, reducing the quality of goods produced to increase profits. Then after entrenching the company in debt to make the books look better he would sell the company, which is now a ticking financial nightmare, for a huge profit to the 401k's of honest people.

To think that he would have any different mentality as president of the united states is a fucking fantasy.

Where on earth did you come up with that bullcrap? So because Romney is successful at business he is going to do all that stuff? Thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard.

What do you think an investment firm like bain capital does?

You guys might want to get an education before you try this one on.

 

[The Rabbi]

Upset at Paul because he doesn't put Israel's interests above America's?

no one puts israel's interest above america's...

not even israel (given that they back down and don't finish what they need to every time the U.S. asks... )

ask israeli's what it was like to take SCUD missiles during Gulf I because daddy bush asked them to so his "coalition" of arabs wouldn't cry.

but you and the other anti-semitic paulian idiots can keep lying... but there's a reason that racists and anti-semites adore ron paul... what's not for them to love in a guy who hates israel and hates the civil rights laws.

but good to know your hate isn't only directed at mormons.

Considering the Zionists were the ones who instigated the war against Saddam in 1991, they really shouldn't have whined when he hit them with SCUD's.

It wasn't a matter of the Arabs "crying", it was a matter of if it became a war between Iraq and Israel, the whole Arab world would side with Israel. And that is why Israel is worthless as an ally. No Arab leader would be caught having a drink with it.

Incidently, Israel is kept entirely afloat by us. they haven't won a war on their own since 1967. We'll keep propping them up until we're broke and tired of fighting their wars.

You mean the war started because Saddam invaded Kuwait? Yeah, the Zionists started that for sure. Saddam was a known friend of Isreal. That's why he paid Palestinian suicide bombers's families $10k each.
The whole Arab world did not side with Israel. Jordan and the Palis were on the Iraqi side. Everyone else saw that the entire world was against Saddam and acted accordingly.

Do you limit your bigotry to Jews and Mormons or is anyone who professes a faith also your target?

 

[Liberty]

Only Ron Paul will beat Obama in 2012, I will NOT vote for any other GOP candidate. So, the Republican better change its ways or Obama will get reelected. That will send a message to the establishment.
I am standing up for liberty.

 

[The Rabbi]

Only Ron Paul will beat Obama in 2012, I will NOT vote for any GOP candidate. So, the Republican better change its ways or Obama will get reelected. That will send a message to the establishment.
I am standing up for liberty.

First is hope. Then comes denial. Then comes dementia.
It's Ron Paul Derangement Syndrome.

 

[Liberty]

Enjoy Obama for 4 more years, rabbi, you big government buffoon.

 

[The Rabbi]

Enjoy Obama for 4 more years, rabbi, you big government buffoon.

Hey if the Paul-bots sit out the election they'll be helping Obama more than Rahm Emanuel.

 

[Liberty]

No, you will be helping Obama by not supporting ron paul. Because, unlike Mitt, Rick, etc. supporters...RP supporters are going to just write him in...so you might as well make him your nomination.