Ron Paul

[IassaFTots]

Forget all the batshit crazy Ron Paul stories here.  Google Ron Paul and earmarks.  If that doesn't tell you all you need to know, then I don't know what will. 

That alone cancels him out in my book. 

[Mr Mannn]

Bitch slap for not listening.

What I am seeing is a man who, year after year, continues to come out on top in the straw polls.

Straw polls are fund raisers. People BUY the votes. Shortbus fulls of Paul-Tards travel across state lines to influence straw polls, and then they crow about their great victories.

Paul looks great on paper to the casual observer. But scratch the surface and you will find a racist who believes the civil war should not have been fought-slavery was a state's rights issue...if humans were kept as slaves today Paul would be OK with that.

Paul is an anti-semite. He hates Jews. He hates Blacks. His news letters are chock full of racist statements that will be used against him.

Sure Paul says a few good things, but he is still a total looney-toon.
If you decide to follow him, then I will have no respect for you.

[IassaFTots]

This is what kills me. 

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was one of only four House Republicans to break rank from the party and request earmarks despite a Republican Conference earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year. His largest single request was $19,500,000 for a naval training ship at the Texas Maritime Academy in Galveston, followed by a $18,126,000 to provide maintenance on the Matagorda Ship Channel.

http://washingtonindependent.com/104609/ron-paul-one-of-only-four-house-republicans-to-request-earmarks-for-2011-budget-updated

[NHSparky]

I really wanted to hate Rand Paul for no other reason than I despise his father on so many levels.

But sometimes the acorn falls far enough away. He's impressed me.


More importantly: even after Paul tried to hang this on Lew Rockwell he went right back to posting at Rockwell's site.

So the take away is: Paul is supposedly too oblivious to know what his name os being signed to, he then ducks responsibility for his subordinates (Rockwell was his Chief-of-Staff at the time) and even after claiming it was all Rockwell's fault he was more than happy to maintain the relationship that supposedly caused him so much embarrassment.

I don't think it's far enough, Snuggs.

Rand Paul was supporting Adam Kokesh in NM's 3rd CD race last year.  If you're not familiar with Adam Kokesh, do a simple google on him and his association with IVAW.  Not a very good character, let me assure you.  And anyone who thinks that "Oath Keepers" is a harmless bunch of vets, think again.

His "ideas" on the budget, etc., are little more than polished-up rehashes of daddy's ideas.  He's smoother, he hides it better, but IMHO, he's not much different than his old man.  Not a good choice.

[formerlurker]

I definitely am going to have to read up more on the Paul guy. I keep hearing things like "nuttier than a sack of peanuts", etc. but I'm not seeing anything to back that up.

What I am seeing is a man who, year after year, continues to come out on top in the straw polls. That tells me an awful lot of people like what this guy has to say. Why does he repeatedly win these polls, beating out all the other Republicans candidates?

What little I know about him so far, I like. I liked what Trump had going on until I discovered his history of supporting the Libtards. **** Trump. I may well say the same about Paul as I come to learn more about him but for now I like what I see, so far.

As I understand it Ron Paul wants us to ditch the "Fed" and go back to controlling our own currency as the Constitution stipulates. He also wants to abolish the I.R.S. which as I see it is really just the collections dept. of the "Fed". I don't think that is bat-shit crazy. I agree with it and would like to see it become reality.

Foreign wars? Let them be foreign wars. I agree with Paul in that our military should not be cops of the world for the U.N. I would love to see us out of the U.N. altogether. If East Jahunga has a beef with Timbuktu let them fight it out on their own, without American boots on the ground. I am tired of seeing our troops dieing for these back water third world dirt bags who don't want us there anyway, **** 'em. I really don't give a flying **** how much oil they might have, we have plenty of our own right here. Dependency on foreign oil is a big mistake, as a matter of national security we need to rely on our own. The enviro whacktards need to be put in their place. Drill baby, drill!

I agree the Letters of Marque thing sounds more than a bit odd, because of its antiquity but it makes a lot of sense. I agree with it, if administered and regulated sensibly. I don't believe that was done with Blackwater and we have paid for that shortcoming. I agree with Paul's take on it-
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21245.html

Ron Paul also wants to shitcan the Patriot Act. Again, I agree with him.

So like I've said, so far so good but I'm looking into him more. I have yet to run into anything that tells me he is off his rocker or any other sort of red flags, yet. Ron Paul sticks to the Constitution, I don't find that radical.
Obama or Rahm Emanuel, I forget which, said during their campaign "The Constitution is the single greatest obstacle to our agenda". Ron Paul is exactly the opposite. Barry won and look where we're going.

If the next Presidential election were held tomorrow and you had the choice of voting to reelect Obama or to elect Ron Paul which lever would you be pulling? Did any of you feel good about voting for McLame last time around? I sure as hell didn't! I saw it as choosing the lesser of two evils. If the next one comes down to being between Obama and Paul I won't be holding my nose like last time.

Just one question, because I refuse to rehash the same nonsense yet once again over how much a total loon this guy is -- are you just paying attention to politics?   been asleep for the past decade?    How the hell do you not already have the answers to these questions?

[FreeBorn]

Just one question, because I refuse to rehash the same nonsense yet once again over how much a total loon this guy is -- are you just paying attention to politics?   been asleep for the past decade?    How the hell do you not already have the answers to these questions?

Very simple, Ron Paul isn't in the media very much at all. If you don't have much of a life outside of closely following politics then you'll have to go looking for RP to read up on him. Not exactly a household name.

[thundley4]

Very simple, Ron Paul isn't in the media very much at all. If you don't have much of a life outside of closely following politics then you'll have to go looking for RP to read up on him. Not exactly a household name.

I wish that were true, but Fox News covers him more than they do Herman Cain, but less than they do Donald Trump.

[FreeBorn]

One thing should be made clear here, Ron Paul is not going to be the next President of the United States.
He does however bring many good points to the debate arena. He has an "R" in front of his name but the man is really not a Republican in my view, more of an Independent/Libertarian. Establishment Republicans don't much care for him because he does not march in lock step with them. Republicans like these folks-
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/36240
As a Presidential candidate is Ron Paul electable? No. I can almost hear the great sigh of relief coming from the Republican establishment in light of that. One thing should be born out though, in Paul's defense, he is more conservative than any one of them.

[RightCoast]

One thing should be made clear here, Ron Paul is not going to be the next President of the United States.
He does however bring many good points to the debate arena. He has an "R" in front of his name but the man is really not a Republican in my view, more of an Independent/Libertarian. Establishment Republicans don't much care for him because he does not march in lock step with them. Republicans like these folks-
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/36240
As a Presidential candidate is Ron Paul electable? No. I can almost hear the great sigh of relief coming from the Republican establishment in light of that. One thing should be born out though, in Paul's defense, he is more conservative than any one of them.

Half of what RP says is great - but he only says that stuff to keep his whacked out followers. The other half is just insane ramblings, that's the stuff he really believes.

[NHSparky]

One thing should be made clear here, Ron Paul is not going to be the next President of the United States.
He does however bring many good points to the debate arena. He has an "R" in front of his name but the man is really not a Republican in my view, more of an Independent/Libertarian. Establishment Republicans don't much care for him because he does not march in lock step with them. Republicans like these folks-
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/36240
As a Presidential candidate is Ron Paul electable? No. I can almost hear the great sigh of relief coming from the Republican establishment in light of that. One thing should be born out though, in Paul's defense, he is more conservative than any one of them.

No, but he and his followers are batshit crazy enough to totally **** up the GOP primary process.

Personally, if he had the courage of his convictions he would have run as a Libertarian, not a Republican.  We know why he puts the "R" after his name, and it ain't because he agrees with the party platform.

[formerlurker]

Very simple, Ron Paul isn't in the media very much at all. If you don't have much of a life outside of closely following politics then you'll have to go looking for RP to read up on him. Not exactly a household name.

You have to read more than your local newspaper -- come election season he can't help himself but be in the news:

http://www.google.com/#q=ron+paul&hl=en&prmd=ivnsulo&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=lPnFTeeSINOQ0QHl7Iz1Bw&sqi=2&ved=0CEEQqAI&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=13947acfb08106ab

He most certainly is not a conservative.   His view on foreign policy alone are beyond disturbing and outright dangerous.    He is several quarts short in the sanity department when he discusses pretty much any given topic. 

