The Case for Ron Paul in 2012
By Marcus Tully - April 30, 2011 at 11:06 PM
Filed under Banking & the Fed , Civil Liberties , Foreign Policy , gallery , Leaders , Opinion , Party elections , Presidential , Ron Paul , Social issues , State Sovereignty , Uncategorized
Filed under Banking & the Fed , Civil Liberties , Foreign Policy , gallery , Leaders , Opinion , Party elections , Presidential , Ron Paul , Social issues , State Sovereignty , Uncategorized
As liberty voters we’re very lucky this year that we have a better choice of candidates than we have had since the days of Goldwater and Taft. With both Governor Gary Johnson and Representative Ron Paul running some of us are finding it hard to figure out which candidate to support and others are bickering and squabbling over their choices rather than celebrating how lucky we really are. Liberty is catching fire in the hearts of America and this campaign proves it.
At this point, early in the primary process, it benefits us to have as many candidates as possible talking about cutting back the federal government and reclaiming our rights. Right now there are no delegates at stake and no serious establishment frontrunner to focus on defeating. That will probably remain true through the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, where it’s all about exposure and there aren’t many delegates to win. After that the race gets serious and there are more and more delegates to be won. At that point we’re going to have to make a choice of who to throw all our efforts and resources behind and it seems obvious to me that the right choice is Ron Paul.
I’ve reached that conclusion for reasons which are both pragmatic and political, and from both perspective he is the gold standard for liberty in 2012.
Practical Advantages
Paul’s practical advantages are obvious. He is better known, has a large established base of followers and a national organization which is well established with an extraordinary record of fundraising success. Fundraising will be particularly important in a race where the Democrats have promised to spend a billion dollars. Paul is already all over the media, especially the cable news networks. He is better known than the other hardcore conservative candidates like Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty. He has multiple bestselling books in print and his followers promote him tirelessly. The level of love and support he has generated says a lot about the man and his ideas. Plus we saw his success at spreading his message in 2008 and now he can build on that base to go even further. Paul has shown he’s a strong debater and an energetic campaigner despite his age, and we need that enthusiasm to beat Obama.
Paul also has long-term associations which will benefit him in the election. He has long been a supporter of pro-liberty groups like the Von Mises Institute and the John Birch Society and was a founding member of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He has a wide base of support on the internet from groups like Justin Raimondo’s AntiWar.com and Lew Rockwell and the many political writers at LewRockwell.com, and has built powerful tools for communication on his own networks like RonPaulForums.com and for grassroots support in Campaign for Liberty. Plus it can’t be forgotten that the idea of the Tea Party originated in Paul’s 2008 campaign and many Tea Party voters are still drawn to him.
The Right Ideas
On his political positions Paul is also superior. People keep comparing him to Gary Johnson, but it’s a false comparison. They’re not nearly as similar as Johnson supporters would like us to believe and they really aren’t even competing for the same voters. Ron Paul is a true constitutional conservative and it’s a mistake to call him a libertarian, even if he has a lot in common with that movement. Gary Johnson is more of a moderate libertarian. He’s a minarchist who is a liberal on social issues. He’s closer to Ronald Reagan or the old Rockefeller wing of the party on many issues and he’s too liberal on social issues for Republican primary voters. Paul has a more clearly defined constitutional position and an established reputation for standing on principle.
Ron Paul’s positions are more appealing on a number of issues. He’s the only candidate who is willing to stand up and call for an end to the Federal Reserve, which is a dangerous cabal run by foreign bankers with no basis in Constitutional authority. He’s the only candidate who believes in sound money and a return to the gold standard rather than fractional reserve banking. He’s also the strongest candidate supporting states rights and state sovereignty and an end to federal tyranny under the 14th Amendment.
Perhaps most importantly, Ron Paul is the only candidate brave enough to have a foreign policy which admits the mistakes we’ve made overseas and the disastrous and parasitical nature of our relationship with Israel. It is Israel and it’s powerful lobby which have drawn us into war after war and made us the target of terrorism, and Ron Paul would end that relationship and he would withdraw all of our military bases outside our border and stop spending money to prop up dictators and intervene in the affairs of countries all over the world. He’d get us out of the United Nations, thumb his nose at the New World Order, and strengthen our borders to protect our workers and our jobs.
What is absolutely essential for the primary election is that Paul’s personal values can win over GOP primary voters. While he believes that states rights are sacrosanct and is willing to leave many things up to the states to decide, Paul personally believes in fundamental moral values. He believes in the sanctity of human life from conception, opposes the immorality of gay marriage, supports the right of students to pray in school and the posting of the ten commandments on public property. He believes in economic liberty, but also the liberty to practice religion freely and maintain a traditional Judeo-Christian moral code in our society without the interference of the federal government.
It is these values which do the most to differentiate Paul from Gary Johnson, and it is these values which will win him the support of key voters in the religious right so that he can win a primary victory. When traditionalist Christian voters discover that Johnson personally supports gay marriage and abortion and letting the federal government dictate social policy to the states they will turn against him in droves. Unless Ron Paul is there for them to turn to they may support a socially conservative candidate who is terrible on other issues like Mike Huckabee.
Winning in 2012
Gary Johnson is a great spokesman for libertarian ideas, but he is out of step with many in the Republican party and while he might draw Democrats and independents in the general election, he cannot win in a Republican primary because of his controversial views, and you don’t get to the general election without winning the primary. As a true constitutional conservative Ron Paul does not have that liability. Once his message gets out most Republicans will realize that he’s got the right ideas for them.
If you believe in the Constitution, states rights, ending the Fed, sound money and a non-interventionist foreign policy, then Ron Paul is your candidate. He will end the abuses of the last two administrations, cut back the overgrowth of the federal government, get us out of hock to foreign bankers and end the Bush-Obama era of imperialism, torture and murder.
On May 1st, 2011 at 7:49 am
You know I got to be honest with you, I now more carefully read the stuff you put out, and I have noticed……even this comes off as a hit-piece.
It puts way too much emphasis on Paul as a religious conservative, which he is not, and anyone who is a fan of his knows he is nowhere near the “religious rights” candidate of choice.
It’s as if you guys use your blog posts as a way to try to point out the differences in Ron and Gary, pretending they are positives for Paul, when you know the way you point them out will come off as negative.
For example: The first two paragraphs of this are not about Paul at all, it would be argued they are to bring attention to Johnson.
Under the heading ” The Right Ideas”:
The first paragraph again eludes to Johnson (I thought there wasn’t a competition here?)
