What Conservatives think of Ron Paul

[MonsterMark]

Pretty telling.

Ya, ya, I know. Frank Luntz and Fox News are in cahoots to bring Ron Paul down. Blah, blah, blah.

I'll bet his head gets too big and he tries to run 3rd party and hands the election to the Dems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PppBFoNxSOE

 

[fossten]

How much you want to bet on that?

By the way, Mitt just jumped the shark on gun control. NEXT!

I'd sooner vote for Bill Richardson.

 

[04SCTLS]

Thought you guys would like this

 

[MAC1]

Deleted

 

[04SCTLS]

wonder why it was deleted
said "Redefeat Communism"
with a pic of hillary with a red circle and slash like a do not enter sign

 

[fossten]

I'll bet his head gets too big and he tries to run 3rd party and hands the election to the Dems.

If conservatives nominate a liberal RINO for their presidential candidate, they deserve nothing less. There is no difference between a statist Dem and a statist Rep. I keep repeating this - even ANN COULTER said that she's more in line with Hillary than with Giuliani on social policies.

In a situation like that, even if we win, we lose.

 

[MonsterMark]

If conservatives nominate a liberal RINO for their presidential candidate, they deserve nothing less. There is no difference between a statist Dem and a statist Rep. I keep repeating this - even ANN COULTER said that she's more in line with Hillary than with Giuliani on social policies.

In a situation like that, even if we win, we lose.

Thank you for your work in helping to defeat the Republican Party.

All or nothing. What a losing mentality.

 

[Jayce 1971]

Bush has completely discreditted the republican party. All I can say is, "Never again."

 

[shagdrum]

Bush has completely discreditted the republican party. All I can say is, "Never again."

Ignorant foolishness strikes again!

 

[MonsterMark]

Bush has completely discreditted the republican party. All I can say is, "Never again."

YEAH. Vote Hillary. She'll decide what money you get to keep and what you can or can't do.

Or Vote Obama. He'll be negotiating with Ahmadinejad as a nuke goes off in Washington.

Or the Breck Girl. He'll make sure all your wages go to the guy down the street that wants to take the next couple of years off, or worse, get punched in the nose by every bad guy in the world because everyone knows he is a pussy.

 

[MonsterMark]

Just like on France and Germany, this years U.S. elections will tell us which way the Country goes.

 

[fossten]

Thank you for your work in helping to defeat the Republican Party.

All or nothing. What a losing mentality.

The Republican Party has defeated itself, from Shamnesty to Spinelessness to Big Spending to HR 2640. There is zero leadership in the party right now. This is somehow MY fault? LOL I've done nothing but stick to my conservative principles and I STILL end up voting for one RINO after another. For your information, I've written a dozen letters this year to Mitch McConnell, my senator. I also wrote letters to my rep, Ann Northup, who was splashed by a little lib weasel named John Yarmuth for no apparent reason in 2006. For you to assert that I am contributing to the loss of the Rep party is sheer, ludicrous stupidity and angry fit-throwing. Your issue is not with me; it is with the candidates, none of whom ANY of you are excited about, and with good reason. They are not conservative. You would REALLY be happy with a statist like Rudy as president?

Quit your whining. Hillary will be no worse for this country than Rudy will. I am not the will of the people. Don't blame it on me because our party can't get a good conservative candidate. If you want to be pissed at somebody, blame McCain - his McCain/Feingold law virtually ensured that nobody can run for Prez who isn't already megawealthy.

 

[Calabrio]

Supreme Court appointments.

Even if you think the two parties are identical in terms of policy, they do nominate very different judges. Alito and Roberts are vastly different than Ginsberg. And liberals can't advance their social agenda without the support of the courts.

But abandoning the major candidates because they aren't "perfect" is absurd. Even if you honestly think that one party will simply march more slowly into the abyss, the reality is, the other party will be running towards it.

 

[fossten]

Supreme Court appointments.

Even if you think the two parties are identical in terms of policy, they do nominate very different judges. Alito and Roberts are vastly different than Ginsberg. And liberals can't advance their social agenda without the support of the courts.

But abandoning the major candidates because they aren't "perfect" is absurd. Even if you honestly think that one party will simply march more slowly into the abyss, the reality is, the other party will be running towards it.

Yeah those Supreme Court justices that Reagan appointed really are doing the job, aren't they? Face it, you really, have no idea what kind of justice Rudy or Mitt will appoint. Not all of us are suckers for Rudy's platitudes like Sean Hannity is.

The Republican party is marching us toward the abyss, only more slowly. They are not a party of freedom, only a party of slowing the loss of freedom. It's the difference between a pendulum and a ratcheting noose. In being that party, they actually do more harm than good, because the loss of freedom in this country thanks to them is more gradual, which means fewer people will awaken to it. Show me how many stupid or bad laws the Republicans have repealed while in office from 1994-2006. I'll bet there aren't [m]any. When people finally wake up they will already be in a totalitarian state and there will be nothing left.

The Democrats are at least more honest about their statism, and if they ran headlong into the abyss enough Americans might wake up and fight back. But in this incremental approach not enough Americans will. And that is the role that the Republican party is playing, either consciously or unwittingly: They are keeping Americans asleep to their danger. And that includes you. Nighty-night! :shifty:

Still haven't read Atlas Shrugged, eh? Well, it is pretty intimidating, it is 1100 pages.

