2012 GOP Presidential Candidates Stick By Tea Party At SC Event
- Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:08pm by
Christopher Santarelli
- Print »
- Email »
Pledging fidelity to the Constitution and vowing to carry the tea party’s priorities to the White House, the Republicans chasing the GOP’s presidential nomination pitched themselves to their party‘s libertarian activists as the strongest candidates to roll back four years of President Barack Obama’s tenure at the American Principles Project Palmetto Freedom Forum Monday.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said the Obama administration flouted the Constitution to push a political agenda. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota stridently called Obama’s policies “unconstitutional” at the same tea party-backed forum on Labor Day. And Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the third member of his party’s top tier, told a separate town hall-style audience earlier in the day that he has a better record on jobs than the president. Perry had to pull out of the forum last minute to return to Texas in order to deal with wildfires in the state.
With Labor Day marking the unofficial start to the 2012 campaign, the contenders were painting themselves to the tea party during an afternoon forum with Sen. Jim DeMint in his home state – site of the first nominating contest in the South. The event was designed to probe the candidates on their views of spending, taxes and the Constitution – bedrock principles for the tea party activists whose rising clout is likely to shape the nominating process.
“I don‘t think I’ve ever seen an administration who has go further afield from the Constitution … than the Obama administration, not just with regulation, but with energy policy, with financial regulatory policy and, with the worst example, Obamacare,” Romney said, outlining conservatives‘ broad indictment of Obama’s tenure.
It also was a prime opportunity for the candidates to level pointed – though, in many cases, familiar – criticism of Obama.
“The track record we have creating jobs, I’d put up against anyone running for president of the United States, particularly the current resident of the White House,” said Perry, whose late entry into the race threatens Romney’s one-time aura of inevitability with support from tea partyers.
And Bachmann sought to sustain her status as a movement darling and suitable alternative to Romney. Although she never engaged him directly, her remarks seemed centered on Romney.
Bachmann warned that Obama and Democrats’ health care legislation was taking away freedoms and giving Washington abject power.
“They will become a dictator over our lives,” she said of federal requirements included in the overhaul that requires Americans to have health insurance. Massachusetts requires a similar mandate.
“This is the foundation for socialized medicine. Make no mistake about it. It will change the face of this nation forever,” she warned.
After keeping the tea party at arm’s length most of this campaign, Romney appeared at two tea party-related events this holiday weekend, first in New Hampshire on Sunday and then Monday here. He slightly tweaked his pitch and acknowledged critics of Massachusetts’ health plan.
“Our bill dealt with 8 percent of our population, the people who weren’t insured,” Romney said.
“He dealt with 100 percent of American people. He said, `I’m going to change health care for all of you.‘ It’s simply unconstitutional. It’s bad law. It’s bad medicine. … It has got to be stopped and I know it better than most.”
Aware of the tea party’s potential to pick the nominee, all candidates have tailored their pitches to appeal to the libertarian and grassroots activists.
Bachmann, a former federal tax lawyer, called the Constitution “that sacred document” and challenged Obama’s understanding of his powers under it. She cited Obama’s advisers, whom she called “czars,” the Justice Department‘s decision not to appeal a court’s overturning of a federal marriage law, and his immigration policies.
“These are areas where we see unconstitutionality,” she said of Obama, a Harvard Law School graduate and former constitutional law lecturer at the University of Chicago.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich played up the founding fathers’ writings on liberties during his appearance: “These rights are inalienable. That means no politician, no bureaucrat, no judge can take that away from you.”
Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a favorite of the GOP’s libertarian wing, decried government largesse: “People were supposed to carry guns, not bureaucrats.” He also warned against a Washington that gives the Federal Reserve too much power, a favorite rallying cry for his steadfast supporters.
And pizza magnate Herman Cain of Georgia, who does well during these forums with amusing quips but hasn’t built a serious campaign organization, again was critical of Washington.
“The idea in Washington, D.C. … is if you reduce the growth, that’s a cut,” he said. “That’s not a cut. That’s deceiving the American people.”
Ahead of the forum, Perry spoke at a town hall-style meeting before heading home to Texas in a last-minute schedule change to monitor raging wildfires. He phoned DeMint to apologize for his schedule change; DeMint said Perry needed to be home.
Romney, who had initially planned to bypass the South Carolina forum, changed his schedule last week to join DeMint, whose backing he enjoyed during his first presidential bid.
While DeMint is tremendously popular here in his home state and with his party’s tea party faction, he isn’t rushing to publicly pick a favorite this time and has suggested he might not back a candidate in the primary.
That’s not to say wooing the tea party is without peril.
After Washington’s debt showdown this summer, an Associated Press-GfK poll found that 46 percent of adults had an unfavorable view of the tea party, compared with 36 percent just after last November’s election.