The 3rd paragraph I believe puts way too much emphasis on Israel, which I don’t believe Paul does, not that he doesn’t mention it, when he says END ALL FOREIGN AID. But this writer just makes it seem creepy. If you are writing a “positive” piece why sound creepy?
The 4th paragraph is again putting to much emphasis on things that any Ron Paul fan knows… Ron Paul does not do.
Why do that? Barring Gary Johnson worshipping the devil, I don’t think he is going to be a failure with conservatives except on one issue. An issue I myself am on board with Johnson on, abortion, but that’s how “not a big deal” to me Pauls view is, it’s not going to make me vote Johnson.
The 6th paragraph again talks about Johnson, talking about how many democrats and independents he would win over.
But in my opinion if Ron Paul’s so called “friends” at the Republican Liberty Israeli Caucus would stop mischaracterizing his positions in the same way the hard left and neo-conservatives do, then he would have a lot easier time winning over the Democrats and Independents.
Ron Paul doesn’t approach things from a pragmatic direction, he approaches them from the right direction. He has a history of consistently taking the high road in trying to reduce the role of government in our lives, for everyone.
On May 1st, 2011 at 7:49 am
You know I got to be honest with you, I now more carefully read the stuff you put out, and I have noticed……even this comes off as a hit-piece.
It puts way too much emphasis on Paul as a religious conservative, which he is not, and anyone who is a fan of his knows he is nowhere near the “religious rights” candidate of choice.
It’s as if you guys use your blog posts as a way to try to point out the differences in Ron and Gary, pretending they are positives for Paul, when you know the way you point them out will come off as negative.
For example: The first two paragraphs of this are not about Paul at all, it would be argued they are to bring attention to Johnson.
Under the heading ” The Right Ideas”:
The first paragraph again eludes to Johnson (I thought there wasn’t a competition here?)
The 3rd paragraph I believe puts way too much emphasis on Israel, which I don’t believe Paul does, not that he doesn’t mention it, when he says END ALL FOREIGN AID. But this writer just makes it seem creepy. If you are writing a “positive” piece why sound creepy?
The 4th paragraph is again putting to much emphasis on things that any Ron Paul fan knows… Ron Paul does not do.
Why do that? Barring Gary Johnson worshipping the devil, I don’t think he is going to be a failure with conservatives except on one issue. An issue I myself am on board with Johnson on, abortion, but that’s how “not a big deal” to me Pauls view is, it’s not going to make me vote Johnson.
The 6th paragraph again talks about Johnson, talking about how many democrats and independents he would win over.
But in my opinion if Ron Paul’s so called “friends” at the Republican Liberty Israeli Caucus would stop mischaracterizing his positions in the same way the hard left and neo-conservatives do, then he would have a lot easier time winning over the Democrats and Independents.
Ron Paul doesn’t approach things from a pragmatic direction, he approaches them from the right direction. He has a history of consistently taking the high road in trying to reduce the role of government in our lives, for everyone.
On May 1st, 2011 at 8:28 am
Paranoid much, JJ? That emphasis on Paul being a religious conservative is at the heart of this whole issue. It’s Paul’s biggest advantage and Johnson’s biggest weakness in the Republican primary. I think it hits that nail right on the head.
I think the problem here is that you don’t see things from a Republican perspective but from a more libertarian perspective. As a libertarian you don’t see how Johnson’s positions are negatives from a GOP perspective.
On May 1st, 2011 at 8:28 am
Paranoid much, JJ? That emphasis on Paul being a religious conservative is at the heart of this whole issue. It’s Paul’s biggest advantage and Johnson’s biggest weakness in the Republican primary. I think it hits that nail right on the head.
I think the problem here is that you don’t see things from a Republican perspective but from a more libertarian perspective. As a libertarian you don’t see how Johnson’s positions are negatives from a GOP perspective.
On May 1st, 2011 at 8:40 am
I guess being one of the “political savvy” means reading far too much into something.
– There is such a thing as comparing individuals, since Paul and Johnson are really the only two candidates thus far who give a damn about doing what’s right.
– The 3rd paragraph is only 3 sentences long, so it’s a bit tough to have TOO much emphasis on Israel; especially since that was used to make a specific point, which you apparently were too savvy to see.
–”"Barring Gary Johnson worshipping the devil”" …. That paragraph does not mention Johnson, nor the devil. Where did this come from and what does it have to do with anything?
–Since there are only 5 paragraphs under “The Right Ideas”, therefore, I can only infer that your “6th paragraph” is the first one under “Winning in 2012″: Gary Johnson does appeal to Independents and Democrats, as well as many Moderate Republicans, but not to the Traditional Republican Base. This is not doing things “the same way the hard left and neo-conservatives do” – this is telling the truth about the situation, which as we see, can be a very hard pill to swallow.
Also, perhaps you don’t know the proper definition of Pragmatic:
Pragmatic – /pragˈmatik/ – Adj. — Dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations
…I’d say that Ron Paul DOES approach things from a pragmatic direction. If he didn’t, why would so amny people support a nonsensical, unrealistic, and theoretical person?
On May 1st, 2011 at 8:40 am
I guess being one of the “political savvy” means reading far too much into something.
– There is such a thing as comparing individuals, since Paul and Johnson are really the only two candidates thus far who give a damn about doing what’s right.
– The 3rd paragraph is only 3 sentences long, so it’s a bit tough to have TOO much emphasis on Israel; especially since that was used to make a specific point, which you apparently were too savvy to see.
–”"Barring Gary Johnson worshipping the devil”" …. That paragraph does not mention Johnson, nor the devil. Where did this come from and what does it have to do with anything?
–Since there are only 5 paragraphs under “The Right Ideas”, therefore, I can only infer that your “6th paragraph” is the first one under “Winning in 2012″: Gary Johnson does appeal to Independents and Democrats, as well as many Moderate Republicans, but not to the Traditional Republican Base. This is not doing things “the same way the hard left and neo-conservatives do” – this is telling the truth about the situation, which as we see, can be a very hard pill to swallow.
Also, perhaps you don’t know the proper definition of Pragmatic:
Pragmatic – /pragˈmatik/ – Adj. — Dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations
…I’d say that Ron Paul DOES approach things from a pragmatic direction. If he didn’t, why would so amny people support a nonsensical, unrealistic, and theoretical person?
On May 1st, 2011 at 8:48 am
Now I’ll get to my basic objection to this article. I don’t think that the religious right really makes up the Republican base anymore. They are certainly a factor, but many states have open primaries, and drawing independents in to vote in the GOP primary will more than outweigh the religious right. The truth is that many of those independents are GOP voters who were driven out of the party because they were disgusted with big spending and pandering to religion and a candidate who represents a Republican party which doesn’t do those things will do well. That applies to both Paul and Johnson – but from what I’ve been reading on left-leaning blogs independents and moderates seem to like Johnson better.
On May 1st, 2011 at 8:48 am
Now I’ll get to my basic objection to this article. I don’t think that the religious right really makes up the Republican base anymore. They are certainly a factor, but many states have open primaries, and drawing independents in to vote in the GOP primary will more than outweigh the religious right. The truth is that many of those independents are GOP voters who were driven out of the party because they were disgusted with big spending and pandering to religion and a candidate who represents a Republican party which doesn’t do those things will do well. That applies to both Paul and Johnson – but from what I’ve been reading on left-leaning blogs independents and moderates seem to like Johnson better.
On May 1st, 2011 at 10:16 am
“and the disastrous and parasitical nature of our relationship with Israel. ”
Wow, if that isn’t an Anti-Semitic statement, I don’t know what is. I am Jewish and I’m deeply offended that someone would be allowed on the Republican Liberty Caucus website to spout off such Anti-Jew rhetoric relating America’s longstanding relationship with Israel as “parasitic.”
Dave Nalle, how in the world did you ever let such a statement get by?
On May 1st, 2011 at 10:16 am
“and the disastrous and parasitical nature of our relationship with Israel. ”
Wow, if that isn’t an Anti-Semitic statement, I don’t know what is. I am Jewish and I’m deeply offended that someone would be allowed on the Republican Liberty Caucus website to spout off such Anti-Jew rhetoric relating America’s longstanding relationship with Israel as “parasitic.”
Dave Nalle, how in the world did you ever let such a statement get by?
On May 1st, 2011 at 10:24 am
Ron Paul was not a founding member of the Republican Liberty Caucus. Are you kidding me?
I had to drag him kicking and screaming into the Republican Party back in 1995. He wouldn’t give us the time of day in the RLC for the first 5 years of the group’s existence. For years he simply would not leave the Libertarian Party. He said he had too many ties to the LP, and too many of his supporters/donors would be angry if he left.
It was not until 1995 that he finally agreed to take on an Advisory role on the Board. H essentially cut a deal with me, that if I agreed to move to Texas to run his campaign for congress, he’d agree to let his name be used by the RLC.
A “founding member”? What are you smoking?
The people in the room with me in Tallahassee, Florida who were there at the organization’s founding in 1990 were: Danny McDaniel, Joel Delafave and his wife Snasia, Curtis Dietrich, local Libertarian Party chairman John Otto, and by phone Phil Blumel, and Tom Walls. In other states, within days Fred Stein of New Jersey, Frank Gilbert of Arkansas, and Ron Courtney of Virginia agreed to join up too. Very soon after that Cliff Thies of VA, and Earle Smith of Georgia.
This was a full 5 years before Ron had anything to do with the organization.
On May 1st, 2011 at 10:24 am
Ron Paul was not a founding member of the Republican Liberty Caucus. Are you kidding me?
I had to drag him kicking and screaming into the Republican Party back in 1995. He wouldn’t give us the time of day in the RLC for the first 5 years of the group’s existence. For years he simply would not leave the Libertarian Party. He said he had too many ties to the LP, and too many of his supporters/donors would be angry if he left.
It was not until 1995 that he finally agreed to take on an Advisory role on the Board. H essentially cut a deal with me, that if I agreed to move to Texas to run his campaign for congress, he’d agree to let his name be used by the RLC.
A “founding member”? What are you smoking?
The people in the room with me in Tallahassee, Florida who were there at the organization’s founding in 1990 were: Danny McDaniel, Joel Delafave and his wife Snasia, Curtis Dietrich, local Libertarian Party chairman John Otto, and by phone Phil Blumel, and Tom Walls. In other states, within days Fred Stein of New Jersey, Frank Gilbert of Arkansas, and Ron Courtney of Virginia agreed to join up too. Very soon after that Cliff Thies of VA, and Earle Smith of Georgia.
This was a full 5 years before Ron had anything to do with the organization.
On May 1st, 2011 at 10:29 am
BTW, I heard Ron on Hannity’s show the other day, and he dropped the line that he was only a member of the Libertarian Party for “one year.” I had to laugh. He is a Lifetime member of the LP. He paid them $1,000 for a Lifetime membership back in 1997. He made a big deal about it back then, vowing never, ever to return to the Republican Party.
Eventually he did, thanks to me. It was 1995. So, he was an active member of the LP, and a self-imposed cast out of the GOP for a full, 8 years! Not 1 as he told Hannity.
Here’s something for ya… In 1992, the Republican National Convention was held in Houston. We begged and pleaded with Ron to come to our RLC Caucus meeting at a bar outside the Astrodome. Instead of visiting our RLC meeting, about 25 people were there, he skipped us and went to a Pat Buchanan for President event at someone’s home in the upscale part of Houston. Never even coming close to the Republican convention.
I guess our little meeting at the bar wasn’t good enough for him. Meeting with Buchanan was more important for him, than meeting with a bunch of libertarian Republicans.
On May 1st, 2011 at 10:29 am
BTW, I heard Ron on Hannity’s show the other day, and he dropped the line that he was only a member of the Libertarian Party for “one year.” I had to laugh. He is a Lifetime member of the LP. He paid them $1,000 for a Lifetime membership back in 1997. He made a big deal about it back then, vowing never, ever to return to the Republican Party.
Eventually he did, thanks to me. It was 1995. So, he was an active member of the LP, and a self-imposed cast out of the GOP for a full, 8 years! Not 1 as he told Hannity.
Here’s something for ya… In 1992, the Republican National Convention was held in Houston. We begged and pleaded with Ron to come to our RLC Caucus meeting at a bar outside the Astrodome. Instead of visiting our RLC meeting, about 25 people were there, he skipped us and went to a Pat Buchanan for President event at someone’s home in the upscale part of Houston. Never even coming close to the Republican convention.
I guess our little meeting at the bar wasn’t good enough for him. Meeting with Buchanan was more important for him, than meeting with a bunch of libertarian Republicans.
On May 1st, 2011 at 10:32 am
Oh, btw, for those who believe Ron Paul, that he was only a member of the Libertarian Party for “one year,” check the records of the 1992 Libertarian Party National Convention covered by C-SPAN. You’ll see the name “Ron Paul,” as the prime speaker for the event, and as an enthusiastic endorser of Andre Marrou for President.
On May 1st, 2011 at 10:32 am
Oh, btw, for those who believe Ron Paul, that he was only a member of the Libertarian Party for “one year,” check the records of the 1992 Libertarian Party National Convention covered by C-SPAN. You’ll see the name “Ron Paul,” as the prime speaker for the event, and as an enthusiastic endorser of Andre Marrou for President.
On May 1st, 2011 at 10:36 am
“Republican Liberty israeli Caucus,” why that’s so cute.
Hey dude. I’m Jewish. I am the Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus. I dare you to say something Anti-Semitic like you just did to my face.
I live near Houston, Texas.
Here’s my address – 6 ChuckWagon Ct. Angleton, TX 77515. Come on by for a visit. I’ll meet you in Houston even
Better yet, my job brings me all over the United States.
I’d love to meet you and have you say something like “dirty Jews,” or “Jewish bankers run the U.S.,” or “Jewish lobby,” or “Jewish influence,” or some other Anti-Semitic BS.
Dave Nalle, where in the world are these people coming from? Has the RLC been invaded by a bunch of trolls from StormTrooper.org?
On May 1st, 2011 at 10:36 am
“Republican Liberty israeli Caucus,” why that’s so cute.
Hey dude. I’m Jewish. I am the Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus. I dare you to say something Anti-Semitic like you just did to my face.
I live near Houston, Texas.
Here’s my address – 6 ChuckWagon Ct. Angleton, TX 77515. Come on by for a visit. I’ll meet you in Houston even
Better yet, my job brings me all over the United States.
I’d love to meet you and have you say something like “dirty Jews,” or “Jewish bankers run the U.S.,” or “Jewish lobby,” or “Jewish influence,” or some other Anti-Semitic BS.
Dave Nalle, where in the world are these people coming from? Has the RLC been invaded by a bunch of trolls from StormTrooper.org?
On May 1st, 2011 at 10:46 am
Ya know…I think you have a really unhealthy revenge-based obsession with Ron Paul and you should really look into that. Now I know you got ‘fired’/quite from his congressional office staff and that you have had a personal vendetta against Dr. Paul ever since. I am here to tell you that it will get you NOWHERE in pursuing a joyous life. Just GET OVER IT…Go blow off some steam….get laid,…just do somthing man. I bet people tell you this ALL THE TIME on the internet and I think they might be on to something. I used to have an unhealthy, anger driven obsession with a band that had ‘sold out’. I spent a year and a half of my life trying to reach out to the blogosphere world about it, but in the end I knew that it was unhealthy and counter-productive. You might be in the same boat here…just something to reflect on Eric.
On May 1st, 2011 at 10:46 am
Ya know…I think you have a really unhealthy revenge-based obsession with Ron Paul and you should really look into that. Now I know you got ‘fired’/quite from his congressional office staff and that you have had a personal vendetta against Dr. Paul ever since. I am here to tell you that it will get you NOWHERE in pursuing a joyous life. Just GET OVER IT…Go blow off some steam….get laid,…just do somthing man. I bet people tell you this ALL THE TIME on the internet and I think they might be on to something. I used to have an unhealthy, anger driven obsession with a band that had ‘sold out’. I spent a year and a half of my life trying to reach out to the blogosphere world about it, but in the end I knew that it was unhealthy and counter-productive. You might be in the same boat here…just something to reflect on Eric.
On May 1st, 2011 at 10:54 am
P.S – Some background about Eric Dondero for everybody else…
Eric Dondero is an Ex-staffer for Ron Paul and now has dedicated his life to achieve self-gratifying, soul-batching blogging smears about Dr. Paul. To put it simply…He is Butt-hurt and hasn’t healed over the loss of his job yet.
google: Eric Dondero….see for yourself
On May 1st, 2011 at 10:54 am
P.S – Some background about Eric Dondero for everybody else…
Eric Dondero is an Ex-staffer for Ron Paul and now has dedicated his life to achieve self-gratifying, soul-batching blogging smears about Dr. Paul. To put it simply…He is Butt-hurt and hasn’t healed over the loss of his job yet.
google: Eric Dondero….see for yourself
On May 1st, 2011 at 2:06 pm
I’m not convinced it’s anti-semitic, Eric. Israel receives money from us and depends on us for protection. I might have used “symbiotic” since I think they do give us some things in return, but parasitic isn’t that far out.
On May 1st, 2011 at 2:06 pm
I’m not convinced it’s anti-semitic, Eric. Israel receives money from us and depends on us for protection. I might have used “symbiotic” since I think they do give us some things in return, but parasitic isn’t that far out.
On May 1st, 2011 at 2:07 pm
JJ is a LP guy. I believe he’s on the staff of the Texas LP, in fact.
On May 1st, 2011 at 2:07 pm
JJ is a LP guy. I believe he’s on the staff of the Texas LP, in fact.
On May 1st, 2011 at 2:26 pm
I’m pretty sure Dr.Paul would not even go into a bar for any reason. Nice try. Your comments are just plain stupid.
On May 1st, 2011 at 2:26 pm
I’m pretty sure Dr.Paul would not even go into a bar for any reason. Nice try. Your comments are just plain stupid.
On May 1st, 2011 at 2:48 pm
This is from the Gary Johsnon Article on this website. Eric Dondero definitely has a biased agenda because he was fired. He is a liar.
Truth Stings
Why did Ron Paul receive more donations from active duty military than all other candidates combined? Are the people in the military that stupid? Answer both please.
Edit
Reply
13 hours ago
in reply to Eric Dondero
Eric Dondero
Propoganda lie that was spread by fanatic Ron Paulists in 2008. If you repeat a lie often enough, it gets spread all over the internet, and it’s believed by everybody.
Like
Reply
11 hours ago
in reply to Truth Stings
Truth Stings
You just got owned, and proved you are a liar or don’t follow politics. I’ll go with liar by everything you have done and said. Here is the link with the video to prove you wrong. BTW, it was reported on by Fox, who at the time was trying to do everything to discredit him. Now say you are wrong, you can at least admit this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Edit
Reply
On May 1st, 2011 at 2:48 pm
This is from the Gary Johsnon Article on this website. Eric Dondero definitely has a biased agenda because he was fired. He is a liar.
Truth Stings
Why did Ron Paul receive more donations from active duty military than all other candidates combined? Are the people in the military that stupid? Answer both please.
Edit
Reply
13 hours ago
in reply to Eric Dondero
Eric Dondero
Propoganda lie that was spread by fanatic Ron Paulists in 2008. If you repeat a lie often enough, it gets spread all over the internet, and it’s believed by everybody.
Like
Reply
11 hours ago
in reply to Truth Stings
Truth Stings
You just got owned, and proved you are a liar or don’t follow politics. I’ll go with liar by everything you have done and said. Here is the link with the video to prove you wrong. BTW, it was reported on by Fox, who at the time was trying to do everything to discredit him. Now say you are wrong, you can at least admit this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Edit
Reply
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Thanks for proving my point Dondero, my family is Jewish, I have nothing against Jewish people, I do have a problem with our foreign policy towards Israel…. etal.
I also have a problem when someone calls out people on our foreign policy and they are called anti-semitic, or a jew hater.
It is pathetic.
You are a tool.
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Thanks for proving my point Dondero, my family is Jewish, I have nothing against Jewish people, I do have a problem with our foreign policy towards Israel…. etal.
I also have a problem when someone calls out people on our foreign policy and they are called anti-semitic, or a jew hater.
It is pathetic.
You are a tool.
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Ouch! Error on my part. I meant to say 1987, of course, not 1997. Sorry.
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Ouch! Error on my part. I meant to say 1987, of course, not 1997. Sorry.
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:22 pm
“Fired”? Really? I used to get “Fired” by Ron on a daily basis during my 12 years working for him as his Senior Aide, and Travel Companion.
If I made a wrong turn going to an event, and caused him to be 3 minutes late, he’d yell and scream at me, “Eric, you’re fired.” Of course, and hour later all was forgotten.
For the record, I resigned officially giving my notice to Chief of Staff Tom Lizardo in late 2003, over Ron’s opposition to the War in Iraq. That didn’t stop Ron though. He pleaded with me to stay on. And twice after I left, he called me at home, asking me to come back to work.
Get your facts straight before you start mouthing off stuff you know nothing about.
Want confirmation of my account? Contact Lizardo.
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:22 pm
“Fired”? Really? I used to get “Fired” by Ron on a daily basis during my 12 years working for him as his Senior Aide, and Travel Companion.
If I made a wrong turn going to an event, and caused him to be 3 minutes late, he’d yell and scream at me, “Eric, you’re fired.” Of course, and hour later all was forgotten.
For the record, I resigned officially giving my notice to Chief of Staff Tom Lizardo in late 2003, over Ron’s opposition to the War in Iraq. That didn’t stop Ron though. He pleaded with me to stay on. And twice after I left, he called me at home, asking me to come back to work.
Get your facts straight before you start mouthing off stuff you know nothing about.
Want confirmation of my account? Contact Lizardo.
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:25 pm
I guess that’s why I regularly feature the Congressman favorably over at LibertarianRepublican.net.
Again, Ron Paul is utterly fantastic on economic issues. He’s great on the Nanny-State too. I can tell you for a fact, as someone who traveled with the guy for 12 years, he DOES NOT WEAR HIS SEAT BELT ON PRINCIPLE, and his very, very often drives over the speed limit. (And he’s quite grouchy to the Troopers when they pull him over too.) You gotta love that!
I have the utmost respect for Ron Paul on domestic issues.
But he absolutely SUCKS! on foreign policy. It’s hard to imagine anyone with a worse position than RP on Military/Defense issues.
So, he’s a 50%-er. He’s 100% right on 50% of the issues. And 100% wrong on the other 50%.
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:25 pm
I guess that’s why I regularly feature the Congressman favorably over at LibertarianRepublican.net.
Again, Ron Paul is utterly fantastic on economic issues. He’s great on the Nanny-State too. I can tell you for a fact, as someone who traveled with the guy for 12 years, he DOES NOT WEAR HIS SEAT BELT ON PRINCIPLE, and his very, very often drives over the speed limit. (And he’s quite grouchy to the Troopers when they pull him over too.) You gotta love that!
I have the utmost respect for Ron Paul on domestic issues.
But he absolutely SUCKS! on foreign policy. It’s hard to imagine anyone with a worse position than RP on Military/Defense issues.
So, he’s a 50%-er. He’s 100% right on 50% of the issues. And 100% wrong on the other 50%.
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Wrong again. In the 1988 Libertarian Presidential campaign Ron and I visited many bars on the campaign trail. I remember a specific time in Juneau, Alaska when we campaigned at a famous bar with peanut shells on the floor. It was the one and ONLY time, I ever got Ron to sip on a beer. He hates beer, and prefers white wine.
During the 1996 campaign for congress, Ron and I visited tons of smoky, beer on the floor, VFW bars and American Legion halls all over Dist. 14 from Refugio to the Austin suburbs.
He even accompanied me to some Tejano bars in the extreme southern part of the District – Refugio, Aransas Cty, to gain some important Hispanic voters.
Again, don’t talk about something you have no idea about.
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Wrong again. In the 1988 Libertarian Presidential campaign Ron and I visited many bars on the campaign trail. I remember a specific time in Juneau, Alaska when we campaigned at a famous bar with peanut shells on the floor. It was the one and ONLY time, I ever got Ron to sip on a beer. He hates beer, and prefers white wine.
During the 1996 campaign for congress, Ron and I visited tons of smoky, beer on the floor, VFW bars and American Legion halls all over Dist. 14 from Refugio to the Austin suburbs.
He even accompanied me to some Tejano bars in the extreme southern part of the District – Refugio, Aransas Cty, to gain some important Hispanic voters.
Again, don’t talk about something you have no idea about.
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:29 pm
BTW, this can be easily verified by Tom Lizardo, Michael Sullivan, and just about anyone who was involved in that 1996 campaign.
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:29 pm
BTW, this can be easily verified by Tom Lizardo, Michael Sullivan, and just about anyone who was involved in that 1996 campaign.
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Sorry, you can’t pick and choose what is and what is not offensive. That’s for others to decide.
Example, just last week, Bill Maher said on his show talking with Andrew Breitbart, that Obama had some “kinky” hair. Now is that any different from “nappy-headed”?
Parisitic is an awfully offensive term. The post is right there for all to say, and it will be repeated, trust me. As in Ron Paul supporter terms Israel’s relationship with the United States to be “parasitic.”
Others will judge if they find it offensive or not. My guess? 9 out of 10 will judge it to be so.
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Sorry, you can’t pick and choose what is and what is not offensive. That’s for others to decide.
Example, just last week, Bill Maher said on his show talking with Andrew Breitbart, that Obama had some “kinky” hair. Now is that any different from “nappy-headed”?
Parisitic is an awfully offensive term. The post is right there for all to say, and it will be repeated, trust me. As in Ron Paul supporter terms Israel’s relationship with the United States to be “parasitic.”
Others will judge if they find it offensive or not. My guess? 9 out of 10 will judge it to be so.
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:34 pm
In the 1930s in Hitler’s Germany, Jews were said to be “infested with lice” and carriers of disease.
Now, if you judge “nappy-headed,” to be virtually no different from “kinky” or “narly” don’t you think “parasitic” is the same as “lice-infested”?
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:34 pm
In the 1930s in Hitler’s Germany, Jews were said to be “infested with lice” and carriers of disease.
Now, if you judge “nappy-headed,” to be virtually no different from “kinky” or “narly” don’t you think “parasitic” is the same as “lice-infested”?
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Why don’t you respond to my post above where you lied. You are responding to everybody else. I am starting to think you have some type of mental disorder. What is it called, ahh, pathological liar.
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Why don’t you respond to my post above where you lied. You are responding to everybody else. I am starting to think you have some type of mental disorder. What is it called, ahh, pathological liar.
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:38 pm
You have “nothing against the Jewish people.” Now here’s the question. Do you have something against the existence of the State of Israel?
Are you one of those who’s perfectly fine with Jews living in New York, or on some deserted island somewheres preferably part of the territorial United States, but does not believe they belong in the Middle East? Are you one of those who pretends to be “pro-Jewish,” but regularly uses terms like “Zionists,” and “NeoCons,” as code words for being Anti-Jew?
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:38 pm
You have “nothing against the Jewish people.” Now here’s the question. Do you have something against the existence of the State of Israel?
Are you one of those who’s perfectly fine with Jews living in New York, or on some deserted island somewheres preferably part of the territorial United States, but does not believe they belong in the Middle East? Are you one of those who pretends to be “pro-Jewish,” but regularly uses terms like “Zionists,” and “NeoCons,” as code words for being Anti-Jew?
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:43 pm
You say you have a problem with our foreign policy towards Israel. What exactly does that mean?
Israel is the only Westernized society in the Middle East. (Lebanon used to be that way until the Muslims kicked out all the Christians.)
Let’s see now: Israel has pizza parlors, nightclubs, cinemas, beaches where women can wear bikinis and even go topless. It has a free market-based economy. The country is currently headed by an admitted disciple of Milton Friedman, Hayek and Ludvig von Mises.
Are you suggesting that Israel is no better, and no more a friend of the United States, than say Jordan, or the now Muslim Brotherhood controlled Egypt, or Saudi Arabia where women are not permitted to vote or drive, and 99% of them are forced to wear black burqas in public?
Oh, I get it. You’re one of those “non-interventionists,” who believe that it doesn’t matter what their culture is, or what their allegiances amount to. It’s all just “none of our business” right?
If the Isolationist shoe fits, wear it.
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:43 pm
You say you have a problem with our foreign policy towards Israel. What exactly does that mean?
Israel is the only Westernized society in the Middle East. (Lebanon used to be that way until the Muslims kicked out all the Christians.)
Let’s see now: Israel has pizza parlors, nightclubs, cinemas, beaches where women can wear bikinis and even go topless. It has a free market-based economy. The country is currently headed by an admitted disciple of Milton Friedman, Hayek and Ludvig von Mises.
Are you suggesting that Israel is no better, and no more a friend of the United States, than say Jordan, or the now Muslim Brotherhood controlled Egypt, or Saudi Arabia where women are not permitted to vote or drive, and 99% of them are forced to wear black burqas in public?
Oh, I get it. You’re one of those “non-interventionists,” who believe that it doesn’t matter what their culture is, or what their allegiances amount to. It’s all just “none of our business” right?
If the Isolationist shoe fits, wear it.
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Never in my life would I have gone form “parasitic” to “jews infested with lice” in one leap. When used politically parasitic refers to unbalanced, where one party gets more than the other, usually substantially more. It fits here.
On May 1st, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Never in my life would I have gone form “parasitic” to “jews infested with lice” in one leap. When used politically parasitic refers to unbalanced, where one party gets more than the other, usually substantially more. It fits here.
On May 1st, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Policys should be based on principles, and the most basic of the latter is Equal justice For All. That would leave the question of abortion/right to life/women’s rights hanging until a principle can be enunciated resolving the claims of both fetus and mother to certain rights. It wold recognize that members of the gay community should enjoy all rights extended to the straight. The principles relating to gay marriage await a definition of marriage; is it a civil or a religous institution? If the former, then all are entitled to it; if the latter, then participation therein is up to the churches and none of the government’s business. Equal justice for all would require a diffrent tax code, not one based on “the rich should pay more because they can afford it”. Perhaps a flat tax on DISPOSABLE income, with a generous personal exemption for the non-disposable (food, housing, etc) and for education and health care.
Now decide which candidate, or more important which set of positions on the major issues facing America, are consistent with the cited principle of Equality Before Law and principles in which you personally believe.
On May 1st, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Policys should be based on principles, and the most basic of the latter is Equal justice For All. That would leave the question of abortion/right to life/women’s rights hanging until a principle can be enunciated resolving the claims of both fetus and mother to certain rights. It wold recognize that members of the gay community should enjoy all rights extended to the straight. The principles relating to gay marriage await a definition of marriage; is it a civil or a religous institution? If the former, then all are entitled to it; if the latter, then participation therein is up to the churches and none of the government’s business. Equal justice for all would require a diffrent tax code, not one based on “the rich should pay more because they can afford it”. Perhaps a flat tax on DISPOSABLE income, with a generous personal exemption for the non-disposable (food, housing, etc) and for education and health care.
Now decide which candidate, or more important which set of positions on the major issues facing America, are consistent with the cited principle of Equality Before Law and principles in which you personally believe.
On May 1st, 2011 at 4:36 pm
You nailed it, I am a noninterventionist that believes it is none of our business. Half my family is Jewish, half of them live in West Palm Beach, and some live in Brunswick, Missouri.
However I do have an issue with us giving money to foreign countries, but I have more of an issue with people who say that someone who has anything negative to say about Israel is somehow a jew hater. Your knee jerk reaction here proves that point.
If you want to fight for Israel, move there and buy a gun.
If you want to give money to Israel, cut a check.
Leave me out of it.
On May 1st, 2011 at 4:36 pm
You nailed it, I am a noninterventionist that believes it is none of our business. Half my family is Jewish, half of them live in West Palm Beach, and some live in Brunswick, Missouri.
However I do have an issue with us giving money to foreign countries, but I have more of an issue with people who say that someone who has anything negative to say about Israel is somehow a jew hater. Your knee jerk reaction here proves that point.
If you want to fight for Israel, move there and buy a gun.
If you want to give money to Israel, cut a check.
Leave me out of it.
On May 1st, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Whence cometh the modern state of Israel? On their own, over strong British opposition, a group of Zionists set sail for Palestine and established their state there, much as the Pilgrims set sail for what would become the Bay Colony. Both sought freedom for their religion, having found it lacking in Europe. Both disregarded any claim by the indigeneous to the lands upon which they settled. The former (Israel) soon had official recognition from the Truman administration. This might be construed by some as pandering to Zionism in America. The former (Pilgrims and descendants) slew the indigeneous populations which resisted the land grabbing. The latter resists by force attempts by the indigeneous to reclaim land. So what can we learn from history? Is there a statute of limitations on property rights that precludes the claims of the Israelis who were driven from their land two millinea ago? Would it apply to the Native Americans, or the Australian Aborigines? Or, in the immortal words of Rodney King, “Why can’t we all just get along?”
On May 1st, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Whence cometh the modern state of Israel? On their own, over strong British opposition, a group of Zionists set sail for Palestine and established their state there, much as the Pilgrims set sail for what would become the Bay Colony. Both sought freedom for their religion, having found it lacking in Europe. Both disregarded any claim by the indigeneous to the lands upon which they settled. The former (Israel) soon had official recognition from the Truman administration. This might be construed by some as pandering to Zionism in America. The former (Pilgrims and descendants) slew the indigeneous populations which resisted the land grabbing. The latter resists by force attempts by the indigeneous to reclaim land. So what can we learn from history? Is there a statute of limitations on property rights that precludes the claims of the Israelis who were driven from their land two millinea ago? Would it apply to the Native Americans, or the Australian Aborigines? Or, in the immortal words of Rodney King, “Why can’t we all just get along?”
On May 1st, 2011 at 5:21 pm
I noticed you completely ignored the cultural argument. You non-interventionists are so predictable. You see, the culture argument doesn’t fit your template, so your only choice is to completely avoid the issue.
Once again ISRAEL IS A WESTERNIZED SOCIETY WITH WOMEN’S RIGHTS, RIGHTS FOR HOMOSEXUALS, MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION, BOOZE, NIGHTCLUBS, TOPLESS BEACHES, PIZZA JOINTS, POSH RESTAURANTS, CASINO GAMBLING, ECT… ECT… ECT…
The Muslim World has none of that (save for a tiny section of Cairo with a few Casinos), and some parts of Tunis and Dubai that allow foreigners.
Now, I’ll ask you again. Maybe I can get an answer from you.
Do you or do you not prefer Israel, as an American, and as a product of WESTERN CULTURE (I presume you like movies, and women with big breasts, and the occasional beer or martini), or do you believe that Israel is no different or preferable to Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia or the Sudan?
On May 1st, 2011 at 5:21 pm
I noticed you completely ignored the cultural argument. You non-interventionists are so predictable. You see, the culture argument doesn’t fit your template, so your only choice is to completely avoid the issue.
Once again ISRAEL IS A WESTERNIZED SOCIETY WITH WOMEN’S RIGHTS, RIGHTS FOR HOMOSEXUALS, MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION, BOOZE, NIGHTCLUBS, TOPLESS BEACHES, PIZZA JOINTS, POSH RESTAURANTS, CASINO GAMBLING, ECT… ECT… ECT…
The Muslim World has none of that (save for a tiny section of Cairo with a few Casinos), and some parts of Tunis and Dubai that allow foreigners.
Now, I’ll ask you again. Maybe I can get an answer from you.
Do you or do you not prefer Israel, as an American, and as a product of WESTERN CULTURE (I presume you like movies, and women with big breasts, and the occasional beer or martini), or do you believe that Israel is no different or preferable to Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia or the Sudan?
On May 1st, 2011 at 7:22 pm
I don’t care.
I wish no one any ill will, but I do not want to pay a dime or an ounce of our citizens blood in order to be the worlds police.
I am not ignoring your question, I simply do not care.
If you care, it sounds like something you should donate to. Why is that so complicated to you?
That means you and others who care can make this a very important issue among your group, and use your own time, energy, money and blood of your children to do whatever you like.
Leave me, my family, and my money out of it.
On May 1st, 2011 at 7:22 pm
I don’t care.
I wish no one any ill will, but I do not want to pay a dime or an ounce of our citizens blood in order to be the worlds police.
I am not ignoring your question, I simply do not care.
If you care, it sounds like something you should donate to. Why is that so complicated to you?
That means you and others who care can make this a very important issue among your group, and use your own time, energy, money and blood of your children to do whatever you like.
Leave me, my family, and my money out of it.
On May 1st, 2011 at 7:53 pm
What is the argument here? Both Paul and Johnson want to end all foreign military and financial aid, including aid to Israel. You people are just arguing to hear yourselves rant. And I’m just posting to see how narrow I can get the text column to go.
On May 1st, 2011 at 7:53 pm
What is the argument here? Both Paul and Johnson want to end all foreign military and financial aid, including aid to Israel. You people are just arguing to hear yourselves rant. And I’m just posting to see how narrow I can get the text column to go.
On May 2nd, 2011 at 12:35 am
Okay, so then explain to me why you non-interventionists get your pantys in such a wad when anyone calls you an isolationist. You epitomize isolationism. You’re “I don’t care,” about foreigners attitude screams ISOLATIONISM. Yeah, you may be a non-interventionist too. But your main motivation is isolating yourself within the borders of the United States, let the rest of the World be damned.
You undoubtably would have been one of those in 1939 saying, “Gas chambers? Who cares. None of our business if a few million Jews get slaughtered by Hitler.”
And you most certainly were one of those in 1977/78 saying “a few million Cambodians murdered by the Communist Khmer Rouge? None of our business. Plus Cambodia is so far away.”
Ditto Rwanda, 1992, Sudan, and of course, this explains entirely your non-caring attitude as to what is going on in Europe today, with the Islamization.
On May 2nd, 2011 at 12:35 am
Okay, so then explain to me why you non-interventionists get your pantys in such a wad when anyone calls you an isolationist. You epitomize isolationism. You’re “I don’t care,” about foreigners attitude screams ISOLATIONISM. Yeah, you may be a non-interventionist too. But your main motivation is isolating yourself within the borders of the United States, let the rest of the World be damned.
You undoubtably would have been one of those in 1939 saying, “Gas chambers? Who cares. None of our business if a few million Jews get slaughtered by Hitler.”