[Eupher]

One thing that FNC continually hammers, again and again and again and again, is how Ron Paul "started" the Tea Party.

 

[thundley4]

One thing that FNC continually hammers, again and again and again and again, is how Ron Paul "started" the Tea Party.

 

That continuously pisses me off.

[dandi]

One thing should be made clear here, Ron Paul is not going to be the next President of the United States.
He does however bring many good points to the debate arena. He has an "R" in front of his name but the man is really not a Republican in my view, more of an Independent/Libertarian. Establishment Republicans don't much care for him because he does not march in lock step with them. Republicans like these folks-
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/36240
As a Presidential candidate is Ron Paul electable? No. I can almost hear the great sigh of relief coming from the Republican establishment in light of that. One thing should be born out though, in Paul's defense, he is more conservative than any one of them.

After 3 pages, and many links, it would appear that you are not seeking to "learn" anything about Ron Paul.  Sounds more like your mind was made up before you started this thread.

Methinks you are trolling.

[Splashdown]

He does have a cool blimp, though...


 

[Mr Mannn]

Lets say its a cold day in Heck, and Paul actually wins. Does he expect the GOP to fall in line and back him?

I remember why Ron Paul was NOT allowed to address the 2008 Republican convention. Paul refused to endorse the republican nominee.

Now I never liked John McCain. But if you run in a primary with an "R" by your name you support the winner of the republican primary. Paul broke a lot of rules and made NO friends in his own party. That's not how you run for president.

Hillary fought the good fight all the way to the end...but she endorsed Obama when he won.
Amazing. Democrats who eat their own were able to work towards a win and Paul could not.

Reason #119 why I despise Ron Paul.

[Rebel]

**** Ron Paul. I blame him for his dumbass supporters infiltrating other websites that don't support Paul and other candidates FB pages. When I see Paul, I see those morons. They've now infiltrated Herman Cain's FB page. 

[RightCoast]

**** Ron Paul. I blame him for his dumbass supporters infiltrating other websites that don't support Paul and other candidates FB pages. When I see Paul, I see those morons. They've now infiltrated Herman Cain's FB page. 

They are hitting chicks on the right FB page too, insane posts about how "conservative" he is.

[NHSparky]

And here's ANOTHER reason Ron Paul needs dickpunched:

POLITICO LINK

Ron Paul wouldn't have approved Osama bin Laden operation

By JUANA SUMMERS | 5/12/11 7:27 AM EDT

Ron Paul says he would not have authorized the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, and that President Barack Obama should have worked with the Pakistani government instead of authorizing a raid.

Continue Reading

"I think things could have been done somewhat differently," Paul said this week. "I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he's been in prison. Why can't we work with the government?"

Asked by WHO Radio's Simon Conway whether he would have given the go-ahead to kill bin Laden if it meant entering another country, Paul shot back that it "absolutely was not necessary."

"I don't think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary," Paul said during his Tuesday comments. "I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he'd been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?"

====================================================

Any questions, Paulbots?

[DumbAss Tanker]

I heard on the radio coming back from a meeting that he's officially in the running.  Looks like so far we have a choice between Fat Bastard and Dr. Nutso.

 

[Eupher]

I heard on the radio coming back from a meeting that he's officially in the running.  Looks like so far we have a choice between Fat Bastard and Dr. Nutso.

 

Gingrich has never been small, but he sure as hell has porked out lately.

Must be all the steak dinners paid for by his ethanol lobbyist friends.

[RightCoast]

And here's ANOTHER reason Ron Paul needs dickpunched:

POLITICO LINK

Ron Paul wouldn't have approved Osama bin Laden operation

By JUANA SUMMERS | 5/12/11 7:27 AM EDT

Ron Paul says he would not have authorized the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, and that President Barack Obama should have worked with the Pakistani government instead of authorizing a raid.

Continue Reading

"I think things could have been done somewhat differently," Paul said this week. "I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he's been in prison. Why can't we work with the government?"

Asked by WHO Radio's Simon Conway whether he would have given the go-ahead to kill bin Laden if it meant entering another country, Paul shot back that it "absolutely was not necessary."

"I don't think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary," Paul said during his Tuesday comments. "I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he'd been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?"

====================================================

Any questions, Paulbots?

Crickets from the ronulans