 

[formerknown]

Watched the Mitt Romney NBC News interview and found this outrageous:

I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts as governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus.

Are you fvcking kidding me? Relaxed the requirements? Folks, if you're not living in Massachusetts or are not a Massachusetts licensed-to-carry holder like myself, please take my word for it that this man did NOTHING to aid us- particularly the gun owners. I mean, does "assault weapons ban" sound like a relaxation of licensing requirements to you? This statement is a flat-out goddamed L-I-E. In my state, the police chief of your town is the last say of whether or not you get a gun. You have a chief who doesn't like guns? You don't get one. Or he'll restrict the sh!t out of it; (i.e, target practice only, hunting only, uniform/on-duty only for cops or security guards, etc.) Or, he'll make you jump through hoops to get it; (i.e, doctor's notes, target qualifications, etc.) On top of it, the guns you purchase in this state must be "Mass legal", meaning it is on an approved "roster" and meets ridiculous "safety standards"- thus driving-up the price and shutting-out gun manufacturers from the state. Nothing firearms-related has changed in this state since 1998. Mitt Romney helped gun owners by "relaxing" licensing requirements? Fvck him, he did.

Romney is a wolf in sheep's clothing as he ever was. He did nothing for the Commonwealth but spend as much time away from it, poking-fun at it, and combing his hair for the Iowans to make himself look good for this race. Now, my state is in a huge mess thanks to this idiot amongst many others. STAY THE FVCK AWAY FROM MITT ROMNEY!

 

[Calabrio]

Yeah those Supreme Court justices that Reagan appointed really are doing the job, aren't they? Face it, you really, have no idea what kind of justice Rudy or Mitt will appoint. Not all of us are suckers for Rudy's platitudes like Sean Hannity is.

You mean Reagan appointments like Justice Scalia?
Even Rehnquist wasn't a terrible choice.
O'connor was still better than Ginsberg and Breyer.

There's no guarantee that any of the GOP will appoint great justices, but it's guaranteed that a Democrat President, with a strong Democrat vote in the Congress, will continue to nominate Justices in the mold of ACLU attorney Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

People are now highly critical of Bush for not being "conservative enough," but look at his final Supreme Court nominations. If you don't think there's a world of difference between even a terrible appointment like Alito to Ginsberg, you're not following the court.

I bet Harriet Miers would've been better than Ginsberg too.

The Republican party is marching us toward the abyss, only more slowly.

So the solution is to just go there at full speed, but feel good about ourself in the process?

Accelerating the process makes it all the more difficult to repeal, unless you think the only way to stop a car that's going to crash a into a wall isn't to apply the breaks, but to wait for it to hit the wall and completely rebuild the car.

And, don't presume to know what I have or haven't read. I really don't think it's interesting, or in your best interest, to get into a tit-for-tat competition like that with me. You should be pleased to learn that an Atlas Shrugged movie is in production though.

 

[fossten]

You mean Reagan appointments like Justice Scalia?
Even Rehnquist wasn't a terrible choice.
O'connor was still better than Ginsberg and Breyer.

Uh, you need to go re-read history. Rehnquist wasn't appointed by Reagan, only moved to chief justice chair. Reagan named O'Connor and Kennedy, both moderate to liberal justices who have voted to uphold gay rights and the KELO CASE. Sorry, you don't come out on the correct side in this one. O'Connor was better than Ginsberg and Breyer? What's that, some sort of excuse? So what? She still was a terrible justice.

There's no guarantee that any of the GOP will appoint great justices, but it's guaranteed that a Democrat President, with a strong Democrat vote in the Congress, will continue to nominate Justices in the mold of ACLU attorney Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

You need to get a clue about the court appointments. Huck, Romney, and Giuliani are liberals. Liberals appoint liberals. Period. Bush is NOT a liberal, hence his appts are good. You need to take off the blinders and start paying attention to your candidates.

People are now highly critical of Bush for not being "conservative enough," but look at his final Supreme Court nominations. If you don't think there's a world of difference between even a terrible appointment like Alito to Ginsberg, you're not following the court.

Bush is not a liberal as I've already said.

I bet Harriet Miers would've been better than Ginsberg too.

Harriet Miers was a lightweight. Even Specter said that her answers to the routine questionnaire were "insulting."

So the solution is to just go there at full speed, but feel good about ourself in the process?

No, the solution is to turn the car around. None of YOUR candidates will do that.

Accelerating the process makes it all the more difficult to repeal, unless you think the only way to stop a car that's going to crash a into a wall isn't to apply the breaks, but to wait for it to hit the wall and completely rebuild the car.

Your analogy only proves my point, not yours. What happens if we only apply the brakes slightly and never turn the car around? We still hit the wall, but nobody notices.

And, don't presume to know what I have or haven't read. I really don't think it's interesting, or in your best interest, to get into a tit-for-tat competition like that with me. You should be pleased to learn that an Atlas Shrugged movie is in production though.

LOL I'll take that as a 'no, I haven't read it.' And I can presume anything I want. Sheesh what a whiner.