See other Ron Paul Articles
Title: Slowly But Surely, The Republican Party Is Coming To Ron Paul
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller ... the-republican-party-is-coming
Published: Jan 18, 2012
Author: BuzzFeed
Post Date: 2012-01-18 11:00:03 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 463
Comments: 38
MYRTLE BEACH, South Carolina—South Carolina State Sen. Tom Davis is your basic early state prize: A credentialed up-and-comer, former chief of staff to the governor, conservative to the bone. The setting for his endorsement Sunday, an unremarkable conference room in the cavernous Palisades Conference Center, was the familiar press conference stage. But this event was a little different from the others: Rather than bored reporters and blasé staffers, it was witnessed by a throng of young supporters, who cheered and stood on their edges of their chairs, clapping and chanting in support of their chosen candidate. And this was not a standard presidential candidate, but a sometimes-zany 76-year old Texan who has run twice before, but who is for the first time this cycle gaining a real foothold in the Republican Party. “We can’t just have good enough. We can’t have incremental steps. Incremental steps have grown our deficit to $2 trillion every year,” Davis told the packed conference center ballroom. His rejection of incrementalism applies not just to economic policy, but to his choice of candidate as well. “We need radical surgery, not aspirin,” he added in his introduction of Paul. Davis’ endorsement is the latest small step in a largely unremarked trend of mainstream Republicans backing the libertarian icon. With the backing of well-regarded local figures like Davis – Paul has picked up a steady trickle of state legislative endorsements from Idaho to Iowa to South Carolina -- to warm words from party icons like Sarah Palin, Paul has pulled off one of the trickiest moves in politics, crossing over from the fringe. And while Paul hasn’t come far enough to win his party’s nomination, this run will leave him the kind of legacy in the party that has allowed past also rans – Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, John McCain – to return; in this case it could provides his son, Senator Rand Paul, the organization he’ll need to mount his own bid for the White House. The support of a new conservative counter-Establishment has also injected Paul's ideas -- from cutting foreign aid to going back to the gold standard -- into the Republican Party's bloodstream. Once beyond the pale, they're now part of the conversation. And while he may go away, and his son's political future may be uncertain, the ideas may be here as long as is the young, libertarian generation he brought to presidential politics. The credit for Paul's endurance lies, at least in part, with Mitt Romney. The frontrunner is barely an aspirin for a conservative base holding its head at the thought of another Obama term as evidenced by a long list of tea partiers and others who are still looking past Romney for a candidate. Former South Carolina GOP Chairman Katon Dawson told BuzzFeed Monday that even if they warm to Romney, that’s not enough. “That conservative base out there — they are the kerosene your pour in the fire to beat the liberals,” he said. “They like him. You’re going to have to have heat, passion. Republicans don’t just have to like a front-runner – they have to love him.” Many don’t. Radio and online television host Glenn Beck has said he’d only vote for Romney “If I had a gun to my head” — which is only half a step above his steadfast opposition to Newt Gingrich. “I might consider Ron Paul as a third party,” he said last month. Sarah Palin took the side of Romney’s attackers last week, calling on the former Massachusetts governor to prove his claim that he created 100,000 new jobs while at the helm of Bain Capital. “Gov. Romney has claimed to have created a 100,00 jobs at Bain, and people are wanting to know, is there proof of that claim and was it U.S. jobs created for United States citizens? … And that’s fair,” she said on Fox News last week. “That’s not negative campaigning — that’s fair to get a candidate to be held accountable to what’s being claimed.” She publicly defended Paul in November, calling on the media to give him airtime. Then earlier this month she argued that Paul is pro-Israel, saying "he just wants to go about that [protecting them] in a different way." South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham last week that the attacks on Paul were harming the search for the anti-Romney candidate. “I think one of the things that have hurt the so-called conservative alternative is saying derogatory things about Ron Paul,” he said. “I don’t agree with him