Reply With Quote
Paul benefits greatly from his online presence and doesn't need the level of cash that others do in order to fund his campaign.
Well, at least you're Eyeore post in the Hillary reaction thread makes more sense.
Paul benefits greatly from his online presence and doesn't need the level of cash that others do in order to fund his campaign.
The best Paul can hope to do is pull a Nader.
That's rich. How about a candidate that campaigns as a fiscal conservative and then presides over the greatest expansion of the federal government in our nation's history? Don't give me the 'war' explanation, for I'm sure that we aren't defeating al Qaida by providing a drugs benefit for the elderly.
What's disgraceful is that the GOP no longer stands for fiscal conservatism and limited government at all. What's worse are those who pretend it does and then denigrate those who dare to point out the truth.
Kinda like the man who takes the support of those who want a limited government and then spits in their face with actual policies.What kind of man takes money and attention from a party when it helps him, then spits in their face after getting what he wants? This en lement at ude, when looked at within the context of who supports Paul and what Paul believes, does not reflect well on the character of the man who claims to be the "hope for America."
Meh, you may have a point but, he's also presided over the greatest growth in GDP in our nation's history.
Okay, I won't. But, I didn't vote for Bush the first time because he was a fiscal conservative and I certainly didn't vote for him the second time for that reason either.
That may be true but, I think your beef is with the entire Republican Party and not just President Bush.
Like I said, that's not why I supported the president and, seeing as how this "flaw" was revealed in the first term, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's not why most Republicans supported him either.
Are we disappointed in the growth of spending? Absolutely. But, President Bush's positives far outweighed his negatives and, to boot, he negatives were going to be part of any Democratic administration anyway.
You seem to be arguing, however, that Ron Paul's behavior is justified by President Bush's. That's not a very good argument considering he's claiming to be different.
The man has a tough row to hoe, and I stand by my opinion that the best he could do is be a Nader in the next election. And, considering all the positive press he's getting from the left, he may be a Nader to the the Democrat -- again.
Doh!
From the link:He has no moral or strategic interest, obviously, in partnering with Israel to check Islamism. Nor does he seem concerned with guaranteeing our energy interests. To do so would presumably hew too closely to the dreaded neocon “war for oil” bumper sticker, although how he’d plan to meet the demand for petroleum if apocalyptic war did break out isn’t addressed here.
So why are there still arguments here about whether or not our ME policy is based on oil? And if we elect Ron Paul, we won't have enough oil to fight an apocalyptic war. Got it.
This one was something. Clearly, there are Ron Paul supporters who are rational and grounded, not given to spouting conspiracies or blaming “neocons” for everything bad that happens in the world (neocons being a blind for anti-Semitism).the other ishis supporters.
Wow. And that was just at the beginning.
I'm not sure what the point of this one is. I guess he's trying to say that Paul is bad for appearing on Alex Jones' radio show. But I watched the youtube of it and I don't know what the problem is. I guess if you like the Patriot Act and the president's new martial law powers then you would have a problem with it, but then I would call you crazy. Also, I listened to an interview on youtube about a year ago that Jones had with Joseph Stiglitz, who used to be the chief economist of the World Bank and is a nobel prize winner. It was interesting because Stiglitz was basically run out of the WB for being critical of their lending policies. My point is that the claim that Paul is bad or dumb or crazy or whatever for appearing on Alex Jones' show doesn't hold water.The evidence against Ron Paul is very,
A bad character - a guy who runs a racist website and happens to be David Duke's ex-wife's husband - gave Paul $500. I'm sure a racist or otherwise bad person hasn't donated to any of the other candidates. Also, Alex Jones gave Paul the $2,300 maximum, and Paul should give it back for some reason.very,
More of the same. "He appears on Alex Jones' radio show!", etc.very,
I loved this one: The truth is, if it weren’t for his orneriness on the war, I’d put more stock in Paul’s staunch libertarian/small government ethic. I’m very sympathetic to all of that. But when it comes to the war and related security issues, Paul is just unreasonable, and if enacted his ideas would get more people killed, which would lead to even more of a security-heavy environment, not greater libertarian freedom. Why can’t he see that?very,
Electing Ron Paul would cause people to die. Why can't he and his supporters see that? It's impossible to argue against such impeccable logic... Well, if there's ever an attack ad against Paul we know what it will be: "Daisy Girl part 2" - "if you vote for Ron Paul, terrorists will kill this little girl!"
And I'm assuming that the Mic e from this article is Mic e Malkin. If you think that Ron Paul is crazy just for talking to Alex Jones, then anybody who actually likes what Mic e Malkin has to say must be certifiably insane. You've got to stop getting your news from this guy, Yoni.
The DoD talked about doing exactly that type of thing in the 60s, staging plane hijackings or downing a ship to blame it on Cuba to create an excuse to go after Castro. Ah, the plan had a name, and I can't think of it or I'd give a link. Anybody out there know the name of it?very disturbing.
EDIT: Operation Northwoods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwoods
Last edited by BradLohaus; 11-06-2007 at 06:43 PM.
good to see Yoni still steals from blogs.
Never stopped.
good to see Yoni still steals from blogs.
Pat Buchanan agrees with Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEgxHLii_ic
Do not tie me down with facts and dates, Pat Buchanan!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions