[DOC44]

If.... and I said IF Paul dropped out, who would his supporters vote for in the primary.... Yeah, I know he is not going to BUT IF HE DID?

Doc44

[barbedwiresmile]

Originally Posted by DOC44

If.... and I said IF Paul dropped out, who would his supporters vote for in the primary.... Yeah, I know he is not going to BUT IF HE DID?

Doc44

My sense of it is that very few will vote for the GOP nominee. One subset will likely not vote, another will likely vote for the Libertarian candidate, and another will likely write-in RP.

[G29Reload]

Originally Posted by 22rtf2

So the government comes up with mandated health care and thats overstepping?

Yes, that's overstepping.

Originally Posted by 22rtf2

Taxes are too high? That's the government.

Correct.

Originally Posted by 22rtf2

Draconian gun laws? Yep, government.

Yes.

Originally Posted by 22rtf2

Sticking their nose in other country's business half way around the world? The Uss New Jersey bombing residential housing in Beirut?

The USS NJ was not destroying residential housing. It was retaliating against the thugs that murdered almost 300 US Marines who were there on a peacekeeping mission. This "blame the victim" mentality of you Bots is beyond the pale, and frankly cowardly and unamerican.

Originally Posted by 22rtf2

NO, IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S FAULT PEOPLE HATE US AND TO SAY SO IS TO BE PUT IN THE SAME CAMP AS BIN LADEN. WE CAN KILL WHOEVER THE **** WE WANT AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU'RE ON THE SIDE OF THE TERRORISTS!!

Just distort things to support your story, as usual.

We don't kill "whoever we want" we kill scumbags that try to kill us. The usual intellectual dishonesty, cart before the horse.

[DOC44]

Originally Posted by barbedwiresmile

My sense of it is that very few will vote for the GOP nominee. One subset will likely not vote, another will likely vote for the Libertarian candidate, and another will likely write-in RP.

So if Paul's supporters probably will not support any other GOP candidate why is he allowed to run in the GOP primary and be a distracting Uncle Fred that you keep in the basement when company comes over. If he is a Libertarian then he should run as a Libertarian or not at all. I am starting to think that his most avid supporter are rebellous yoots just using him as a shoe horn to get into the public eye and ear.

Doc44

[22rtf2]

Originally Posted by G29Reload

The USS NJ was not destroying residential housing. It was retaliating against the thugs that murdered almost 300 US Marines who were there on a peacekeeping mission. This "blame the victim" mentality of you Bots is beyond the pale, and frankly cowardly and unamerican.




Just distort things to support your story, as usual.

We don't kill "whoever we want" we kill scumbags that try to kill us. The usual intellectual dishonesty, cart before the horse.

Bot? Who am I a bot for? I'm not voting for any of these pathetic wastes of life. I do fine on my own, I don't need a king to rule over me.

And why were those Marines in Beirut in the first place? You don't send killing machines on a peace keeping mission. You get involved in somebody elses Civil War and you tend to take casualties. And those Marines suffered for something that you seem to support.

I believe Reagan called that the biggest mistake of his presidency. Why? He didn't understand "Blowback". Did you miss that last part?

[Goaltender66]

Originally Posted by DOC44

So if Paul's supporters probably will not support any other GOP candidate why is he allowed to run in the GOP primary and be a distracting Uncle Fred that you keep in the basement when company comes over. If he is a Libertarian then he should run as a Libertarian or not at all. I am starting to think that his most avid supporter are rebellous yoots just using him as a shoe horn to get into the public eye and ear.

Doc44

He already quit the GOP once. No one noticed.

I'm all in favor of closed non-caucus primaries just to put an end to shenanigans.

[barbedwiresmile]

Originally Posted by DOC44

So if Paul's supporters probably will not support any other GOP candidate why is he allowed to run in the GOP primary and be a distracting Uncle Fred that you keep in the basement when company comes over. If he is a Libertarian then he should run as a Libertarian or not at all. I am starting to think that his most avid supporter are rebellous yoots just using him as a shoe horn to get into the public eye and ear.

Doc44

Easy, Doc. I was simply answering your previous questions. I imagine the reason he is "allowed" to run as a GOP candidate is that he is a sitting GOP Congressman. I remind you, however, that I have never pretended RP was anything but a libertarian and bears nothing in common with today's GOP.