on everything, but he is right about the out-of-control and unaccountable Federal Reserve. He’s right about the need for limited constitutional government and the importance of individual liberty. Palin and DeMint are merely flirting with Paul; few contemplate that they would endorse him in what appears likely to be a long twilight delegate fight through the spring. Some conservatives also say the nod toward Paul is largely about keeping Romney from abandoning them entirely. “I don’t see any conservative or tea party effort to stop Romney emerging if he’s the nominee,” Greg Mueller, a former Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes advisor, told BuzzFeed. “Will some conservatives endorse other candidates in South Carolina? Yeah, but we’re still in the primary.” And Romney’s best friend in his combat with Paul is, ultimately, the incumbent. “I think at the end of the day, the Obama fear factor really kicks in here. Conservatives think Obama is the most dangerous president in American history, and that is going to be a rallying mantra once the primaries and caucuses get finished.” Poster Comment: “I think one of the things that have hurt the so-called conservative alternative is saying derogatory things about Ron Paul,” he said. “I don’t agree with him on everything, but he is right about the out-of-control and unaccountable Federal Reserve. He’s right about the need for limited constitutional government and the importance of individual liberty. (and most important, foreign policy, dude)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine (#0)
Ron Paul is really not a Republican: he doesn't fit the mold established by Lincoln the Tyrant and his war-loving, jew-controlled successors. Ron Paul is not a champion of a centralized Federal authority who eschews state's rights, he's quite the opposite. The Dems wouldn't have him, they've morphed into a slave plantatation for turd-world refugee's with a few jew-controlled whites running the show over there. Ron Paul should have attempted to start a third- party several years ago by pointing out the faults of the GOP going back to Lincoln and establishing a party-platform to govern in the true spirit intended by the Founding Fathers.
-Alex Kurtagic
#2. To: X-15 (#1)
The Republican party is no longer the Republican Party. Ron Paul is really not a Republican
#3. To: christine (#0) (Edited)
R Paul's problem is the GOP - as in him being a member. There may be explanations of 'why' he wears their label but there are no valid excuses. I respect R Paul but I don't approve of his association with one of the two power mafias. As for his chances. There was the same level of noise 4 years ago. Lots of people were breathlessly explaining how 'Paul could win' as a GOP. In the end it amounted to a big NOTHING and, I predict, you'll see the exact same this time too unless RP decided to 'go rogue' (so to speak in a twisted sense of the term) and challenge BOTH parties, shaking things a little. But he won't do it and I am proudly announcing that I watched ZERO debates this season, with or without RP in them and I couldn't care less who's the next president. They all pick up from where the predecessor left off and it's going to be this way until we enter some discontinuity. But that won't be a political process.
#4. To: Aragorn (#3)
Yeah. I couldn't care less who's the next president. They all pick up from where the predecessor left off and it's going to be this way until we enter some discontinuity. But that won't be a political process.
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (
#5. To: Americans 1st, christine, Aragorn, Esso (#2)
freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re....cgi?ArtNum=142494&Disp=0
-Alex Kurtagic
#6. To: All (#3)
Hmmm... revisiting an old thread... Yeah, RP was the same pussy with a lion roar, lending a little bit of legitimacy to the GOP bosses and their frontmen also known as 'politicians' or "people's representatives". And, to add unbelievable insults to injuries, watch Baby Paul. Watch and barf. Lots of people were breathlessly explaining how 'Paul could win' as a GOP. In the end it amounted to a big NOTHING and, I predict, you'll see the exact same this time too
#7. To: Aragorn, 4, RP fans (#6)
Paul Lite = warm spittle
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#8. To: christine (#0)
Though I refuse to participate in the FEDERAL FRAUD, I still think Ron Paul could've defeated Obama. I think he was the only Republican candidate that could have siphoned off enough of the anti-war, youth vote to get the job done. He just couldn't beat the republican elites.
"Bankers" - Kill em all and let Satan sort em out" !!!
#9. To: Aragorn (#6)
did you happen to see Ron Paul's going away speech?