The Associated Press contributed to this article.
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 677 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 631 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 522 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 360 Comments
Have You Seen the Giant ‘Sand Obama’ Sculpture in Charlotte? 311 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 124 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 175 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 146 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Scathing New Ad Capitalizes on Rep. Ryan‘s ’Fading Obama Posters’ Remark 124 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 124 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (132)
cous1933
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:16pmIt seems that those who hate Ron Paul and his supporters have generally two major problems with Ron Paul and one main problem with Paul’s supporters. They disagree with Dr. Pauls positions on the War on Drugs (usually misrepresenting his actual position) and on foreign policy (which they also almost always misrepresent). They hate his supporters because of the zealousness and vehemence that they display (more often than not in defense against false representations of Dr. Paul and/or their fellow supporters). * Based on the prolific use of name calling the anti-Paul group uses, I don’t think “hate” is too strong a description.
My advice to my fellow Ron Paul supporters is to completely ignore those posters who are so hysterically overcome with Paul Derangement Syndrome and attempt to have reasonable discussions with people who maybe just don’t know the truth about what an honorable, humble, intelligent man Ron Paul is and how desperately we need that type of extremely rare politician in the White House.
As to the war on drugs (a colossal waste of billions of dollars):
“A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police”. -Ludwig von Mises
As to aggressive foreign policy:
Report Post »“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule”. – H.L. Mencken
Alvin691
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:36pmMy dislike for Dr Paul’s supporters are separated from my dislike for him as a candidate.
Report Post »ProbIemSoIver
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:59pmHere are some good reasons why PAUL is the man:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0mnATGwCkY
Report Post »JUSTANOTHEROPINION
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:26pmRon Pauls’ views on Iran are not misrepresented one little bit. He personally said during the debate in NH that he would not have a problem with them acquiring nuclear weapons. Now that’s ludacris. Now COUS1933, if he’s being misrepresented he is the one doing it! I also think he’s going a little senile.
Report Post »SonsOfLibertyRiders
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 12:01am@ JUSTANOTHEROPINION..thats strange how you you say Pauls statements arent being misrepresented……..and than you misrepresent his statement. He never said that he has “no problem with Iran having nukes” his solutions are different than the mainstream neocons. But, why listen to someone who actually understands the middle east. Dont worry, you’ll get your wish…The United Stated will fall, the blame will lay directly on those who elect a bachman, perry, gingrich. Sorry, the game is up…….put down your constitution, because few here REALLY believe in it anymore. If they did they would be supporting the ONLY true Constitutional Conservative which we all know is Ron Paul. AMERICAN FIRST !!
Report Post »sbish
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 1:56amCous,
With all due respect, a large portion of Paul’s position on Iran is either naive/incorrect, when looking at specific areas of his position on Iran or Islamic Fundamentalism. He has been quoted as saying, “Sanctions are not diplomacy, they are a precursor to war.” Iran is openly trying to secure supply lines of carbon fiber and high-end steel which are the two of the main ingredients needed to produce the centrifuges to move along the enrichment process of their uranium. That is the real precursor to war, and to do nothing in response to that would be romantic folly of one who believes if we just leave these animals alone and get out of their business, they will play nice. They won’t.
Paul has also been quoted as saying, “One can understand why they might want to become nuclear capable if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfully.” This is completely naive and logically confusing. If Iran would stop funding terrorism and discontinue their nuclear program they would find an ally in the US and Israel and not have to be concerned with defending themselves, while gaining much respect. This is not an empirialistic world any longer, and unprovoked envasions, such as Iraq upon Kuwait, are often met with much resistance by the UN.
Leaving these folks to their own devices is just bad policy that is going to get 1,000,000 people vaporized in 1 second and not pacify the nuts. To Be Continued…
Report Post »sbish
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 2:13am…
Iran signed the non-prolif treaty and are bound to it. Sanctions against them are lawful because they have violated that treaty in several ways including failing to report its uranium enrichment programs for years. Theoritically, it is debatable whether those sanctions do more harm than good, but I believe as long as they do not obtain nuclear weapons, it is good. By middle eastern standards, Iran is fairly well educated, with many ties to education, work and relatives outside of Iran all across the west. While Paul says these sanctions hurt the people more than the govt, which is true, he also believes that the people blame the UN, the US and Israel. No doubt, your more extreme folks (who never were going to be objective in the first place) are going to blame us for their slumping economy, most of these people will not be confused by the rhetoric from Tehran and know that the leadership of their country is the main problem.
Bottom line, you can’t leave terrorist and funders of terrorism to play quietly in their sandbox. They aren’t happy just playing in their sandbox. They are fanatical zealots who are pushing for total destruction of all non-Muslim life, and nothing less.
Having said all that, this issue is just about the only issue I disagree with him about, and find all of the other GOP hopefuls much less pleasing to my libertarian heart.
Report Post »Pappypatriot
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 6:23amRon Paul supporters are pushy, obnoxious, and constantly trolling political chat rooms and comment sections of political sites. They cause almost all online polling to be totally inaccurate as offline polling shows Paul around the 5 to 10% range many online polls I have seen him as high as 70% because of Paul supporter extremism. Those above factors cause me to never want to support Ron Paul and yes he did say he has no problem with Iran having nuclear weapons. He is also in favor of across the board legalization of drugs.
I will vote for Dr.Paul if he is the one who wins the GOP nomination as I will vote for the guy who rides through our town with the large flag and talks to himself before I would vote for Obama.
Report Post »blue_sky
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 6:30amI disagree. Those who complain about Ron Paul-bots use that as an excuse to avoid discussing the failed issues of neo-cons they themselves supported for years. Those neo-cons love to criticize socialists, but do not want to look in the mirror. After their initial parroting of Trump’s “RP cannot win” did not work, they turned to another trick “We like some of RP ideas, but his fans are crazy.”
Keep in mind nobody blame Obama for supporters like Farakhan or black panthers, Wall Street and monopolies. Suddenly people get “annoyed” by vocal grass root support. That annoyance is all fake, it is annoyance of the fact that RP getting more popular.
BTW, CNN TV channel cut some main points of Ron Paul speech. Here is the full speech w/o commercials.
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhcUFRtBn8U
jkendal
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:24am“I will vote for Dr.Paul if he is the one who wins the GOP nomination as I will vote for the guy who rides through our town with the large flag and talks to himself before I would vote for Obama.”
That’s it right there – the difference between Ron Paul supporters and the rest of us. Many of them have publicly stated that they’ll NEVER vote for Rick Perry. Well, if he’s our nominee and the RP supporters stay home election day, I won‘t have a problem blaming them for zero’s re-election – and I’ll remind them of it EVERY SINGLE DAY!
They say they’re tired of voting for the lesser of two evils – but this time it’s different. We’re in this for our very survival. If we don’t get rid of this administration, it’s over – kiss the rest of your freedoms and you way of life goodbye. And don‘t even THINK about your children’s and grand-children‘s future because you’ll have pissed it away because our candidate wasn’t PURE enough…..
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 10:49amFOX is trying to convince the Tea Party that the hand-picked GOP candidates are on their side.
Why?
FOX represents Bush/Global Agenda Republicans.
For instance, FOX edited the Hoffa tape incorrectly. Hoffa said the “Republican’s in Office” not the Tea Party, when he said let‘s take these sob’s out. FOX is dishonest in creating a clip for political reasons. DISHONESTY makes me sick on both sides of the political party discussion.
For an honest politician, check out Ron Paul for President 2012
Report Post »Brad
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 11:05amJeesh… I’m getting tired of Paul supporters too. Our disagreements with Paul are legitimate, and all Paul supporters can do is change the conversation to accusing actual conservatives of being “Neocons”. True Conservatives are just as tired of Rhinos and establishment Republicans as Libertarians. I feel we have more in common with Paul than say…a McCain…or a Huntsman. Paul would have my support except for his views on the military and foreign policy. In fact I would vote for him if he could win the nomination.
I’m all for taking our military out of Europe. However, where ever a dictator is Hell bent on world dominance, it makes sense for there to be a US military presence for the purpose of stabilizing the region and being a hindrance to the dictators. Looking the other way and burying our heads in the ground is not only impractical, but it’s dangerous to the welfare and safety of the United States…
Instead of attacking Conservatives, why not debate us on the issues. It couldn’t be truer that Paul and his supporters sound more liberal on their foreign policy stances…One has to wonder who the real Neocons are. It certainly isn’t the free market, anti big government Conservatives!
Unless you’re really a Liberal knock it off with the attacks. We have a lot in common… work together with us!
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 11:13amI think too many voters don’t do their homework and rely on clips from Fox news to tell them what to think — Tea Party included.
Ron Paul on Israel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaT-vICsZTA
Who in the media and politics supports Ron Paul? You will be amazed! short video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqDUqquIJk
Ron Paul passionately excoriates preemptive war doctrine – wants the US out of the UN – wants the elimination of the Federal Reserve – resists the globalist agenda – Objects to US forces occupying over 100 countries – calls for an end to unnecessary foreign aid – Supports the right to keep and bear arms, homeschooling, and the Sanctity of Life Act. He’s the CHAMPION of the CONSTITUTION who has my vote! I sent MONEY!