[Glock30Eric]

Originally Posted by DOC44

If.... and I said IF Paul dropped out, who would his supporters vote for in the primary.... Yeah, I know he is not going to BUT IF HE DID?

Doc44

If and if.... Mitt, Newt, Perry, Rick have dropped out. Ron Paul is the only candidate for the Republican party and who will you vote for?

[DOC44]

Originally Posted by Glock30Eric

If and if.... Mitt, Newt, Perry, Rick have dropped out. Ron Paul is the only candidate for the Republican party and who will you vote for?

Which is more dangerous for the US; four years of lame duck obama or four years of Paul. Would probably go with Paul because of supreme court appointments and commie czars.

Doc44

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by DOC44

Which is more dangerous for the US; four years of lame duck obama or four years of Paul. Would probably go with Paul because of supreme court appointments and commie czars.

Doc44

I'd go for Paul over Barry without reservation. All of the Republican candidates are miles better than Barry, if you actually think about it.

[Goaltender66]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I'd go for Paul over Barry without reservation. All of the Republican candidates are miles better than Barry, if you actually think about it.

You're more generous than I, Doc. I'd vote for the guy who was OK with sending the SEALs to shoot Bin Laden in the head.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Goaltender66

You're more generous than I, Doc. I'd vote for the guy who was OK with sending the SEALs to shoot Bin Laden in the head.

Barry was a peacenik too, before he got THE BRIEF.

When you find out what is really going on, you're kind of stuck at that point. It is a constitutional responsibility.

Ron comes in third to last in the pack for me.

[DOC44]

obama had no idea what was going on unitl the safety said, "click".

Doc44

[Feanor]

Originally Posted by frank4570

But is there anybody who is as republican as you? You seem to be kind of like the jesus of republicans.

[RyanBDawg]

Originally Posted by G19G20

Have you been paying any attention to the contests so far and the polling data? He's done better at the polls than the "electable" candidates and gets more money than they do too. You're making stuff up dude.

Now if you're suggesting that the only basis of the unelectable mantra is simply because the GOP elite don't want him then that's a different issue entirely and isn't based on electability but rather acceptability to the elite. The polling data suggests that the People think he is electable.

JB never listens to anything. He lives in his own reality as evidenced by every single on of his posts..

[Gundude]

Originally Posted by G29Reload

The "we deserved 9/11" is straight out of bin Laden's playbook.

In the playbook, is that before or after the play where we invade a country where bin Laden isn't, invade another country where he never was, give billions of dollars to the country where he is, and then publicly state that we really don't care where he is anymore, while continuing to kill civilians in those other countries and apologizing for killing civilians in those countries at the same time?

The only politician who seems to have done something not out of bin Laden's playbook is Obama.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by frank4570

But is there anybody who is as republican as you? You seem to be kind of like the jesus of republicans.

But he's right and Ron Paul has said so. The last time he went with his heart and became a libertarian, caused him to have a long break in federal paychecks.

He's a republican because that is the only chance he has of being elected to anything.

[G19G20]

Originally Posted by DOC44

So if Paul's supporters probably will not support any other GOP candidate why is he allowed to run in the GOP primary and be a distracting Uncle Fred that you keep in the basement when company comes over.

Because we only want conservatives in the WH, not proven crooks and flip flopping RINOs. Rah-rah go team! Sorry that doesn't work for most of Paul's core supporters.

If he is a Libertarian then he should run as a Libertarian or not at all.

You should ask Ronald Reagan.
http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/0...-ronald-reagan

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is." - Reagan Reason Magazine 1975'

Reagan had it right. The bastardized "conservatism" that you espouse is actually mostly liberal policies wrapped up in the flag, carrying a cross.

I am starting to think that his most avid supporter are rebellous yoots just using him as a shoe horn to get into the public eye and ear.

Doc44

Sure there's some of that but it's because the media sure isn't helping nor playing fair when it comes to candidates and their coverage. What's funny though is when I read thoughts of people like you that call yourself conservative but then your thoughts ooze collectivism and groupthink, the hallmarks of liberal thinking. See my comment about liberal policies above. Yep, there is a very rebellious streak in the core supporter group. Would the Founders have a problem with that?

[Cavalry Doc]

Some facts.