#10. To: christine (#0)
A long, long time ago now. Jan 18, 2012
"Mr. Prime Minister, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive." -- Leonid Brezhnev to James Callahan
#11. To: christine (#0)
We all see how that worked out: Romney abandoned, no, spurned Ron Paul conservatives/libertarians/independents as this article foreshadowed back in January. Some conservatives also say the nod toward Paul is largely about keeping Romney from abandoning them entirely.
-Alex Kurtagic
#12. To: Prefrontal Vortex, 4 (#10)
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#13. To: noone222 (#8)
He just couldn't beat the republican elites. I disagree in part. I agree that he would have siphoned off the anti-war and youth vote, however, I disagree that it was the Republican elite he couldn't beat. IMO, it was the Republican grassroots he couldn't defeat. The grassroots of the Republican Party are state-worshiping war mongers who hated Ron Paul with a passion. If Paul had won the primary, I think he would have lost two grass roots Republican voter for every anti-war, youth vote he received. I can't count the number of people on the Internet and in person who stated they would vote for Obama before they voted for Ron Paul. That's how much the grass roots of the Republican Party hated his message. The Republican party and it's grass roots aren't about small government and liberty. They are about controlling their neighbors, protecting Israel at all costs, increasing warfare-police state spending and lowering taxes so their children and grand-children can pay for it all at a later date. I think he was the only Republican candidate that could have siphoned off enough of the anti-war, youth vote to get the job done.
"Yours are the eyes through which the compassion of Christ must look out on the world. Yours are the feet with which he is to go about doing good. Yours are the hands with which he is to bless his people" - St. Teresa of Avila.
#14. To: Lod (#12) (Edited)
Can anyone explain why R. Paul never left the GOP reservation? Like I said, I respect his ideas and the fact that he expresses them but I don't get his GOP membership. Should he have joined the Communists or the Masochists if those were the popular parties at the time? I'm asking because his explanation seems to be that he stayed aligned with the GOP for reasons of 'electability'. Which, besides being morally despicable, is also bullshit. He wasn't planning to run for re-election in 2012 and yet he stayed as a disciplined and well-behaved GOP candidate for prez, knowing full well that he didn't stand a chance. Yes, he was allowed to answer questions from a couple of fat establishments so-called reporters on the telly for a few minutes and got the coverage normally the mainstream media gives to the bearded lady at the circus but was that worth his soul? And I'm saying that his explanation is 'bullshit' because he refused to run as a non-GOP even when when it was crystal-clear that his chances of winning the GOP nomination were exactly ZERO and he knew that he wasn't going to run for congress again and, I believe, one or two 'minor' parties offered to have him as their candidate. Pat Buchanan separated himself from the GOP when he ran for prez (and then re kind-of rejoined them but that's another story) so why didn't Ron Paul.
#15. To: Aragorn (#14)
1988 - Ron Paul, on the ballot in 46 states and the District of Columbia, comes in third for the U.S. presidency. He receives more than 430,000 votes – almost twice the total of any other third party candidate. Yes, he tried as an L back when, with the predictable (awful) result. He rejoined the system, but he was never a part of it. A unique man who never comprised his beliefs or his principles. 1987 - Libertarians sweep the city council race in Big Water, Utah, winning every seat. Former Texas Rep. Ron Paul resigns from the GOP and joins the Libertarian Party. Seattle convention nominates Ron Paul for president and Andre Marrou for vice president.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#16. To: Aragorn (#14)
If he had left the RP and ran on a third party ticket as you and others have suggested, his message wouldn't have gone as far as he did. His message would have been completely ignored. There would have been no anti-war or small government representation in the debates, and there would have been no talk of the Federal Reserve. While his presidential candidacy may have went no where, his ideas woke up a bunch of people and kindled a spark in others that may one day ignite. As for why he didn't run on a third party ticket after the primaries, it likely had to do with the sore loser laws most states have as well as the laws the two party fraud have created in most states that prevent just such a thing from happening. For example, in Michigan, Gary Johnson was three minutes late to withdraw from the 2012 Republican Primary and was therefore on the ballot. As a result, he was denied ballot access as a Libertarian in the general election. The same thing would have happened to Ron Paul. Every time Dr. Paul appeared on TV to answer "why are you in the race when you know you can't win" (which was frequently) he was able to get his message across - sometimes more effectively than others, but nonetheless he had exposure. What happened to Gary Johnson? He disappeared from the media like a fart in the wind.
Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn't come over and break your window - unknown
I WITHDRAW MY CONSENT!
Any perceived compliance with unconstitutional “laws” or orders put forth by government employees is NOT recognition of their authority; it is simply the result of carefully calculated submission to an entity exhibiting superior firepower.
#17. To: Fibr Dog (#13)
I think that's a pretty accurate description there FibrDog. You forgot to mention though about the ultra-rich tychoons who wish to take away school lunch programs so that they can pay a few percentage points less on their yearly multi-billion dollar income, while they receive taxpayer money for their trillion dollar bailouts. The Republican party and it's grass roots aren't about small government and liberty. They are about controlling their neighbors, protecting Israel at all costs, increasing warfare-police state spending and lowering taxes so their children and grand-children can pay for it all at a later date.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#18. To: Fibr Dog (#13)
You could easily be right. The 2 party scam should force a tax revolt by those dissatisfied with war and monetary tyranny.
"Bankers" - Kill em all and let Satan sort em out" !!!
#19. To: Fibr Dog (#13)
hi Fibr Dog! so nice to see you again. it's been too long. hope all is well with you.
#20. To: Fibr Dog (#13)
Gawd, now that's some good thinkin'. I can't count the number of people on the Internet and in person who stated they would vote for Obama before they voted for Ron Paul.
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#21. To: Esso (#20)
It's great thinking if you are a big government-loving, war mongering Republican who believes it is the destiny of the United States to eliminate the world's Muslim population in the name of Jesus Christ, apple pie, and Chevrolet. It makes perfect sense if you hold that world view. Gawd, now that's some good thinkin'.
Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn't come over and break your window - unknown
I WITHDRAW MY CONSENT!
Any perceived compliance with unconstitutional “laws” or orders put forth by government employees is NOT recognition of their authority; it is simply the result of carefully calculated submission to an entity exhibiting superior firepower.
#22. To: FormerLurker (#17)
I'm not a tycoon, ultra-rich or otherwise, and I'm for scrapping school lunch programs. Many of the kids throw the lunches in the garbage. The majority of kids are old enough or have parents who can make them sandwiches. Looking at the obesity stats for American children, it might not hurt if some lunches were missed frankly. If lunch programs are to be continued, then they should be paid for with cash or food stamps. End of story. If people have kids, then they need to pay for them or have the $ deducted from their welfare/unemployment checks. Every Thanksgiving weekend, there's always tons of people shopping for junk while we pay for their kids' lunches. B.S. You forgot to mention though about the ultra-rich tychoons who wish to take away school lunch programs so that they can pay a few percentage points less on their yearly multi-billion dollar income, while they receive taxpayer money for their trillion dollar bailouts.
#23. To: Fibr Dog (#13)
Righhhhhttt. And the grass roots Republican voters would have voted for Bammy instead? Oh that's right, the Dem Party stands for small gov't and liberty. The Dem Party did not vote for the Patriot Act or its reinstatement. The Dem Party is against war for Israel and that's why the Dem Party voted against the Iraq War and against the expansion of the Afghan War and against the Libyan War and are not funding or weaponizing the "rebel" AQ Muslim Brotherhood who are attacking Syria. And it's the Dem Party that is against the police state - in fact the Cyber Police leg was signed off by A Ghost President. As far as lowering taxes, how can any party "best" the Dem Party who is trying its hardest to add more people to the 47% who don't pay taxes because they're on the gubment dole of some kind? Yes indeed the Republican party is the bad party whereas the other is all sweetness and light and quite opposite to the Pubbies. Give me a friggin' break. If Paul had won the primary, I think he would have lost two grass roots Republican voter for every anti-war, youth vote he received.
#24. To: scrapper2 (#22)
Most kids DO pay for lunch. It's only those who have insufficient incomes who get reduced fee or free lunches. In other words, I myself would rather see my tax money going to feed children living in poverty than to equip Israel with more weapons, or going to fat cat CEO's in order for them to pay for better hookers in their private jets.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#25. To: scrapper2 (#23)
I take it you're being sarcastic with that post? Oh that's right, the Dem Party stands for small gov't and liberty.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#26. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#21)
It is so sad that I must concur with your assessment of the GOP voters. I just spent a week out observing them and have now climbed back into my spidey hole and pulled the rock over it. If Ron Paul had won the nomination EVERY pulpit in this country would have warned of the danger he posed to their beloved friends in the middle east. It's great thinking if you are a big government-loving, war mongering Republican who believes it is the destiny of the United States to eliminate the world's Muslim population in the name of Jesus Christ, apple pie, and Chevrolet. It makes perfect sense if you hold that world view.
“Anti-semitism is a disease–you catch it from Jews”–Edgar J. Steele
“The jew cries out in pain, as he strikes you.”–Polish proverb
“I would like to express my heartfelt apologies for the unfortunate and tasteless quotes I published in my tag lines. I am very sorry and ashamed. I never wanted to offend anyone, or to encroach human rights."- Hmmmmm
#27. To: scrapper2 (#23)
I tend to agree with FD on this. The Republicans don't give a damn about small government or liberty - that's just liberal, criminal coddling gobbledygook to them. Those two issues didn't even enter into their thought processes as evidenced by their support of Romney, not to mention the fact that when Dr. Paul brought the issues up he was mercilessly ridiculed by both the party and grassroots Republicans. The priority of the average Republican is continuing the wars, starting new ones, supporting Israel, increasing defense spending, and creating a bigger police state in the name of security. Ron Paul would have stopped all this while Obama was guaranteed to continue it. So it is not inconceivable to me that Republicans would have bailed if Ron Paul had won the primary and been the Republican nominee.
Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn't come over and break your window - unknown
I WITHDRAW MY CONSENT!
Any perceived compliance with unconstitutional “laws” or orders put forth by government employees is NOT recognition of their authority; it is simply the result of carefully calculated submission to an entity exhibiting superior firepower.
#28. To: Hmmmmm (#26)
It may be different in other parts of the country but that is the grassroots Republican mindset in my neck of the woods and in reading the posts of multiple hundreds of grassroots Republicans on multiple political forums over the last year or more, it is the same way throughout the country. It is so sad that I must concur with your assessment of the GOP voters. I just spent a week out observing them and have now climbed back into my spidey hole and pulled the rock over it. If Ron Paul had won the nomination EVERY pulpit in this country would have warned of the danger he posed to their beloved friends in the middle east.
Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn't come over and break your window - unknown
I WITHDRAW MY CONSENT!
Any perceived compliance with unconstitutional “laws” or orders put forth by government employees is NOT recognition of their authority; it is simply the result of carefully calculated submission to an entity exhibiting superior firepower.
#29. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#27)
Ron Paul - up until this August when he was ultimately betrayed by the neocons running the RNC - chose to run as a GOP because he said it was the only party that once stood for values like small gov't and personal liberty. RP always hoped the GOP would return to those values. It's notable to recognize that RP has not crossed over to the Dem Party, because the Dem Party has not in US modern history ever stood for anything resembling Constitutional values. Don't mistake the RNC or FR/LP posters for Republican voters in general.
#30. To: Fibr Dog (#13)
i had the same experience with a number of R acquaintances. they really feared RP's foreign policy position. I can't count the number of people on the Internet and in person who stated they would vote for Obama before they voted for Ron Paul. That's how much the grass roots of the Republican Party hated his message.
#31. To: Hmmmmm (#26) (Edited)
You want "to observe" voters who have a hard on's for Israel as well as for our beloved friends to the south coming illegally to get welfare here as well as concerns about the "racism" of not allowing gays to marry and adopt children as well as worries that property taxes are too low in CA to support the lavish pensions of gov't employees as well as the night mares about some common fish or grasshopper not having enough open space or water to reproduce, then I suggest you read articles and reader comments and politicians quotes at any level ( hey they're mainly Dem Party so it doesn't matter much who you follow) from California. That should give you a great up close and personal feel for the Dem Party voter. Ron Paul did not ever consider running under the Dem Party banner for good reason. As soon as he would mention the ideas of limited government, limited gov't subsidy of programs every Dem Party voter in the USA would tune him out instantly...that is, if they even had the brain cells to consider the terms he used. P.S. LA and San Francisco are hot beds for pro-Israel positions and how "we" need to protect our best ally, the only "democracy" in the ME. And don't forget that the neocons were Dem Party standard bearers before they infiltrated the GOP ranks and infected that party with pro-Israel prop. It is so sad that I must concur with your assessment of the GOP voters. I just spent a week out observing them and have now climbed back into my spidey hole and pulled the rock over it. If Ron Paul had won the nomination EVERY pulpit in this country would have warned of the danger he posed to their beloved friends in the middle east.
#32. To: scrapper2 (#29)
I don't. I also base my opinion on my local Republican Party members. I live in the Home of the Assembly of God cult and am surrounded by those freaks as well as Southern Baptists, a million different Church of Christ denominations, and other evangelical/fundamentalist nut bags - hardcore authoritarian Republicans all. I attended the local Republican party meetings. We were not welcome. They hate Ron Paul, his supporters, and everything Dr. Paul stands for. They didn't give a damn about his small government views or his opinion on the federal reserve. They cared about one thing and one thing only - Israel and killing Muslims in order to "protect" Israel. Besides that, Romney was a left-wing authoritarian war monger who not only embraced everything that Bush and Obama has done but complained that their police state infrastructure and ward hadn't gone far enough. This is the person they voted for over Ron Paul. Those who didn't outright hate him made statements such as, "I like some of his policies but I cannot stomach his foreign policy views." They actively chose to pick an interventionist, authoritarian neocon government over a small, liberty-minded Ron Paul government. IMHO the average Republican voter has much more in common with the Democratic Party than they do Ron Paul and would feel more comfortable in voting Democratic than in voting for Ron Paul. Don't mistake the RNC or FR/LP posters for Republican voters in general.
Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn't come over and break your window - unknown
I WITHDRAW MY CONSENT!
Any perceived compliance with unconstitutional “laws” or orders put forth by government employees is NOT recognition of their authority; it is simply the result of carefully calculated submission to an entity exhibiting superior firepower.
#33. To: scrapper2 (#31)
Did I miss something? Who said anything about him running as a Democrat? I cannot picture a scenario in which that would ever happen. Ron Paul did not ever consider running under the Dem Party banner for good reason.
Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn't come over and break your window - unknown
I WITHDRAW MY CONSENT!
Any perceived compliance with unconstitutional “laws” or orders put forth by government employees is NOT recognition of their authority; it is simply the result of carefully calculated submission to an entity exhibiting superior firepower.
#34. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#33)
Well that's the point. He didn't because he knew his positions had better traction with the GOP voters because the GOP once stood for those positions. Some of you have hypothesized and generalized how GOP voters might have voted if Ron Paul had won the GOP primary. And I'm responding to those generalizations. which btw I believe are erroneous, by saying: "Look RP identified himself as a GOP all these years for a reason. He saw hope in that party. He did not see hope in the Dem Party. He thought GOP voters were open to supporting his positions because those positions used to be GOP positions." RP has come in contact with far more GOP voters over the years than you, and Hmmm, and others -he came to the realization that he stood a chance with GOP voters as opposed to the Other Party voters. Since there is no real 3rd party in the USA, RP had to choose 1 of 2 parties ( and their voters) with which he felt most closely aligned, no? I'm hearing lots of guff thrown against the GOP - which is warrented - but when people start generalizing about GOP voters and whether they'd support Ron Paul, that annoys me. How come no one throws mud against he Dem Party or their voters? RP didn't even take a sniff at the latter that I know of because he knew both entities were lost causes for responding to msgs of limited gov't and personal liberty. Did I miss something? Who said anything about him running as a Democrat? I cannot picture a scenario in which that would ever happen.
