Why are Republicans afraid of Ron Paul?

[SniperFire]

The problem is human nature. It creeps in and destroys a good thing.

Speak for yourself.

Human nature is bad and needs to be regulated by Republicans.

Human nature is good and bad and neutral.

I have world history on my side, and you have the theory of a dreamer.

 

[Valox]

because ron paul exploits 4 or 5 things that people hate about republicans. War mongers, won't legalize pot and prostitution, they protect the federal reserve and they are just as unconstitutional as us democrats if you buy what ron paul is selling.

But republicans would love to deregulate everything and sell off the commons and privatize everything just like ron paul. So in some ways, ron paul is an extreme republican on steroids. Even worse than the romney's.

And keep in mind even reagan wouldn't get the nomination today. He'd be considered a flaming liberal in the gop. More left of romney.

wtf???

I know a lot of Ron Paul supporters who don't understand what would happen to America if he were to get his way.

Same with Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. Goodbye middle class if they win.

I see less power to corporations and influential lobbying for personal gains would erode the middle the class. It is better to vote for Obama in which the uber rich has benefited nicely from this so-called recovery.

Afterall, the middle class is built off of strong, corporate state.

 

[dblack]

The problem is human nature. It creeps in and destroys a good thing.

Speak for yourself.

Human nature is bad and needs to be regulated by Republicans.

Heh.... Congrats... you've discovered the core of Republican hypocrisy. Romney uber alles.

 

[Oddball]

Speak for yourself.

Human nature is bad and needs to be regulated by Republicans.

Human nature is good and bad and neutral.

I have world history on my side, and you have the theory of a dreamer.

You don't have jack shit on your side.

For if you did, you'd be able to recognize the same observations about human nature that both Bastiat and Hayek very astutely made.

 

[SniperFire]

What the **** are you yammering about?

Human nature. It is that which wrecks pure theory of government for Libertarianism and Communism. Lazy freeloaders will vote themselves other people's money. Religious people will not permit drug use and whores in the neighborhood if they can do something about it.

Human nature.

Libertarians would cut off lazy freeloaders...Then they'd have to get up off their asses and produce.

Right. And you would be voted out of majority by the freeloaders and those kinder gentler types who feel their pain. Now, in your Libertarian dream world, would it be against the law for the majority to implement welfare programs - or would you want a little Facism mixed in with your Libertarianism to prevent that sort of thing?

Libertarianism is a cute joke, dude.

 

[SniperFire]

Human nature is bad and needs to be regulated by Republicans.

Human nature is good and bad and neutral.

I have world history on my side, and you have the theory of a dreamer.

You don't have jack shit on your side.

For if you did, you'd be able to recognize the same observations about human nature that both Bastiat and Hayek very astutely made.

I recognize human nature in every society that has existed in world history.

Rinse, lather. Repeat. Unless human nature changes ... you can't win.

 

[Ed Spacer]

My synopsis. Ron Paul has the entire block of voters that are pissed off and dusgruntled on the hope and change lie in 08',in droves. He sold me on domestics,but i disagree on geopolitical threats. Need to minimize lifeloss,militarily,exploit technology,seal the borders,have no weakness,no quarter to those internally and externally the threats,precise operations,efficient and effective.no nation building.letem clean uo their own mess,and wish they didnt fyck with us.
hey yall,how bout a romney/paul ticket???romney needs him for the gap closure wuth domestic conservatism.

 

[snakedoc]

I wasn't aware Republicans were afraid of Paul. But just out of curiosity how many Democrats would vote for Paul over Obama or any other Democrat running for President?

They are. That is why they cling to their statists freaks, like Romney and Santorum. As for your question, I don't have the data for that.

Hate to break this to you but you don't have any data for your original claim either just your opinion. As for my question I think we all know it's not a lack of data and this just my opinion now that the percent of Democrats who would vote for Paul over Obama or any Democrat would be between 1 and 10 percent. Now here is a question for the left why didn't you ever rally behind Dennis Kucinich he was the liberal version of Paul over status quo people like Gore and Kerry and even Obama did you fear him?

 

[SniperFire]

Afterall, the middle class is built off of strong, corporate state.

Absolutely.

 

[Oddball]

Human nature. It is that which wrecks pure theory of government for Libertarianism and Communism. Lazy freeloaders will vote themselves other people's money. Religious people will not permit drug use and whores in the neighborhood if they can do something about it.

Human nature.

Libertarians would cut off lazy freeloaders...Then they'd have to get up off their asses and produce.

Right. And you would be voted out of majority by the freeloaders and those kinder gentler types who feel their pain. Now, in your Libertarian dream world, would it be against the law for the majority to implement welfare programs - or would you want a little Facism mixed in with your Libertarianism to prevent that sort of thing?

Libertarianism is a cute joke, dude.

Wouldn't get voted out if appeasers like republicans wouldn't keep caving in and giving the freeloaders even more loot....The moochers would have to go out and produce.

The only cute joke is that you can't ever mollify looters, layabouts, tantrum-throwing children and their sob sister enablers....Because no matter what you give them, it's never enough.

It's not my fault that you don't have the balls to say no.

 

[Ed Spacer]

What i disagree with paul on is handling of external issues.like i said,we have lots of weapons tech in groom lake.use it. Lets the fuckers clean it up.minimal cost,efficient effort,minimal lives lost. Let the allahturkies who are the thygs of the commies get dealt with efficiently. Letem clean it up,and be lesson learned. As i feel the fact of an illegal commie crook was planned to iccupy the WH,unfortunately the establishment in play,both sides with a (D) and (R) are responsible for the crime.

 

[SniperFire]

Libertarians would cut off lazy freeloaders...Then they'd have to get up off their asses and produce.

Right. And you would be voted out of majority by the freeloaders and those kinder gentler types who feel their pain. Now, in your Libertarian dream world, would it be against the law for the majority to implement welfare programs - or would you want a little Facism mixed in with your Libertarianism to prevent that sort of thing?

Libertarianism is a cute joke, dude.

Wouldn't get voted out if appeasers like republicans wouldn't keep caving in and giving the freeloaders even more loot....The moochers would have to go out and produce.

The only cute joke is that you can ever mollify looters, layabouts, tantrum-throwing children and their sob sister enablers....Because no matter what you give them, it's never enough.

It's not my fault that you don't have the balls to say no.

Again, you are really railing against HUMAN NATURE. People will form affinity groups, and your lame assed purist theory won't stop it.

Why? Wait for it..... wait for it..... HUMAN NATURE. You won't change that.

If not Republicans, it is Democrats.. Or Wigs. Or Torys. Or Bolshevists. Or Maoists.

 

[Valox]

I wasn't aware Republicans were afraid of Paul. But just out of curiosity how many Democrats would vote for Paul over Obama or any other Democrat running for President?

They are. That is why they cling to their statists freaks, like Romney and Santorum. As for your question, I don't have the data for that.

Hate to break this to you but you don't have any data for your original claim either just your opinion. As for my question I think we all know it's not a lack of data and this just my opinion now that the percent of Democrats who would vote for Paul over Obama or any Democrat would be between 1 and 10 percent. Now here is a question for the left why didn't you ever rally behind Dennis Kucinich he was the liberal version of Paul over status quo people like Gore and Kerry and even Obama did you fear him?

I do have data for my claim. Republicans soundly rejected Goldwater in '64 and Paul in 2012 - the two most Conservative candidates to run for the Republican in years. And lets not forget about their poor show for Harry Browne.

I am not a strict Conservative and I would vote for a liberal. However, democrats are not liberal. They are statist freaks who like to mimic Republican policies in which they previously complained about.

I personally liked Kucinich until he took that plane ride with Obama.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18]Dennis Kucinich asked about Ron Paul on Free Minds TV - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Oddball]

Right. And you would be voted out of majority by the freeloaders and those kinder gentler types who feel their pain. Now, in your Libertarian dream world, would it be against the law for the majority to implement welfare programs - or would you want a little Facism mixed in with your Libertarianism to prevent that sort of thing?

Libertarianism is a cute joke, dude.

Wouldn't get voted out if appeasers like republicans wouldn't keep caving in and giving the freeloaders even more loot....The moochers would have to go out and produce.

The only cute joke is that you can ever mollify looters, layabouts, tantrum-throwing children and their sob sister enablers....Because no matter what you give them, it's never enough.

It's not my fault that you don't have the balls to say no.

Again, you are really railing against HUMAN NATURE. People will form affinity groups, and your lame assed purist theory won't stop it.

Why? Wait for it..... wait for it..... HUMAN NATURE. You won't change that.

If not Republicans, it is Democrats.. Or Wigs. Or Torys. Or Bolshevists. Or Maoists.

My "lame assed theory" worked in America for more than 150 years....This is a fact that you cannot deny.

It quit working when republican wimps started believing that they could appease and mollify socialist looters....Now, they're reduced to claiming that the socialistic moocher state could work, if only it was they that were in control of it.

You surrendered nearly a century before you were even born, pal.

 

[sealybobo]

wtf???

I know a lot of Ron Paul supporters who don't understand what would happen to America if he were to get his way.

Same with Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. Goodbye middle class if they win.

I see less power to corporations and influential lobbying for personal gains would erode the middle the class. It is better to vote for Obama in which the uber rich has benefited nicely from this so-called recovery.

Afterall, the middle class is built off of strong, corporate state.

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it

The "middle class" is not the natural result of freeing business to do whatever it wants, of "free and open markets," or of "free trade." The "middle class" is not a normal result of "free markets." Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle" mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called "serfs."

When government sets the rules of the game of business in such a way that working people must receive a living wage, labor has the power to organize into unions and domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and the rich get richer while the working poor are kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety so the cost of their labor will always be cheap.

Only a return to liberal economic policies - a return to We The People again setting and enforcing the rules of the game of business - will reverse this dangerous trend. We've done it before, with tariffs, anti-trust legislation, and worker protections ranging from enforcing the rights of organized labor to restricting American companies' access to cheap foreign labor through visas and tariffs. The result was the production of something never before seen in history: a strong and vibrant middle class.

 

[SniperFire]

Wouldn't get voted out if appeasers like republicans wouldn't keep caving in and giving the freeloaders even more loot....The moochers would have to go out and produce.

The only cute joke is that you can ever mollify looters, layabouts, tantrum-throwing children and their sob sister enablers....Because no matter what you give them, it's never enough.

It's not my fault that you don't have the balls to say no.

Again, you are really railing against HUMAN NATURE. People will form affinity groups, and your lame assed purist theory won't stop it.

Why? Wait for it..... wait for it..... HUMAN NATURE. You won't change that.

If not Republicans, it is Democrats.. Or Wigs. Or Torys. Or Bolshevists. Or Maoists.

My "lame assed theory" worked in America for more than 150 years....This is a fact that you cannot deny.

It quit working when republican wimps started believing that they could appease and mollify socialist looters....Now, they're reduced to claiming that the socialistic moocher state could work, if only it was they that were in control of it.

You surrendered nearly a century before you were even born, pal.

um, no. It quit working when people figured out how to beat the system. Like minded interests banded together to get what they wanted. Just like they have done in every society, every culture, every nation. Why? Because of human nature.

Happens every time.

Do you agree, it happens every time? Every ******* time?

It is human nature, you know.

 

[Oddball]

Again, you are really railing against HUMAN NATURE. People will form affinity groups, and your lame assed purist theory won't stop it.

Why? Wait for it..... wait for it..... HUMAN NATURE. You won't change that.

If not Republicans, it is Democrats.. Or Wigs. Or Torys. Or Bolshevists. Or Maoists.

My "lame assed theory" worked in America for more than 150 years....This is a fact that you cannot deny.

It quit working when republican wimps started believing that they could appease and mollify socialist looters....Now, they're reduced to claiming that the socialistic moocher state could work, if only it was they that were in control of it.

You surrendered nearly a century before you were even born, pal.

um, no. It quit working when people figured out how to beat the system. Like minded interests banded together to get what they wanted. Just like they have done in every society, every culture, every nation. Why? Because of human nature.

Happens every time.

Do you agree, it happens every time? Every ******* time?

It is human nature, you know.

The system didn't get beat until gullible pussies got suckered into believing that those seeking to beat that system wouldn't use those powers for ill intent.

But if you're willing to admit that you're a gullible ***** sucker, then who am I to stand in your way?

 

[Valox]

It quit working when people figured out how to beat the system.

bwahahahahahahahahaha.....I just lol'd.

Are you fo' ******* serious?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

p.s. liberals are not better. They clamor for individual freedom, yet look for the state to grant them it, often times violating someone's elses freedom. So, please keep your strawman arguments to yourself.

Liberals understand that rights are inalienable, granted by no one and no government. They also understand that although inalienable, rights are not absolute. The Constitution both prevents government excess and legitimizes government’s regulatory authority. Liberals understand the Constitution’s case law establishes the boundary between each realm, and that the courts are the venue in which the people “petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” and to seek remedy from alleged government excess.

Conservatives and libertarians are free to practice their naïve, reactionary dogma as they see fit, provided they acknowledge the above.

 

[Oddball]

p.s. liberals are not better. They clamor for individual freedom, yet look for the state to grant them it, often times violating someone's elses freedom. So, please keep your strawman arguments to yourself.

Liberals understand that rights are inalienable, granted by no one and no government. They also understand that although inalienable, rights are not absolute. The Constitution both prevents government excess and legitimizes government’s regulatory authority. Liberals understand the Constitution’s case law establishes the boundary between each realm, and that the courts are the venue in which the people “petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” and to seek remedy from alleged government excess.

Conservatives and libertarians are free to practice their naïve, reactionary dogma as they see fit, provided they acknowledge the above.

STFU, drive-by commie asshole.