And you most certainly were one of those in 1977/78 saying “a few million Cambodians murdered by the Communist Khmer Rouge? None of our business. Plus Cambodia is so far away.”
Ditto Rwanda, 1992, Sudan, and of course, this explains entirely your non-caring attitude as to what is going on in Europe today, with the Islamization.
On May 2nd, 2011 at 12:36 am
The argument here is that we Pro-Defense libertarians are not going to let the Isolationists speak for our movement. You all hide-your-head-in-the-sanders on Islamism, are a fringe part of the libertarian movement. If you’re libertarians at all? Probably just a bunch of wind-bagged leftists who think calling yourself a “libertarian” sounds cool edgie.
WE TRUE LIBERTAIANS WILL EXPOSE YOU!!!
On May 2nd, 2011 at 12:36 am
The argument here is that we Pro-Defense libertarians are not going to let the Isolationists speak for our movement. You all hide-your-head-in-the-sanders on Islamism, are a fringe part of the libertarian movement. If you’re libertarians at all? Probably just a bunch of wind-bagged leftists who think calling yourself a “libertarian” sounds cool edgie.
WE TRUE LIBERTAIANS WILL EXPOSE YOU!!!
On May 5th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Can’t you be cool with folks who don’t want to be forced to support foriegn countries, even if it’s your favorite? A country that has 300 nukes doesn’t need us, and a country with 10,000 nukes doesn’t need a foriegn policy.
On May 5th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Can’t you be cool with folks who don’t want to be forced to support foriegn countries, even if it’s your favorite? A country that has 300 nukes doesn’t need us, and a country with 10,000 nukes doesn’t need a foriegn policy.
On May 6th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
It wasn’t just the Jews slaughtered in the Gas Chambers. Gypsies, gay people, inavilds, etc. etc. Basically anyone the Nazis didn’t like or want. And before anyone has the idea I cannot speak of this, I found out recently my heritage is Polish Jew. Yet, My Mom’s side has supposed distant connections to the Nazi regime. Should I therefore hate myself? Hell no! In the end, being Libertarian at it’s heart is “leaving everyone the heck alone” and all things done are with this optimized attitude in mind. It may not be perfect, but it is the most fair way to allow all in the world to have equal footing so that they may decide if the succeed or not. If you are into interventionism, you are no longer Libertarian, unless that intervention is WITHIN our national borders. Any taxpayer dollars or debt shouldered by the US taxpayers if welfare for the world. How can you ever justify that in ANY form?
On May 6th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
It wasn’t just the Jews slaughtered in the Gas Chambers. Gypsies, gay people, inavilds, etc. etc. Basically anyone the Nazis didn’t like or want. And before anyone has the idea I cannot speak of this, I found out recently my heritage is Polish Jew. Yet, My Mom’s side has supposed distant connections to the Nazi regime. Should I therefore hate myself? Hell no! In the end, being Libertarian at it’s heart is “leaving everyone the heck alone” and all things done are with this optimized attitude in mind. It may not be perfect, but it is the most fair way to allow all in the world to have equal footing so that they may decide if the succeed or not. If you are into interventionism, you are no longer Libertarian, unless that intervention is WITHIN our national borders. Any taxpayer dollars or debt shouldered by the US taxpayers if welfare for the world. How can you ever justify that in ANY form?
On May 6th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
And when I say intervention within our national borders, I am referring to repelling invasions.
On May 6th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
And when I say intervention within our national borders, I am referring to repelling invasions.
On May 20th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
The only politician who puts the NATION FIRST and HIMSELF LAST.
Please seriously check his record out and learn his points. Listen to this man speak and please make your own sound decisions.
Regan said, “what to ask is am I better off now than 4 years ago. Is food cheaper now than 4 years ago? Are taxes lower now than 4 years ago?”
With Ron Paul’s 2012 platform, You, it, and they would be.
Thank You for Your time
Ron Paul 2012!
On May 20th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
The only politician who puts the NATION FIRST and HIMSELF LAST.
Please seriously check his record out and learn his points. Listen to this man speak and please make your own sound decisions.
Regan said, “what to ask is am I better off now than 4 years ago. Is food cheaper now than 4 years ago? Are taxes lower now than 4 years ago?”
With Ron Paul’s 2012 platform, You, it, and they would be.
Thank You for Your time
Ron Paul 2012!
On May 27th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
“But he absolutely SUCKS! on foreign policy. It’s hard to imagine anyone
with a worse position than RP on Military/Defense issues.”
———————
Your opinion is noted, Eric, but I could not disagree more. We are going the way of Rome and for the exact same reasons – overtaxing the populace and spreading our military too thin in order to try to maintain an ever expanding empire. We cannot afford hundreds of billions going out in foreign aid and hundreds of military bases around the World none of which even buys us good will. We would not tolerate military bases of foreign powers on our soil – why should they tolerate ours?
This is becoming an increasingly small World. There is no place we can not reach in a matter of hours so our allies can continue to count on our assistance when needed without maintaining fixed bases in foreign lands. Oil rich states like Saudi Arabia have adequate resources to develop or hire all the protection they need for their infrastructure – including the U.S. military if that’s their choice but it should be PROFITABLE to us if they do.
From a defense perspective, we have dozens if not hundreds of times more capability than we need to defend ourselves (with about 90,000,000 armed citizens in reserve). If we pulled in our foreign horns and concentrated on keeping our technological edge, we could easily maintain that defensive posture as well as adequate offensive power needed to assist allies for a fraction of what we spend today.
On May 27th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
This is the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard. Parasitic is a relationship whereby one party feeds from the other and offers little or nothing in return. As used in English, it has nothing to do with lice or any other creature. It’s fine to argue that Israel is not parasitic but equating the perfectly good, English term to some long-forgotten issue is asinine.
EVERYBODY can find ANYTHING offensive if they want to but intent is everything in communications. Try understanding the context and the connotation before you get your knickers all wadded up. Get over it.
On December 23rd, 2011 at 8:18 am
Well, I’m not saying Israel is better or worse than it’s neighboring muslim countries… Actually, I take that back, they’re much better for the most part. However, as far as Ron Paul’s ideas on taking all foreign aid away, the U.S. actually gives Israel much less than it’s neighboring Muslim countries… Essentially, our aid gives both sides the means to defend themselves, slightly tipping the scales in favor of the muslims. I’m not a non-interventionist, but I highly disagree with funding both sides of a conflict for some strange reason, contributing to the ever constant instability of an area.