#35. To: FormerLurker (#24)
In other words, I myself would rather see my tax money going to feed children living in poverty than to equip Israel with more weapons, or going to fat cat CEO's in order for them to pay for better hookers in their private jets. Hey, genius, ALL school lunches - including the full price ones- are subsidized by the taxpayer. That's how lunches prices are kept artificially low. I see photos of starving children in Africa and India and they are uniformly skinny but US children "living in poverty" are usually overweight. Poverty here has nothing to do with starving children. Wake up. Your tax $ is going to keep Israel afloat and hookers aplenty for rich CEO's whether you like it or not because both political parties are owned by the same special interests lobbyists - AIPAC, Wall Street, insurance companies, MIC, etc. It's not an either or proposition. That's why our nation is Trillions in debt -wasteful useless domestic and foreign policies. Most kids DO pay for lunch. It's only those who have insufficient incomes who get reduced fee or free lunches.
#36. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#32)
Zactly the conclusion I came to. IMHO the average Republican voter has much more in common with the Democratic Party than they do Ron Paul and would feel more comfortable in voting Democratic than in voting for Ron Paul.
“Anti-semitism is a disease–you catch it from Jews”–Edgar J. Steele
“The jew cries out in pain, as he strikes you.”–Polish proverb
“I would like to express my heartfelt apologies for the unfortunate and tasteless quotes I published in my tag lines. I am very sorry and ashamed. I never wanted to offend anyone, or to encroach human rights."- Hmmmmm
#37. To: scrapper2 (#35)
And in my opinion, genius, the bastards who are awash in cash and hookers should get THEIR welfare checks cut before we eliminate school lunch. Your tax $ is going to keep Israel afloat and hookers aplenty for rich CEO's whether you like it or not
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#38. To: scrapper2 (#34)
We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. The Republican Party today is not the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan. They are far to the left of that party. I think a number of them would have felt more comfortable in voting Democratic than voting for Ron Paul for the reasons I've already stated. RP has come in contact with far more GOP voters over the years than you, and Hmmm, and others -he came to the realization that he stood a chance with GOP voters as opposed to the Other Party voters. I think you have me confused with someone else. I've never made the claim that he should have ran as a member of another party. My first post on this thread was an explanation of why I believe he did didn't do such a thing either before or after the primary. but when people start generalizing about GOP voters and whether they'd support Ron Paul, that annoys me. I don't know what to say about that. While I realize that there are people who do not fit into the generalization, I believe it accurately describes the party as a whole. How come no one throws mud against he Dem Party or their voters? I can't speak for others, but for myself it's because the Democrats and their voters are upfront and honest about what they believe in - big government, socialism, total control of your life, and perpetual war - They have let me know in no uncertain terms that they are my enemy. The Republican Party, on the other hand, lies about what they believe in and what they stand for. They blow smoke up my ass and try to make me believe that they believe in small government and that they are an alternative to the Democrats - and their stupid ass voters believe them and consider me an enemy because I refuse to drink the kool-Aid. They believe them and make excuses for them even after being stabbed in the back time and again the entire seven years the Republicans had complete and total control of the federal government. I don't know how the Republican Party and its membership has treated you but both the local and state Republican parties have made it clear that they believe me and other Ron Paul supporters to be an enemy - and as far as I'm concerned the feeling is mutual. Some of you have hypothesized and generalized how GOP voters might have voted if Ron Paul had won the GOP primary. And I'm responding to those generalizations. which btw I believe are erroneous,
Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn't come over and break your window - unknown
I WITHDRAW MY CONSENT!
Any perceived compliance with unconstitutional “laws” or orders put forth by government employees is NOT recognition of their authority; it is simply the result of carefully calculated submission to an entity exhibiting superior firepower.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest