Video and Audio
See other Video and Audio Articles
Title: Is Ron Paul The Only Grown-Up Running For President On The Republican Side?
Source:
CNN
URL Source: http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2 ... -running-for-president-in-gop/
Published: Aug 17, 2011
Author: Jack Cafferty
Post Date: 2011-08-17 12:39:41 by Hondo68
Ping List: *Ron Paul for President* Subscribe to *Ron Paul for President*
Keywords: republican wanna-bees, federal government dysfunction, only adult in the room
Views: 33477
Comments: 46
As the race for the Republican nomination heats up, there's one candidate who's been largely ignored by the mainstream media. But Ron Paul is talking sense and more people ought to listen to him. The Texas congressman has visionary ideas about where the country ought to be going and what sea changes are necessary in order to continue being a superpower. When Paul ran for the Republican nomination in 2008 – he talked about the economy imploding, the untenable nature of the national debt, the eventual destruction of our currency and a limited role for government. He showed tremendous fund-raising ability and had an absolutely rabid base of support. The problem was – it was too small. In the four years since then, many of the things Paul warned us about have happened: We're deeper in debt. The dollar is worth less. The federal government is increasingly dysfunctional, and the country is more divided than at any time maybe since the Civil War. Yes, Ron Paul is a conservative. But he's not one of those who hits you over the head with his bible. And looking at the current batch of republican wanna-bees, he stands out as maybe the only adult in the room. In politics as in life, it's often the timing that makes the difference. In the case of Ron Paul, it seems events over the last four years have finally caught up with the candidate. Paul's message hasn't changed – but the urgency of what he's saying has increased. And it seems like this time, more people may be listening. He came within an eyelash of finishing first in the Iowa straw poll. Less than 200 votes behind Michele Bachmann out of nearly 17,000 cast. Michele Bachmann has no chance of being the next president of the United States. Maybe Ron Paul should be. Here’s my question to you: Is Ron Paul the only grown-up running for president on the Republican side?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
(Edited)
More like grown under ! He thinks abomb arming iran is good idea ! " Not a threat to anybody " ! If he would have been around 200 years ago at best we would be imbecile canadians !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons are for girlie boys !
No they have to buy their own, for protection against your gay black jewish klan. Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Hopefully the brain disease isn't heriditary ! Rand Paul seems normal - healthy !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons are for girlie boys !
Ron Paul is a LIBERTARIAN, he is NOT a repukelican't. He has ZERO chance of ever winning the repukelican't nomination. OBVIOUSLY he has alot of good constitutional ideas, but many of his other positions, reasoned or not, kill his chances of EVER being president. The AMERICAN people are NOT ready to elect a president who wants to make drugs legal. You Paultards are pissing into the wind. You must like the smell? Because trying to nominate Ron Paul as the repukelican't Presidential candidate is USELESS. But, by all means, this is still America so have at it. I guess it is WARM after all, right?
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
He has ZERO chance of ever winning the repukelican't nomination. OBVIOUSLY he has alot of good constitutional ideas, but many of his other positions, reasoned or not, kill his chances of EVER being president. The AMERICAN people are NOT ready to elect a president who wants to make drugs legal. You Paultards are pissing into the wind. You must like the smell? Because trying to nominate Ron Paul as the repukelican't Presidential candidate is USELESS. But, by all means, this is still America so have at it. I guess it is WARM after all, right? Paul has a chance. If people like you who claim to be constitutionalists realize that he is the best chance we have. No he isn't perfect but he is honest. Do you trust Romney or Perry? I don't. Some of his positions may not be mainstream. But if you are for freedom and limited government you would agree with him. Shame on you for calling someone a tard because they support the constitution.
Some of his positions may not be mainstream. But if you are for freedom and limited government you would agree with him. Shame on you for calling someone a tard because they support the constitution. The REALITY is that ... Ron Paul has ZERO chance. ZERO It doesn't matter what YOU and I do. The numbers are impossible. HISTORY has proven that third partys are LOSERS for sure. LOL! The ONLY way that he could ever even have a chance is as the repukelican't candidate, and THAT is NEVER going to happen. Because his LIBERTARIAN views are just too kOOkY for the vast majority of even CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVES to swallow again in that good ol "at least he's better than fill in dotted line" "game". I do agree with MOST of what he SAYS, BUT I find many of his important positions on important issues unacceptable. AND I'm a pretty "liberal" CONSERVATIVE. BUT again it doesn't matter F all what you and I think. As I have just explained. AGAIN. I didn't call him, or anybody else, a "retard" for supporting the US CONSTITUTION. I call the mindless cult of personality which MOST of his followers joyously accept and promote to be both illogical, AND UN-AMERICAN. The F ing guy has been in office for F ing DECADES and he hasn't done SHITALL of what he claims to believe. Yeah yeah he never voted for a tax, even IF that's true and I F ing doubt it, so F ing what? The PaulTARDS claim to despise the messiah "king" obammy's record of voting "present". Nihilism isn't ACTION. Certainly not CONSTITUTIONAL action. What is RETARDED is worshipping a little flawed man. ANY little flawed man, which means ALL men.
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
. I meant to ping you this also. Sorry about that.
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
ZERO So you'd prefer to be duped by "lesser of two evils" argument, eh? Since both the DNC and GOP are the very best government that money can buy, your voting for either sock-puppet gives tacit approval to on-going corruption in D.C. I voted for Ron Paul in 2008, and donated to his campaign. I'll do the same again. Oh, and you might want to check THIS out, before you just write off Paul. The one good thing to have come out of the whole debt-cieling debacle, is that people are waking up fast. Maybe enough will wake up, to where we can TRULY throw the bums out on their asses. We'll see.
The two sides in America are people who work for a living versus people who vote for their living.
AND ... THAT ... LOGICALLY and SANELY .... follows from what I said how EXACTLY?. Oh yeah, IT DOESN'T. I don't care who you vote for. It's YOUR vote. As long as it isn't for the commie monster FRAUD why should I care? Oh yeah ... === Anyways ... I don't piss myself over things that I cannot change. I do MY best. Then I LIVE. === I don't freak out and cry when things are different that I would like. I AM water. WE are WATER. What is a river? The water or the banks?
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
Oh yeah, IT DOESN'T. It was a response to your comment about Paul have no chance. The following comment you made, clearly explained your position: I understand your point. MY point is simple: voting for the less-corrupted party, is still voting for corruption. I will vote for Ron Paul and any Tea Party candidates in my area, during the next election. I'm done with both major parties.
The two sides in America are people who work for a living versus people who vote for their living.
mad dog still in need of a bullet in the head.
Long live the Taliban Freedom Fighters!
Oh, you're back? Then back on bozo you go.
The two sides in America are people who work for a living versus people who vote for their living.
Are you suggesting that Dr. Paul advocates legalizing drugs? Please cite your source.
Then you will always lose. Unless and until we can change the way the system is presently setup. The cult of personality is RETARDED AND UN-AMERICAN. I don't care who PaulTARDS vote for, they are too few to really matter. I was wrong about you Eric when we were at loggerheads at LP back in the day. I have seen here at LF that you really are a CONSTITUTIONAL AMERICAN, and I both respect and admire you for that. There is no need for animosity re: Ron Paul. We'll just have to agree to disagree on his chances of ever being president. Don't freak just because I'm telling you the historical truth. Sure, I could be wrong, hell I HOPE that I am! Because I believe that Ron Paul would be much better than most of the people who now seek the office. But, please, get a grip. He's just a man. He's just a POLITICIAN.
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
. GAG! RETCH!!!!!!!!!!!! GEEEEZE what is that STENCH? Smells like corruption and decay and disease. Is that commieoperative creep around by any chance? "Duuuuuude" ........... YOU REEK! What did you roll in idiot?
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
If the only way I can "win" means abandoning all beliefs, principles and values, then the price of "winning" is too high. I am not willing to sell my soul, to win. You are. Pity.
The two sides in America are people who work for a living versus people who vote for their living.
The AMERICAN people are NOT ready to elect a president who wants to make drugs legal. Are you suggesting that Dr. Paul advocates legalizing drugs? Please cite your source. You are unknown to me. RonPaul is NOT. Spare me your libertarian gibbering and parsing. Drugs are only one reason that RonPaul is UNACCEPTABLE to the vast majority of the American electorate, including me. If you think that I'm going to wrassel with you PaulTARDS down in the mire AGAIN, (redux times infinity), just because you RonPaul people seem incapable of actually LIVING what you CLAIM to believe, that being INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Go back and read ALL of the 2008 stuff. I've already wasted too much time with you fanatics. Without any doubt I'll have to waste more, as you people frantically worship at the wee altar of TARDISM. Good luck with that. (btw spare me the attempt to get me to REPEAT MYSELF HERE AGAIN. I DON'T CARE WHAT you cult of personality people do, or "think". YOU have every right to be who and what you want to be. Just AS the rest of us AMERICANS do.)
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
. You act like a little boy. You won't accept a world that isn't book "perfect" and now you'll hold your breath until you get your way. REAL constructive little boy. You SHOULD know that when I speak of "WINNING" that I mean AMERICA WINNING, that the CONSTITUTION WINS, it has SHIT ALL to do with me as an individual except as an AMERICAN. And little boy, I'd DO ANYTHING to SAVE AMERICA AND THE CONSTITUTION. How dare you assume that I'd ever abandon ANY of my principles you pedantic little child. Fuck YOUR soul. THIS is about saving AMERICA. NONE OF US INDIVIDUAL AMERICANS IS IMPORTANT WHEN IT COMES TO THE LITERAL SURVIVAL OF THIS NATION AND CULTURE. MFer YOU claim to have been a squid, so you SHOULD KNOW that it's FISH or cut bait TIME. "LEAD, FOLLOW, OR GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY!" RonPaul cannot EVER be president of the USA. Get over it. If you can't face reality and help US stop this FRAUD MONSTER that is in office from KILLING AMERICA NOW, then you aren't worth shit in the REAL world.
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
Hardly. I'm done refusing to compromise my principles, to vote for one the two "approved" (i.e., bought lock-stock-and-barrel) parties. I don't think Ron Paul is "perfect," but he has integrity, he understands where this road ends, and he's actually trying to do something about it. Every other candidate is simply trying to kick the can down the road- which is the height of irresponsibility. How is voting for more corruption going to save it? You're delusional if you think that you can somehow win this game. A quote from Claire Wolfe (here): You talk a good game, but that's all you do: talk. I responded to your statements. They were logical, clear and concise. Your message was simple: you're willing to sell your soul, so you won't have to "lose." YOUR words, not mine. You find my logical summary of your posts offensive? Tough. You've made it plain, that you're not willing to stand on principles, so don't turn around and state that you'll do anything to 'save America.' Indeed. In the mean time, I'll NOT play D vs. R game. I'll not sell my soul, to be a good little lemming that YOU approve of. As if your approval means diddley-shit to me. Instead of demanding that I be a follower like you, maybe you should take a dose of your own advice. IF you have the courage. Somehow, I don't think you do. Oh, and as a final note- trying to call me "little boy" because I have the courage to stand for my principles, made me laugh. Instead of standing on principles, YOU fold like a cheap suit. Feh.
The two sides in America are people who work for a living versus people who vote for their living.
Why?
Yes, because that hardly ever happens.
------------------------------------- Not sure what you mean by this comment..... You suggested that Dr. Paul advocated "LEGALIZATION OF DRUGS" This is interesting - Please cite your source.
as you people frantically worship at the wee altar of TARDISM. "Worship at the wee altar of tardism" You know...........wait - Forget it - forget I responded to you - don't bother You clearly have real emotional issues, please seek help -
Ron Paul appears to have consistently said he would leave drug legalization to the individual states. He would appear to not oppose the complete legalization of drugs. His personal opinion would appear to favor legalization. This falls short of an outright call for all states, so empowered, to legalize drugs. This would result in each state deciding for itself which drugs were legal, or illegal, within its jurisdiction. The Federal government would have no jurisdiction to prosecute drug possession or use. - - - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws7Zp41fByE Ron Paul on legalizing drugs and gay marriage - SC Republican debate 5/5/2011 [no embed available] - - - Ron Paul on Drugs with John Stossel http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3970423&page=1 In the interview, we discussed prostitution, drug use and gay marriage. Paul says these are not things that the federal government should try to control. "I think the government's role should not be involved in personal habits. When you defend freedom, you defend freedom of choice, and you can't be picking and choosing how people use those freedoms . . .whether it's personal behavior or economic behavior, I want people to have freedom of choice," Paul asserted. He believes the constitution says such issues should be left to the states to decide, and if a state chooses to legalize marijuana, cocaine, heroin and/or prostitution, so be it. "I would get the government out of regulating all those substances," Paul said. "I think the government's role should not be involved in personal habits. I believe those rules should protect children who are below the age of making good judgments. So, I have no problem with state laws that would protect children from the use of these drugs." Paul also told me that marijuana, cocaine and heroin should be legal in states that choose to permit it; he feels the same way about prostitution. "I would get the government out of regulating all those substances," Paul said. "I believe those rules should protect children who are below the age of making good judgments. So, I have no problem with state laws that would protect children from the use of these drugs."
If Ron Paul is the nominee will you support him?
How is it going op?
Thanks for the info. I think Rand is wise in having a different view on drugs and supporting constitutional amendment to end abortion. His view on drugs is a bit different too.
The real legal argument is whether abortion is a matter of State or Federal jurisdiction. It is on this point that Roe is questionable. The Supreme Court decision depends on Federal jurisdiction. Uber-conservatives do not desire to overturn the ruling in Roe by contesting Federal jurisdiction. They desire to have an activist court reverse the ruling in Roe, exerting Federal jurisdiction to hold abortion illegal in any state for any reason. This position is held on moral grounds rather than legal grounds. It bears the same legal problem as Roe. It depends on saying the Constitution gave to the Federal government, jurisdiction over the issue, and the power to decide it. Were Roe to be overturned on the basis that it was a matter of State jurisdiction, it is likely that many States would permit abortions with even fewer restrictions than now imposed by the Federal government. While Texas could criminalize all abortion within its jurisdiction, Mary Roe could obtain an abortion in another jurisdiction. If recognized as a State matter, a constitutional amendment could change the jurisdiction to Federal. It is ironic that many who oppose judicial activism generally, call for the Supreme Court to exercise jurisdiction and reverse Roe. Ron and Rand Paul do have an interesting difference in their positions. http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/ http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/a-g/abortion-2/ I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life. I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion. I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue. I also believe that while we are working toward this goal, there are many other things we can accomplish in the near term. It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. I strongly oppose any federal funding for abortion and will stop the flow of tax dollars to groups like Planned Parenthood, who perform or advocate abortions. In addition, I believe we may be able to save millions of lives in the near future by allowing states to pass their own anti-abortion laws. If states were able to do so, I sincerely believe many -- including Kentucky -- would do so tomorrow, saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Before 1973, abortion was illegal in most states. Since Roe v. Wade, over 50 million children have died in abortion procedures. I would strongly support legislation restricting federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade. Such legislation would only require a majority vote, making it more likely to pass than a pro-life constitutional amendment. I don't know about that last one. The Congress does have the power to remove appellate jurisdiction from the U.S. Supreme Court, and as a result, from all lower Federal courts. U.S. Const., Art 3, Sec. 2 contains, "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Congress can carve out any exception they choose. They can and have used this after a case was heard, but before a decision was issued. Once they stripped the Court of jurisdiction, it had no further power to act on that case. (Ex parte McCardle from 1868.) Roe would continue in effect as "good" law, the prevailing precedent. The State courts would still be legally bound by that precedent. State law in conflict with Roe would still be considered unconstitutional. But the State courts could rule contrary to binding precedent and the citizen might be denied his appellate rights because the Federal courts would not have jurisdiction to consider their valid complaint. I do not favor using the congressional power in an issue-based manner such as that. How far could the Congress go? Could they strip the Federal courts of authority to hear any case related to the Bill of Rights? How about the 13th Amendment? I think it was a very bad idea in 1868, and it hasn't gotten any better. I believe the issue should properly sit with the States, and if the people want to change that, then it would be best done by constitutional amendment.
Okay Stone. yourself and the family?
Long live the Taliban Freedom Fighters!
Most certainly I would.
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
I guess that works on the grade schoolers that you usually associate with eh commieoperative? I don't give a rusty F what tools such as YOU "think" about anything. So ... piss off gomer.
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
Thanks for that nolu. I could have supplied it AGAIN to these fanatics, but the next fanatic would have me explain it AGAIN to them, ad infinitum, so I have quit doing their work for them. The LIBERTARIAN way is NOT the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC way. The AMERICAN people and electorate are NOT "libertarians". LIBERTARIAN ideas are NOT the main stream of political thought in America now, and NEVER have been in our history. Ron Paul is a LIBERTARIAN he is NOT a repukelican't. Ron Paul has ZERO real chance of EVER being elected President of the USA. THAT's the simple truth. I'm just the messenger. Sue me.
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
This is interesting - I didn't 'suggest" anything asshole. I said he was for legalization of drugs and he is. It's a basic point of LIBERTARIANISM asshole. What is "interesting" asshole, is that you pretend NOT to know that. Which means that you are at best a FOOL and at worst a LIAR. So ... "have a nice day" ... and ... PISS OFF.
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
Thanks for that nolu. I could have supplied it AGAIN to these fanatics, but the next fanatic would have me explain it AGAIN to them, ad infinitum, so I have quit doing their work for them. To clarify, what I concluded was that Ron Paul's personal opinion would be to legalize drugs, but as a matter of public policy he would leave it up the individual states. That could result in 50 different policies with varying degrees of regulation or criminalization, dependent on what the individual states decide. Only if a State were to adopt Ron Paul's personal opinion, would it would lead to legalization in that State. Ron Paul would deny the power of the Federal government to impose any nationwide policy regarding criminalization or legalization of drugs. It would appear that the FDA would retain authority to regulate non-criminal aspects such as purity and effectiveness of drugs distributed in interstate commerce, or to license distributors.
I could look at all the candidates and reasonably conclude he or she could not be elected, or re-elected, President. The statistics Obama faces on the economy and employment are virtually impossible to find any great improvement before the election. That and his rather dismal approval numbers would normally make his task almost impossible. However, the fact that he remains viable demonstrates the weakness of the GOP field. Someone holding out for 2016 may well jump in. However unelectable, somebody will get elected. I believe Ron Paul has a slim chance of ever winning the GOP nomination. Whoever gets nominated should have a reasonable chance of being elected. The campaign will say, "It's the economy, stupid." They can re-run Dem ads for Clinton. It will be a mantra, and a difficult one to respond to effectively. Romney inspires like an Obama pep talk during a market crash. A Mormon (LDS) may face difficulty in evangelical areas, significant in GOP politics. Perry looks like an SNL parody of GWB, or the cable televangelist selling snake oil at 2 a.m. He could crash and burn upon the national stage. On the economy, Obama has been seen as uninvolved, ineffective, or irrelevant. There is a perceived failure to lead, or inability to lead. The numbers and the economic reality is awful. His task is very difficult, but he has proven he is a very effective campaigner. It's an interesting race to handicap because somebody has to win.
Great post! up until that last sentence. That DEPRESSES me.
__________________________________________________________________________________________ That DEPRESSES me. Why is that? America's history of US Presidents from Truman to today have been depressing. Someone always seems to get "plugged-in" to the WhiteHouse and screws around for awhile and eventually leaves on a forever vacation into obscurity.
Partly because I believe the office of POTUS has moved far afield of what the Founder's envisioned. It is way too powerful, for starters. What we have is akin to a king - which is not at all what they wanted. While the President should speak for the country in foreign matters (with strict Congressional oversight, of course) much of what the Executive Branch does is either a) un-Constitutional, or b) better left to the States or the Legislative Branch.
__________________________________________________________________________________________ I tend to agree with you. Have you noticed that all modern day presidents create all kinds of political rhetoric and then when in actual office back down altogether? My opinion doesn't single out 0bama, either. As you candidly point out: And, everyone laffs at 0bama for taking his vacations? The man is overwhelmed; as all presidents since WW2 US presidents have been. Those that single any one president out anymore don't understand what they are suggesting: the entire lot of post WW2 presidents are mere dummies straddling a barroom pole set in the center of a stage for all the publick to watch while a president is ineffectual about their own campaign promises.
I agree. I would trace that back to the Civil War (a misnomer). The effect of that war was not to preserve the union we had, but to radically revolutionize the form of government, especially through post-war amendments, especially section one of the 14th amendment. One of the attributes of sovereignty is the self-determination of citizenship within the sovereign territory. A sovereign state could determine who was a citizen of the state. This amendment took that away from the states, effectively removing the quality of state sovereignty. The 13th amendment passed without difficulty. The 14th could garner neither the voluntary approval of 3/4ths of the Northern states, nor 3/4ths of all the states. A great deal of questionable or coercive measures were taken to get ratification recognized.
Comments (41 - 46) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: BorisY (#1)
thinks abomb arming iran is good idea
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#3. To: hondo68 (#2)
#4. To: hondo68 (#0)
Here’s my question to you: Is Ron Paul the only grown-up running for president on the Republican side?
#5. To: Mad Dog (#4)
Ron Paul is a LIBERTARIAN, he is NOT a repukelican't.
#6. To: A K A Stone (#5)
Paul has a chance. If people like you who claim to be constitutionalists realize that he is the best chance we have. No he isn't perfect but he is honest. Do you trust Romney or Perry? I don't.
#7. To: hondo68 (#6)
#8. To: Mad Dog (#6)
Ron Paul has ZERO chance.
#9. To: Capitalist Eric (#8)
So you'd prefer to be duped by "lesser of two evils" argument, eh? Since both the DNC and GOP are the very best government that money can buy, your voting for either sock-puppet gives tacit approval to on-going corruption in D.C.
#10. To: Mad Dog (#9)
AND ... THAT ... LOGICALLY and SANELY .... follows from what I said how EXACTLY?.
The numbers are impossible. HISTORY has proven that third partys are LOSERS for sure.
#11. To: all (#9)
#12. To: continental op (#11)
#13. To: Mad Dog (#4)
The AMERICAN people are NOT ready to elect a president who wants to make drugs legal.
#14. To: Capitalist Eric (#10)
I will vote for Ron Paul and any Tea Party candidates in my area, during the next election. I'm done with both major parties.
#15. To: ALL, commieoperative (#11)
#16. To: Mad Dog (#14)
Then you will always lose.
#17. To: Jameson (#13)
#18. To: Capitalist Eric (#16)
(Edited)
#19. To: Mad Dog (#18)
(Edited)
You act like a little boy. You won't accept a world that isn't book "perfect" and now you'll hold your breath until you get your way. REAL constructive little boy.
You SHOULD know that when I speak of "WINNING" that I mean AMERICA WINNING, that the CONSTITUTION WINS, it has SHIT ALL to do with me as an individual except as an AMERICAN. And little boy, I'd DO ANYTHING to SAVE AMERICA AND THE CONSTITUTION.
And whatever courses of action we choose, we must remember that this legislative "revolution" against We the People will not be stopped by politeness. It will not be stopped by requests. It will not be stopped by "working within a system" governed by those who regard us as nothing but cattle. It will not be stopped by pleading for justice from those who will resort to any degree of trickery or violence to rule us.
It will not be stopped unless we are willing to risk our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honors to stop it.
I think of the words of Winston Churchill: "If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."And little boy, I'd DO ANYTHING to SAVE AMERICA AND THE CONSTITUTION. How dare you assume that I'd ever abandon ANY of my principles you pedantic little child.
MFer YOU claim to have been a squid, so you SHOULD KNOW that it's FISH or cut bait TIME.
"LEAD, FOLLOW, OR GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY!"
#20. To: Mad Dog (#18)
RonPaul cannot EVER be president of the USA.
#21. To: Mad Dog (#17)
spare me the attempt to get me to REPEAT MYSELF HERE AGAIN
Why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?
#22. To: Mad Dog (#17)
Spare me your libertarian gibbering and parsing.
#23. To: Mad Dog, AKA Stone (#17)
Without any doubt I'll have to waste more, as you people frantically worship at the wee altar of TARDISM.
#24. To: Jameson, Mad Dog, A K A Stone (#23)
Legalize Drugs and Prostitution?
#25. To: Mad Dog (#17)
#26. To: continental op (#11)
#27. To: nolu chan, nolu chan (#24)
#28. To: A K A Stone (#27)
I think Rand is wise in having a different view on drugs and supporting constitutional amendment to end abortion.
At the GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida, on Nov 28, 2007, Ron Paul was asked what a women would be charged with if abortion becomes illegal and she obtains an abortion anyway:
“The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.”
I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#26)
#30. To: A K A Stone (#25)
If Ron Paul is the nominee will you support him?
#31. To: Jameson (#23)
blaH blAh bLah Blah blaH blAh bLah Blah blaH blAh bLah Blah blaH blAh bLah Blah
#32. To: nolu chan, ALL (#24)
nolu's PROOF that RonPaul wants to legalize drugs in the USA.
#33. To: Jameson (#22)
You suggested that Dr. Paul advocated "LEGALIZATION OF DRUGS"
#34. To: Mad Dog (#32)
nolu's PROOF that RonPaul wants to legalize drugs in the USA.
#35. To: Mad Dog (#32)
Ron Paul has ZERO real chance of EVER being elected President of the USA.
#36. To: nolu chan (#35)
It's an interesting race to handicap because somebody has to win.
HA! The tea-party, INDEED! They're so . . . ah . . . common
#37. To: Get Outta Dodge! (#36)
Great post! up until that last sentence.
#38. To: buckeroo (#37)
Why is that?
HA! The tea-party, INDEED! They're so . . . ah . . . common
#39. To: Get Outta Dodge! (#38)
It [the office of POTUS] is way too powerful, for starters. What we have is akin to a king - which is not at all what they wanted.
#40. To: Get Outta Dodge!, buckeroo (#38)
Partly because I believe the office of POTUS has moved far afield of what the Founder's envisioned.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States of the state wherein they reside state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]