Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Could Ron Paul be the next president?
Source:
CBS
URL Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7391241n
Published: Dec 11, 2011
Author: CBS
Post Date: 2011-12-11 11:01:48 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 33960
Comments: 59
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Ross Perot, Ron Paul, been there, done that.
All RP can do is guarantee Barry Obama a 2nd term.
#2. To: Happy Quanzaa (#1)
You're not voting for Paul in the primaries? I think he can win. It is an uphill battle but it could happen.
#3. To: Happy Quanzaa (#1)
What are your opinions on Newt and Romney and throw in Perry for the heck of it?
#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)
I was for Cain, but now that he's gone I'm w/ Newt. He has bad baggage but he did force Clinton into welfare reform, and was Speaker the last time we had a balanced budget. And I really don't give a rat's ass about his sex life, or how many wives he's had.
Perry is an open borders guy and gives in-state tuition to Illegals. Romney is a Northeast flip-flopping libtard RINO that can't be trusted.
That said, no matter who the GOP nominee is, I will support. We can't afford to let Barry put another radical on the Supreme Court, and that opportunity will happen for whoever is in the White House from '13-'17.
#5. To: Happy Quanzaa (#4)
Perry is an open borders guy
So is Newt.
#6. To: Happy Quanzaa (#4)
And I really don't give a rat's ass about his sex life, or how many wives he's had.
That isn't the only issue. But it gets down to the mans character.
#7. To: A K A Stone (#5)
So is Newt.
Not to the point of giving them amnesty and citizenship. And not one of the other candidates will deport a single illegal that's been here for a long time and has family here, not one. I would like to load them all up in dump trucks and take them to the border too, but that's not going to happen. No candidate has said they would do that, including Ron Paul. All they want to do is bash Newt for being honest about the reality of the situation. Talking about deportation is putting the cart before the horse anyhow. The borders need to be closed first and then we start working on which illegals ones we can get rid of, I believe Newt will do that.
#8. To: Happy Quanzaa (#4)
That said, no matter who the GOP nominee is, I will support.
That is EXACTLY why we're in the shape we're in. The globalists own BOTH teams in case you haven't been paying attention. Thank Newt for this economy and the lack of jobs...he rammed NAFTA and GATT through a lame duck congress because he knew if he waited until the newly elected congressman were seated in 1994, it would NEVER have passed. Over 80% of the American people were against these "free trade" agreements at the time, and for good reason...but he couldn't have cared less...he worked with Clinton and MADE it happen. He is a TRAITOR extraordinaire! And if you think, for one second, Newt is going to put a small government, Constitutional judge on the Supreme court, you're smoking crack....THAT would be against EVERYTHING he believes in.
#9. To: Happy Quanzaa (#7)
What about Newts third wave talk. That sounds like New World Order.
Newt could have stopped NAFTA but he was for it.
Newt is a globalist too. I used to really like him when he was minority whip and even when he was speaker. But sadly he turned out to be a globalist too.
#10. To: freedomsnotfree (#8)
And if you think, for one second, Newt is going to put a small government, Constitutional judge on the Supreme court, you're smoking crack...
I think Newts picks to the Supreme court would be far superior to the trashy dykes Obama has appointed.
Bush sucked but his supreme court picks were good to an extent.
#11. To: Happy Quanzaa (#7)
No candidate has said they would do that, including Ron Paul.
no...what Paul has said is, stop giving them freebies and they will self- deport. He is right.
#12. To: A K A Stone (#10)
I think Newts picks to the Supreme court would be far superior to the trashy dykes Obama has appointed
wishful thinking...but it would be totally inconsistent with who newt is. He is a big government, globalist, NWO guy that hates our Constitution and freedoms. Why do you think he would pick ANYONE other than someone that has those same beliefs?
#13. To: freedomsnotfree (#12)
wishful thinking...but it would be totally inconsistent with who newt is. He is a big government, globalist, NWO guy that hates our Constitution and freedoms. Why do you think he would pick ANYONE other than someone that has those same beliefs?
Because the same thing could have been said about Bush. But with Bush we got supremes that are Ok. Not always right but overall ok.
Bushes supremes are to much pro police power. On the other issues they are good.
#14. To: freedomsnotfree (#11)
no...what Paul has said is, stop giving them freebies and they will self- deport. He is right.
I agree with Paul on that. I think Newts position is the same.
But they wont all leave. Many of them work here and make good money. They aren't going anywhere.
#15. To: freedomsnotfree (#8)
And if you think, for one second, Newt is going to put a small government, Constitutional judge on the Supreme court, you're smoking crack
So you think any of the GOP candidate's SCOTUS appointment would just be another Kagan or Wise Latina?
#16. To: Happy Quanzaa (#15)
Both Newt and Romney also support the new bill to lock up U.S. Citizens with out due process.
If Ron Pual got the nomination. Do you think he would surely lose to the usurper Obama?
#17. To: A K A Stone (#14)
But they wont all leave. Many of them work here and make good money. They aren't going anywhere.
they'll leave if it's illegal to hire them...and it's enforced.
#18. To: Happy Quanzaa (#15)
So you think any of the GOP candidate's SCOTUS appointment would just be another Kagan or Wise Latina?
absolutely...global communism is the favor of the day. Why would a big government, globalist put a Constitutional, limited government judge on the court...it's NOT what they believe in. With the exception of Paul...
#19. To: freedomsnotfree (#17)
But they wont all leave. Many of them work here and make good money. They aren't going anywhere.they'll leave if it's illegal to hire them...and it's enforced.
I support that idea. It is a good idea. But they will never all leave voluntarily.
#20. To: freedomsnotfree (#18)
Why would a big government, globalist put a Constitutional, limited government judge on the court...it's NOT what they believe in
Was Bush a big government globalist that hated the constitution?
#21. To: A K A Stone (#16)
Both Newt and Romney also support the new bill to lock up U.S. Citizens with out due process.
...this is include anybody that doesn't agree with their form of governance...count on it.
#22. To: freedomsnotfree (#21)
...this is include anybody that doesn't agree with their form of governance...count on it.
I know. I better be more careful about what I say on here. Or I might be disappeared. When the pigs pull me over they regularly say I am a militia member already. Some asswipe city employee put that in their database because I fucked with him in court.
#23. To: A K A Stone (#20)
you mean open borders, bush, that called the Constitution just a GD piece of paper. You mean bush...the guy that lied to get us in a war with Iraq, and found GUILTY of war crimes for doing it...Yeah...bush sucked!
#24. To: A K A Stone (#22)
When the pigs pull me over they regularly say I am a militia member already. Some asswipe city employee put that in their database because I fucked with him in court.
are you SERIOUS!!! Actually, with few exceptions, ALL citizens are members of the militia if you are between the ages of 16-65... according to the framers.
#25. To: freedomsnotfree (#23)
you mean open borders, bush, that called the Constitution just a GD piece of paper. You mean bush...the guy that lied to get us in a war with Iraq, and found GUILTY of war crimes for doing it...Yeah...bush sucked!
Are his picks to the supreme court as bad as Obamas? I say hell no.
#26. To: freedomsnotfree (#24)
are you SERIOUS!!! Actually, with few exceptions, ALL citizens are members of the militia
I understand that.
But the militia they are talking about is the one that the government calls terrorists.
A foreign guy I worked for didn't pay me all the money one time. I kept calling him once a day like you are allowed to. He put a restraining g order on me and I'm not kidding you 15 cops came out to serve it on me in several cop cars.
I have since got my revenge on the foreigner. I wont say what it was.
#27. To: A K A Stone (#16)
Both Newt and Romney also support the new bill to lock up U.S. Citizens with out due process.If Ron Pual got the nomination. Do you think he would surely lose to the usurper Obama?
Yep, w/o question he would loose, big time. I don't care how much sense he makes, he looks and sounds like a crotchety old man on TV, & w/ 60% of the idiot electorate that right there disqualifies him.
Newt or Romney, that's the only chance you have of getting BHO out of the White House. You can try to order prime rib at McDoanald's if you want to, but you ain't going to get it because it ain't on the menu.
#28. To: Happy Quanzaa (#4)
I was for Cain, but now that he's gone I'm w/ Newt.
All Newt will do is guarantee Barry a 2nd term. Conservatives and independents will not vote for Newt, just like they didn't vote for McCain.
Perry is an open borders guy and gives in-state tuition to Illegals. Romney is a Northeast flip-flopping libtard RINO that can't be trusted.
Newt is all of the above also.
#29. To: Happy Quanzaa (#15)
So you think any of the GOP candidate's SCOTUS appointment would just be another Kagan or Wise Latina?
Harriet Miers comes to mind.
#30. To: A K A Stone (#20)
Was Bush a big government globalist that hated the constitution?
Harriet Miers, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act of 2006, refusal to secure our borders, pre-emptive war, etc.
You can bet your life that he was and is.
#31. To: A K A Stone (#2) (Edited)
I think he can win. It is an uphill battle but it could happen.
There isn't a chance in the world that he can win. His support has hovered around 8% or 9% nationally.
Yes, he has made significant gains in Iowa, BUT Iowa's primaries are January 3rd when all of the college kids are still out on winter break. Many of them won't even be in Iowa to vote for Paul in the caucuses.
Given the GOP's rule changes this year from winner take all states to proportional representation, Paul will walk into the convention with 8% or so of the delegates. This ensures that he'll get a speaking spot. That's it.
#32. To: Happy Quanzaa (#27)
Yep, w/o question he would loose, big time.
That isn't honestly knowable. People despise Obama. People who were suckers last time wont be this time. Well a lot of them wont at least.
I used to work for this one very liberal guy. He shocked me when he said this.
He said that the country was so pissed off at Bush that they went out and elected a nigger. I'd never heard him use that word ever, never could have imagined him using it.
#33. To: Happy Quanzaa, a k a stone, cz82 (#4)
That said, no matter who the GOP nominee is, I will support.
I will NOT support another liberal Republican like Romney.
I want clarity in the country. It if someone is going to destroy the country, it better be a liberal Democrat, and not a GOP RINO who will take free market conservatives down with him.
#34. To: We The People (#30)
Harriet Miers, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act of 2006, refusal to secure our borders, pre-emptive war, etc.You can bet your life that he was and is.
Ok. But his supreme court picks have been reasonable.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#26)
...sorry to hear that Stone....a man that works needs to get paid. This overwhelming force thing has gotten out of hand...and don't feel alone, I'm sure I'm on some list too because I believe in the Constitution and freedom...:?) if I'm not, I'd be disappointed.
#36. To: A K A Stone (#14)
But they wont all leave. Many of them work here and make good money. They aren't going anywhere.
I want the one's who are here for handouts to leave.
The ones who work hard, in jobs that American's won't take like gardening, should stay.
They should pay taxes.
They shouldn't be given citizenship and allowed to vote -- that should be their punishment for entering the country illegally.
#37. To: A K A Stone (#25)
Are his picks to the supreme court as bad as Obamas? I say hell no.
that was bush...Gingrich and Romney are different people. We need to make sure EVERYONE we vote for is a small government, Constitutional person...the president can't do it all and if we can clean out DC and put in those that ACTUALLY believe in the Constitution, things will change
#38. To: jwpegler (#33) (Edited)
I will NOT support another liberal Republican like Romney.
If Willard gets the nomination, and you stay home on election day, then you will be putting at least one more radical on the Supreme Court. And then you can put a fork in us because we're done then, for sure (if we're not already).
#39. To: freedomsnotfree (#37)
We need to make sure EVERYONE we vote for is a small government, Constitutional person
Agree 100%. I will not vote for another liberal Republican. We have no defense against liberals Republicans in office. Liberal Republican failures = Democrat Party victories.
I will never vote for Romney, just like I didn't vote for Bush I in either 88 or 92, Bush II in 04, and McCain in 08.
No way.
#40. To: freedomsnotfree (#37)
that was bush...
I don't think Newt is totally bad like Obama. I think his picks would be better then Obamas.
Here is some of what I like or respect about Newt.
Welfare reform.
His recent stance on letting kids work in their schools if they want to.
His trying to get budget cuts when Clinton was President. And heading towards or helping balance the budget.
He favors a lower tax burden the Dems do.
There is a short list.
With Obama it is nothing.
#41. To: Happy Quanzaa (#38)
Then you will be putting at least one more radical on the Supreme Court. And then you can put a fork in us because we're done then, for sure (if we're not already).
Let me state this again. I want clarity.
I don't want Romney to destroy the country. If someone is going to destroy the country, let it be Obama.
Then we can pick up the pieces in 2016.
#42. To: jwpegler (#39)
00?
#43. To: A K A Stone (#42)
00?
I made a huge mistake and voted for Bush in 00. He fooled me. I corrected my error in 04.
I won't be fooled again.
#44. To: jwpegler (#43)
00?I made a huge mistake and voted for Bush in 00.
Me too. I should have voted Buchanan.
To bad pat ran back then and not now. Todays climate seems a lot better for a Pat Buchanan.
#45. To: A K A Stone (#34)
Harriet Miers - is no conservative.
While head of the State Bar of Texas, Miers joined an unsuccessful effort to have the American Bar Association maintain its then-official position of neutrality on abortion. The ABA had adopted abortion neutrality at its 1990 annual meeting in Chicago after strong opposition by the State Bar of Texas to a pro-choice position. By the summer of 1992, at its annual meeting in San Francisco, the issue was again pending before the ABA assembly. Miers, who had not been involved in the Chicago meeting, supported ABA abortion neutrality in San Francisco.[11] At the San Francisco meeting, the ABA Assembly and House of Delegates voted to take a pro-abortion rights position, and the state bar of Texas dropped its plans to ask the ABA's policy-making body to hold a referendum of the group's 370,000 members on the issue.[12]
************************************************************************
On October 3, 2005, Bush nominated Miers to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Miers' nomination was criticized by people all over the political spectrum based on her never having served as a judge, her perceived lack of intellectual rigor, her close personal ties to Bush, and her lack of a clear record on issues likely to be encountered as a Supreme Court Justice. Many notable conservatives vigorously criticized her nomination, and numerous conservative groups normally considered part of Bush's political base planned to mount an organized opposition campaign.
Miers met with senators after her nomination was announced, and in those meetings she was ill-prepared and uninformed on the law.[24] Senator Tom Coburn told her privately that she "flunked" and "[was] going to have to say something next time."[24] In mock sessions with lawyers, Miers had difficulty expressing her views and explaining basic constitutional law concepts.[25] Miers had no experience in constitutional law, and did not have extensive litigation experience; at her Texas law firm, she had been more of a manager.[26] Miers had rarely handled appeals and did not understand the complicated constitutional concepts senators asked of her.[26] To White House lawyers, Miers was "less an attorney than a law firm manager and bar association president."[27]
Early one-on-one meetings between Miers and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were said to have gone poorly, and the White House considered suspending them to focus on preparation for the confirmation hearings. In an unprecedented move, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy also requested that Miers re-do some of her answers to the questionnaire submitted to her by the Committee, noting that her responses were "inadequate," "insufficient," and "insulting" because she failed or refused to adequately answer various questions with acceptable accuracy or with sufficient detail.[28] Miers also privately expressed a belief in the right to privacy to the pro-choice Arlen Specter, only to later deny that she had communicated that.[29] Her answers also included an error on constitutional law where she mentioned an explicit constitutional right for proportional representation; though many court rulings have found that legislative and other districts of unequal population violate the equal protection clause, the right to proportional districts is not explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution.[30]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers
#46. To: jwpegler (#41)
Then we can pick up the pieces in 2016.
You won't be able to pick up the pieces in 2016, an activist radical majority SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional to do so.
#47. To: We The People (#45)
Yeah Harriet Miers was a joke. But he corrected that one.
#48. To: Happy Quanzaa (#46)
You won't be able to pick up the pieces in 2016, an activist radical majority SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional to do so.