THE FACTS

Paul has little room to criticize politicians for changing their party affiliations. He campaigned for president as a Libertarian in 1988, after running for office seven times as a Republican and serving as a GOP member of the U.S. House for more than six years at that point.

So why didn’t he vie for the Republican nomination? Because he’d renounced the party — along with Reagan’s presidential policies — a few years earlier, resigning from the GOP and forgoing a bid for reelection to Congress.

Paul supported Reagan once in 1976, when the former California governor ran against Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination. But he appears to have fallen out of love with the party’s hero during year one of his administration.

Reagan may have liked Paul, but Paul did not like Reagan.

Paul continued disparaging Reagan throughout the 1988 nominating process, telling the L.A. Times at one point that he wanted to “totally disassociate” himself with the two-term president.

So, if you really liked Reagan, maybe you should pass on Paul.

Libertarianism is about 1/3 liberal, and 2/3 conservative, but it is not conservative.

[aspartz]

Originally Posted by DOC44

. If he is a Libertarian then he should run as a Libertarian or not at all. I am starting to think that his most avid supporter are rebellous yoots just using him as a shoe horn to get into the public eye and ear.

Doc44

The Perry, Bachmann and Santorum should be running under the Constitution party banner. That is the REAL party of God.

ARS

[Javelin]

The Republican party has become infested with progressives and moderates. They left the conservatives that made the party so it is not anyone's fault but these 'posers' that are trying to be elected under the Republican stamp. I would not consider it amazing that many of us are not wanting to follow along blindly just because they put an elephant logo behind their name. And for good reason - we have been betrayed too many times by too many of these 'poser Republicans'.

Sorry to high-jack this thread but it's true. The current Republican candidates are garbage and Ron Paul is the only one up there with any conservative values - which is so unfortunate I am not sure how to put it into words.

[G19G20]

Assuming it's obvious to all that the quoted post is irrevelent to the content I posted about Reagan's quote about libertarianism, Ill respond.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Some facts.

Do you have some problem with posting links to your sources? I see you quote a lot of things without pointing out where it comes from.

Paul campaigned for Reagan and was one of only 4 Congressman to endorse Reagan.

Reagan may have liked Paul, but Paul did not like Reagan.

He did not like Reagan's policies when Reagan proceeded to jack up the debt, involve the country in foreign affairs of other nations, and other policies that Reagan campaigned against.

So, if you really liked Reagan, maybe you should pass on Paul.

Or maybe you can recognize that Reagan wasn't as good as a president as the history books like to paint him. Reagan abandoned conservative principles many times during his terms and if there's one thing we know about Paul it's that he sticks to his principles no matter what.

Besides, you don't usually get invited to fly on Marine One with the President when you're not very friendly with him.

Ron Paul Talks About His Friendship with President Ronald Reagan... - YouTube

Ron Paul Talks About His Friendship with President Ronald Reagan... - YouTube

Libertarianism is about 1/3 liberal, and 2/3 conservative, but it is not conservative.

So you call Reagan a liar and that's supposed to be your argument? Today's conservatism is 95% liberal and 5% conservative. Big government? Check. Big spending? Check. Big interventionist foreign policy? Check. Welfare state? Check. The only thing the right can lay claim to is religion (aka social issues) and that's why the party is shrinking. But heck, even those principles go out the window as long as the nominee might beat that evil Democrat, who happens to have most of the same policies as the guy you're cheering for. (see Gingrich, Newt poll numbers in SC for examples of abandoning even the social issues)

[G29Reload]

Originally Posted by Goaltender66

You're more generous than I, Doc. I'd vote for the guy who was OK with sending the SEALs to shoot Bin Laden in the head.

Yeah, that was a real hard call.

Who WOULDN'T have done that?

Not saying much.

[G29Reload]

Originally Posted by Gundude

The only politician who seems to have done something not out of bin Laden's playbook is Obama.

And GWB, who's gitmo policies gave BHO the info to make the SEAL operation possible. And without which it wouldnt have happened.

[TrybalRage]

Originally Posted by Goaltender66

You're more generous than I, Doc. I'd vote for the guy who was OK with sending the SEALs to shoot Bin Laden in the head.

From the get-go Paul advocated a small tactical group taking Bin Laden out... kind of like the one that got him.