If they didn't retire. Obama would probably have them assassinated. That way he picks their replacements.
#49. To: A K A Stone (#44)
I voted for Buchanan in the 92 primary. Then I voted for Perot in the general election.
#50. To: Happy Quanzaa (#46) (Edited)
You won't be able to pick up the pieces in 2016, an activist radical majority SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional to do so.
RINO Romney won't fix anything. He'll tinker around the edges to give his Wall Street buddies even more control. As result, we'll have Hitlery in office in 2016.
Actions have consequences. The consequences of liberal Republican"s growing government is liberal Democrats growing government even faster.
That's the problem that you, Micheal Medved and the rest of the GOP establishment just don't understand.
#51. To: jwpegler (#50)
As result, we'll have Hitlery in office in 2016.
She will never be president. Her time has passed. IMO.
#52. To: A K A Stone (#48) (Edited)
If they didn't retire. Obama would probably have them assassinated. That way he picks their replacements.
Stephens will be retire. He's lib, but he's not a radical. Obama replacing him puts the court in his hands. And I definitely wouldn't put it past BHO go Chicago on Clarence Thomas if he needed, or just wanted, to.
#53. To: jwpegler (#50)
RINO Romney won't fix anything.
He won't put a Kagan or Wise Latina radical on the court, so at least he wouldn't be breaking down the last barrier we have that holds out the barbarians.
#54. To: A K A Stone (#47)
Yeah Harriet Miers was a joke. But he corrected that one.
After he was pushed and prodded. Ask your friend Savage about it.
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
#55. To: mininggold (#54)
After he was pushed and prodded. Ask your friend Savage about it.
Yep. You wont get any argument on that one.
I'm not Mike Savages friend though. He would be an interesting friend to have though.
#56. To: Happy Quanzaa (#53)
He won't put a Kagan or Wise Latina radical on the court, so at least he wouldn't be breaking down the last barrier we have that holds out the barbarians.
You are just not listening.
Romney won't fix anything. He will fail. As a result of his failure, another Democrat will be elected in 2016, who will make things even worse.
Cause and effect. Action and reaction. A slow, painful death.
If we are going to die, I want a shockingly quick death at the hands of Democrats, with the GOP objecting 100% at every step of the way.
We don't need another Bush escalating the government's power and control over us. The country cannot afford two parties who do the basically the same thing.
We need the GOP to fight the government's power and control.
Only then might people wake up.
#57. To: jwpegler (#56)
Only then might people wake up.
Obama woke our side up (that's why Romney can't top 30%). We were awake in 2010 and we won't go back to sleep until the economy gets better and stays that way long enough for us to get fat, dumb, & happy again, just it did after we dumped Carter.
Anyhow, Romney is a non-issue. Barring anything extreme happening, he'll be done after the 1/17 SC primary. Then comes FL on 1/31 & that'll confirm it.
#58. To: Happy Quanzaa (#57) (Edited)
Anyhow, Romney is a non-issue. Barring anything extreme happening, he'll be done after the 1/17 SC primary. Then comes FL on 1/31 & that'll confirm it.
I don't agree.
The GOP changed their process this year from winner take all primaries to proportional representation.
If Gingrich takes 40% of the votes, Romney 30%, Paul 10% to 15%, and the rest of the candidates splitting the rest, they'll head into the convention without anyone having the 50% + 1 votes needed to win.
After the first ballot, anything could happen, including (god forbid) Jeb Bush getting the nomination in a brokered convention.
People who understand the new process are already talking about this. The GOP establishment will keep both Romney and Ron Paul in the race to try prevent Gingrich from getting that 50% + 1. It may not work, but this is what they are thinking now.
#59. To: jwpegler (#58)
If Gingrich takes 40% of the votes, Romney 30%, Paul 10% to 15%, and the rest of the candidates splitting the rest, they'll head into the convention without anyone having the 50% + 1 votes needed to win.After the first ballot, anything could happen, including (god forbid) Jeb Bush getting the nomination in a brokered convention.
Thanks, now I'm going to have nightmares until we have a candidate.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]