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 12:06pm@Brad
I agree, we should debate and not resort to name calling and insults as used by progressives. So, let us begin the debate to see which side is more “liberal” or progressive shall we;
NeoCon-The definition used for those who use financial and military aid to spread democracy. First used for Democrats who sided with Republicans to wage war in Vietnam. Democrats gave this name to their progressive friends who wanted war for “democracy”.
Why did Obama go into Libya, to spread Democracy.
Why did Bush go into Iraq, to spread Democracy.
Both gave up free market for bailouts.
Both = Progressive, or NeoCon. Both = Big Government or World Government.
Ron Paul is not for using military and financial aid to spread democracy. Ron Paul is for following the Constitution.
Ron Paul is for securing our homeland with your tax dollars, not securing foreign nations with your tax dollar.
We will both agree the left, progressive, wants to regulate and control every aspect of your life. They know best, they think.
Is the right not the same? In my view yes.
Remember, Progressives want to rule the world, according to Glenn. How do you expect them to do so? By spreading democracy thru financial and military aid.
What problem do you have with Ron Paul again and how does he sound liberal compared to the above? All I see is the same actions by two different parties.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 1:48pmPerry
Immigration: DREAM Act; Amnesty; No fence; open border
Foreign Policy: spread Democracy thru financial and military aid
Domestic Policy: NAFTA; Requested stimulus aid
Social Policy: keeps social policy as is, no cuts
Constitutional stance: Progressive Right
Romney
Immigration: Amnesty; no fence
Foreign Policy: spread democracy thru financial and military aid
Domestic Policy: government has say in free market
Social Policy: RomneyCare, not cuts
Constitutional stance: Progressive Right
Bachmann
Immigration: Not sure
Foreign Policy: Spread democracy thru financial and military aid
Domestic Policy: Requested stimulus aid; Government free market
Social Policy: no change to socialistic programs, no cuts
Constitutional stance: Progressive Right
Paul
Immigration: secure borders with troops
Foreign Policy: Non-Interventionalist; Congress issues war for threats
Domestic Policy: Free Market, abolish fed and fed debt. Restore money
Social Policy: cut all socialistic policies over time.
Constitutional stance: Constitutional
Obama
Immigration: Amnesty, open border, no fence
Foreign Policy: Spread democracy thru financial and military aid
Domestic Policy: Government markets; Government jobs
Social Policy: More the better, no cuts
Constitutional stance: Progressive left
Who‘s most like Obama and who isn’t again? I’m voting least like Obama and more like the Constitution and founders. Ron Paul
Report Post »cous1933
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 7:52pmSbish,
I appreciate your respectful and honest reply. It is a pleasure to discuss the issues with an obviously intelligent and thoughtful person and without being called all sorts of names. The issue I have with our disagreement on Iran (as I take Ron Pauls position) is one of reliability of information. I am aware of the reports that Iran funds terrorism and desires nothing more than the obliteration of Israel and the western culture. I have however come to be extremely skeptical of nearly everything that any “journalist” reports. I just don’t believe that anything gets reported to the general public without spin to promote an agenda. The agenda I am most suspicious of when it comes to our involvement in the middle east is two-fold. First is the Military Industrial Complex. I believe it exists (exactly as Eisenhower warned it would) and is hugely powerful. Our almost perpetual state of war is enough evidence for me to believe that. The second is an influential group of media/political/evangelical leaders (including Glenn Beck) that Michael Scheuer refers to as the “Israel-firsters”. These two groups have incredible influence and clear agendas. I believe that my skepticism regarding news that we receive is justified. I admit that I have no first-hand knowledge of Irans true motivation and intentions.That being said, I presume that neither you nor any of the other Blaze posters who have repeatedly used the term “naive” to describe Paul have first-hand
Report Post »continued…
cous1933
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 8:21pmcontinued….
knowledge either. With your information on Iran, which you accept as obviously true, you consider any different opinion to be naive. With my information ( a source I reference often in regards to our middle east involvement is Michael Scheuers web site http://non-intervention.com/ )I would be equally justified in saying that those who believe that Iran would nuke Israel or the US are the truly naive for buying into the rhetoric of fear.
Report Post »If you are not familiar with Scheuer he is the former CIA Head of the Osama bin Laden Unit, and his credentials on the subject are un-paralleled. I believe he is also one of Ron Pauls direct sources of information. So, while I honestly respect you and appreciate the debate, I am still convinced that Ron Paul is right on this issue. If I am right that you receive your information in the same fashion, although through different sources, as I do, then you must admit that the possibility that you are wrong is equal to the possibility that I am. If your information is first-hand then, I cede the debate to you.
I would only add that I doubt Iran would nuke Israel for two reasons. Jerusalem is a holy site for Islam, and they (Iran) would have to know that the retaliation would eliminate Irans existance. I just don’t believe that the entire government and society of Iran would be that suicidal.
ddg7
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:53pmRomney and Perry have graduated from being RINO‘s to being TINO’s (Teaparty In Name Only). I’m tired of these pretenders. Embrace the Tea Party 100% or go back to where you came from!
Report Post »Defender
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:05pmThey know they need the support of the Tea party to win the nominantion… Fox News even blasted the Tea Party in the early days of the movement. The elites are trying to control the movement. We cannot allow this to happen.
Report Post »revel222
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 2:16amThey are smart enough to know how powerful the Tea Party is and how the Democrats are downplaying this movement in hopes to discredit everyone involved. If you don’t support the Tea Party openly, then you don’t have a Presidential chance. Eyes wide Open! In addition, if you are a fake supporter, don’t worry, we can see right through you….just remember that!
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on September 7, 2011 at 2:47pmThere are many Libertarians who are also Tea Party Patriots. To say we don’t belong in the conversation is just … wrong :-(
Report Post »Mr. Oshawott
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:52pmHmmm, let’s see here…We have Michele Bachmann, a former IRS agent and our current Congresswoman that voted for the extension of the “Patriot” Act and a bill that allows the Food and Drug Administration to enforce price controls on our food.
Report Post »Then there’s Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor who believes in the global warming hoax and “climate change” and passed RomneyCare, which is basically a state version of Barack Obama’s federally issued health-care law.
Herman Cain is a former employee of the Federal Reserve, in which he was the chairman of two banks sponsored by the Fed. He said over the radio once that he has no intention of even auditing the Federal Reserve.
Rick Perry the Texas Governor has signed an executive order forcing female teenagers to undergo an injection of Gardisil and did away with the anti-groping TSA bill. In addition to that, he’s a supporter of the Trans. Texas Corridor and a four-year Bilderberger.
And last, but certainty not the least, there’s Ron Paul, whose 30-plus-year voting record has shown that he’s a stauch defender of the Constitution and has been consistent in his message of minimum government and maximum liberty.
One of these candidates has shown that he knows what it means to enjoy liberty. The rest are only interested in enlarging government despite their seemingly noble intentions.
THOR6471
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:11pmHerman has never said he would not audit the fed. What he said was you wont find anything if you do. If you look at the time frame in which he was the chair you’ll see the national debt was being paid down.
Report Post »Mr. Oshawott
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:00pm@Thor6471
Here is a YouTube video of Herman Cain saying that “There’s no need to audit the Federal Reserve,” in HIS OWN WORDS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiAkeFJXwUk
Report Post »Restoration & Improvement
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:50pmRon Paul?????, I like he ideas, but he is a whiny old man who has been in politics too long. If Mitt gets in, I think Ron would be perfect to replace Ben Bernakie. I like Perry, but he has some exp[alining to do on his immigration record. I am from Mass and I have to pay the mandated insurance because I am know unemployed. Which ****** me off. Even with that big mistake, I still think I will vote for Mitt. I wish Cain would gain traqction though. Maybe a Romney/Cain ticket. Still plenty of time. All I know is that Obuma needs to go.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:56pmPerry also mandated HPV vaccinations for girls in Texas. That not only has liberty and safety problems, but there is also apparent cronyism involved.
Report Post »Defender
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:09pmI want a LEADER not someome who is “electable”. Comeplete rubbish and the reason why our country is going through this mess.
Report Post »gdbhusker
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:26pmDr.Paul cannot take over the fed..it is a private bank.. the board gives the president a list of people to choose from… there is NOTHING federal about the federal reserve… it is a BIGTIME private global bank…
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on September 7, 2011 at 2:02pmRick Perry’s NAFTA Highway discussed by Glenn Beck and Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buPSE-_gLMs&feature=like-suggest&list=UL
Report Post »Aiser
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:40pmRon Paul planted the seeds of what would be known as the TEA Party. As such he is the standard of what a T.P candidate should be like. Of course known in Washington has popularized Austrian Economics, championed auditing the Federal Reserve like he has. All these phony politicians like Bachmanm and DeMint only leech off what R.P created.
Many of the neo-cons whom lambast R.P solely because of his position on Foreign policy and Iran happen to be completely clueless on Physics and don’t understand the difference between a nuclear device and a nuclear weapon. As such they really “know” that Iran is/will/might build a nuclear weapon when in reality the chance of Iran building such a thing is zero.
No one has also spoken out against the unintended consequences of big govt policies and why it does not work. Of course most republicans are the same as most democrats.
Report Post »Akbarjonnie Shaheed
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:39pmAll of these candidates have talents America needs to get us out the hell hole we are in.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:35pmThey’re trying to transform into Ron Paul.
Too late, losers.
You can try to perpetrate as constitutional patriots, but you CAN’T fabricate or manufacture a record of defending the Constitution like Ron Paul has, try again.
Better yet, DON’T EVER TRY AGAIN. GO AWAY.
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on September 7, 2011 at 7:35pmfunny how obvious it is to you and me ….
Report Post »gammo
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:24pmRon Paul is the REAL choice , The reason alot of peaple dont think so is becuase the meidia wont give him chance .Theyve been doing it to him for years , Rick perry is a fake that talks much of what Ron paul has been saying for years but he is a fake and think think hes being funded by spooky dood Gorge sorros . Ron Paul is everything the tea party stands for..dont believe everything Fox news says theyve been bought off by big banks . LOOK UP ALL THE VOTING RECORDS OF THESE PEAPLE action is much better than words or LIES.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:23pmI’m a DeMint fan; I met him, interviewed him and believed him. He is quite a leader and I can’t find anything I disagree with him on; we’ll see what he decides, I guess.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 3:30pmName the candidate for President from either party (besides Ron Paul) who passionately excoriates preemptive war doctrine.
Name the candidate for President from either party (besides Ron Paul) who is emotional about getting the US out of the UN and getting the UN out of the US.
Name the candidate for President from either major party (besides Ron Paul) who has called for the elimination of the Federal Reserve, or who has passionately called for the return to sound money, or who has emotionally resisted the globalist agenda of the Council on Foreign Relations or Trilateral Commission or the Bilderbergers.
Name the candidate for President from either party (besides Ron Paul) who has emotionally voiced his or her objection to US forces occupying over 100 countries and the CIA meddling with the internal political affairs of sovereign nations all over the world.
Name the candidate for President from either major party (besides Ron Paul) who passionately calls for an end to unnecessary foreign aid.
Ron Paul supports the right to keep and bear arms, homeschooling, and the proposed Sanctity of Life Act, which would define “human life” and legal personhood as beginning at conception.
Report Post »kickagrandma
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:16pmMr. Herman Cain is the man with whom I stand.
I do believe he is GOD’s man for this country in the next election. I wish that election were this week, not next year.
AMERICANS, please, let us all PRAY GOD’s will for AMERICA; not my party, not your party, but GOD’S great will for AMERICA.
We have seen what satan can do when unopposed.
It is GOD’s time again in the USA, and by HIS GRACE we will restore this country to HIM and in honor of our Founding Fathers and all those who have died defending and protecting her.
In JESUS’ name, amen.
Report Post »Mr. Oshawott
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:12pm@KickAGrandma
But are you aware of the fact that Herman Cain is a former employee of the Federal Reserve?
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:15pmDon’t drink the libertarian Kool-Aid. It might look tasty and simple in an individual serving, but don’t fall for it, even if they tempt you with legalized drugs and buzzwords like freedom and liberty. Their solution is to get government out of the picture or stripped down to the bare bones, and presto! the magic of free open markets solves everything from education to discrimination. Don’t get me wrong… I like free markets very much!
Libertarianism is so impractical and disconnected from the real world that I’m shocked that people can still believe that it is a practical solution to the complex problems we face today. The fundamental flaw with Libertarianism is that it’s incredibly self-centered. It focuses completely on the individual and ignores the role of the collective. The ideology is built on the notion that relationships are voluntary and contractual. Society does not work that way, nor can it ever truly work that way. From the moment of birth we are effectively compelled into association with others through no choice of our own. We need each other for our survival, whether we like it or not.
Society cannot operate the way Facebook does. We cannot pick whom we interact with (accept friend request) or don’t interact with (decline friend request). This big old crazy world is just not that simple. We are all interconnected in this thing we call life, whether we like it or not.
Report Post »WhoIsTheCoon
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:29pmYou’re a moron.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:31pmAbsolutely hilarious.
YepImAConservative is telling you all up you need someone to tell you how to behave, what to eat, what to do. Be scared to decide for yourself! Sound familiar?
YepImAConservative is telling conservatives to reject their very base, Libertarianism.
“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism” Ronald Reagan
Ideas as YepImAConservarive are progressive. Understand and see progressives are left and right, just as Glenn told us. Here is a prime example with their own words, a progressive right. Opposite of those who stood for the Constitution like Thomas Jefferson a Libertarian.
YepImAConservative I know Conservatives and you are no conservative!
Report Post »Aiser
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:54pmBecause this world is interconnected is the reason why Libertarianism works even better. In such a complex world everyone would have to move and act individually instead of collectively. There is NO reason why govt should force the world to move forward in a single unit when it’s just to complex for them to even manage it. That would be extremely self centered to even believe that you can collectively move a planet. With how technology is making the world a smaller place govt should get on that band wagon and follow the same direction. This also goes for authoritarians like you.
Report Post »american1st
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:57pmDefinition of COLLECTIVISM
1
: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control
2
: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity
Definition of COMMUNISM
1
a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2
: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
if those two sound similar its because they are!
Report Post »the USA was founded on individualist idea’s and has functioned just fine under them, we don’t need to be collectivists!! if libertarians go to far and cut to much from government …fine… we can start fresh and add back in to fill those needs, it is far better to cut to much and fix it, than to have to much dysfunctional government that cant be repaired or touched…..
KrishnaDas
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:02pmYEPIMACOMMUNIST. Why not ask those who were “compelled to associate” by Stalin, or Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Castro, what was their feeling on the matter? A philosophy of death. The tyranny of zero. Four legs good, two legs bad. Freedom is slavery, slavery is freedom.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:06pmLibertarianism is not “kool aid,” only some of aspects of implementation proposed by some libertarians. You mentioned drugs. A good libertarian argument can be made for legalization, but some drugs eliminated the very basis of libertarian choice-centered theory: if someone is addicted to heroin, then choices are vastly limited. What I would like to see vis-a-vis drug policy as a FIRST step (no matter what is done next) is to STOP SUBSIDIZING drug use — if you test positive for drugs, then you should not be getting any money (demanded by the government in the form of taxes) from your neighbors to pay for the drugs.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:40pmWhy should vote for Ron Paul? libertarians are actually just social liberals who don’t want any of their money used to fund the natural consequences of a socially liberal society. They pretend to be conservatives, when all they really are is money conscious liberals with an isolationist view of the world they live in. Anti-war, pro- marijuana, pro- gay rights and abortion under the guise of privacy, anti-trade and He believes that America is the bad guy around the globe
Report Post »Paul wants to get rid of the CIA. Are you kidding me? The CIA is vital to our national security. Ron Paul believes that the CIA “runs everything.” He has also suggested in the past that the CIA has conducted a “coup” in America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dECSYm5bSM&feature=player_embedded#!
american1st
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:43pmconservative means – limited government, following the constitution and the rule of law, and standing on the side of freedom and liberty BUT – not if we have to expand governments control over peoples lives (social conservatism) impose our control over sovereign nations, or ignore the constitution and spy on our own people (another expansion of government)….
i am stunned by “conservatives” that don’t see the cognitive dissonance in their own beliefs…. and amazed they can still get away with claiming to be conservative…. the media has destroyed peoples (and conservatives) understanding of the political spectrum…
PS – Ron Paul is anti abortion, he is not an isolationist, he is not not anti trade, he is not pro marijuana etc.. those are all blatantly false claims….
Report Post »american1st
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:59pmsupporting states rights does not mean you support the activity (re drug use) it means you let the states decide how best to fix the problem and not use a one size fits all centralized top down big government solution… let different states come up with their own ways of dealing with the issues and the system that works best can be adopted by any state .. the federal war on drugs has failed.. its time to experiment with new ideas (insert quote about insanity=repeating the same thing over and over) i don’t know what combination of liberty and laws will work best but i am very pro “lets figure it out”…
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 6:14amThis contempt for self-restraint is emblematic of a deeper problem: libertarianism has a lot to say about freedom but little about learning to handle it. Freedom without judgment is dangerous at best, useless at worst. Yet libertarianism is philosophically incapable of evolving a theory of how to use freedom well because of its root dogma that all free choices are equal, which it cannot abandon except at the cost of admitting that there are other goods than freedom.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:31amNeoconcorp
LMAO @ “The CIA is vital to our national security”.
Absolutely sidesplitting.
Is that what AL-CIA-DUH is for? To be vital to our “security”?
How do you reconcile that ridiculous propaganda with the fact that NATO is supporting Al Qaeda and calling them “Libyan Rebels”?
Oh I think I know…because the Arabic Aryans are over there killing, torturing, and detaining blacks indiscriminately, and that doesn’t bother you warmongers ONE BIT.
Go pat Obama on the back for continuing these falsified wars that Bush set he precendent for.
You LOVE Obama.
He‘s continuing Bush’s neocon agenda of “Preemptive War” under the guise of “Humanitarian Aid”.
Barry the Tyrant, Bush’s Cousin!
YAYYY!
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 11:52amRepubliCorp, you believe the CIA is clean and necessary?
Do your homework! (or stop lying, I can‘t decide if you’re stupid, misguided or evil)
Even Barney Frank wants investigation!
Ron Paul Exposes CIA & Federal Reserves’s drug running business on Alex Jones TV 2 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tBGJCwZ-4M
Search the web and YouTube re: CIA Ron Paul and you’ll find hundreds of things to learn about the CIA and the “global agenda.”
Report Post »team1blazer
Posted on September 7, 2011 at 12:04amAnd your point is?
Report Post »proudpatriot77
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:10pmI have a hard time understanding Ron Paul supporters sometimes. I really like his stances on alot of things, but as soon as you question the guy, his supporters go crazy. Reminds me of the Obama Zombies who go after his detractors. Why not take time to win over support rather than attacking? Unless these so-called Paul supporters are really Obama supporters in disguise…
Report Post »KrishnaDas
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:09pmNo, we are just tired of fake conservatives who talk the talk, but then continue to do the same things the progressives do. And guess what happens after four years of a fake conservative? The policies fail because the policies are truly progressivism with a sprinkling of Jesus and ‘Merca on top to disguise it and cast it as conservativism, which is enough for the media and general electorate to blame conservativism or free market ideas for the failure of what was truly progressivism. Some people are truly passionate about Ron Paul’s ideas. I think deep down inside some are bothered by that because the other contenders are sleep inducing and have platforms read from bumper stickers, devoid of any real philosophy other than bashing 0bama. I know, some Paul supporters are young people who don’t know how to temper their enthusiasm and come off as being rude.
Report Post »american1st
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:39pm@ KrishnaDas well said ….
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 6:13amLibertarian are extremely naive. They often confuse the absence of government impingement upon freedom with freedom as such. But without a sufficiently strong state, individual freedom falls prey to other more powerful individuals. A weak state and a freedom-respecting state are not the same thing, as shown by many a chaotic Third-World tyranny.
Libertarians are also naïve about the range and perversity of human desires they propose to unleash. They can imagine nothing more threatening than a bit of Sunday-afternoon sadomasochism, followed by some recreational drug use and work on Monday. They assume that if people are given freedom, they will gravitate towards essentially bourgeois lives, but this takes for granted things like the deferral of gratification that were pounded into them as children without their being free to refuse. They forget that for much of the population, preaching maximum freedom merely results in drunkenness, drugs, failure to hold a job, and pregnancy out of wedlock. Society is dependent upon inculcated self-restraint if it is not to slide into barbarism, and libertarians attack this self-restraint. Ironically, this often results in internal restraints being replaced by the external restraints of police and prison, resulting in less freedom, not more.
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 6:19amFree spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive political philosophy in libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole rule of ethics and government. Libertarianism offers its believers a clear conscience to do things society presently restrains, like make more money, have more sex, or take more drugs. It promises a consistent formula for ethics, a rigorous framework for policy analysis, a foundation in American history, and the application of capitalist efficiencies to the whole of society. But while it contains substantial grains of truth, as a whole it is a seductive mistake.
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 6:28amLibertarians argue that radical permissiveness, like legalizing drugs, would not shred a libertarian society because drug users who caused trouble would be disciplined by the threat of losing their jobs or homes if current laws that make it difficult to fire or evict people were abolished. They claim a “natural order” of reasonable behavior would emerge. But there is no actual empirical proof that this would happen. Furthermore, this means libertarianism is an all-or-nothing proposition: if society continues to protect people from the consequences of their actions in any way, libertarianism regarding specific freedoms is illegitimate. And since society does so protect people, libertarianism is an illegitimate moral position until the Great Libertarian Revolution has occurred.
Report Post »omni
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:02pmPizza magnate indeed! Listen carefully to what Herman Cain says, he’s delivering straight talk and challenging us to live up to our responsibilities as Americans. We will certainly need his steady conservative voice in post 2012 as we try to cleanse the stench of Obama from our government. Lets give this man the respect he deserves.
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:49pmRon Paul 2012
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:58pmhttp://www.infowars.com/is-rick-perry-a-dead-zone-candidate/
Report Post »Sicboy
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:13pmRomney = No
Perry = Hell No
Paul = Lunatic
Cain = Getting better
Bachmann = Looks Promising
DeMint = WINNER
Will a real Conservative please step forward. Please don’t follow the polls. You Republicans are sheep waiting to be slaughtered if you vote for Perry. I’ll let you in on a little know secret. Perry is an inside guy.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:39pmDemint????? Lol don’t go there unless you want to face truth.
Lunatic??? Only a lunatic would say such a thing……
In fact, Ron Paul is the only one that can beat Obama. He attracks majority of independents and splits the republican party. Bachmann polarizes with Religion domination instead of religion freedom as Paul stands. Theres a secret for you.
Ron Paul 2012
Report Post »RightPolitically
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:47pmI certainly have my preference, but let’s face it, any of these candidates is ten times better than the guy sitting up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue right now.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 12:11amTrue enough, and if a Republican candidate “X”’s supporters say stuff like “I could never vote for [fill in name of other Republican candidate] in the general election,” then it should send off warning bells about candidate X.
Report Post »american1st
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:41pmTALKING THE TALK IS NOT WALKING THE WALK..every candidate on the right is pro limited government now ..hell even obama pays lip service to the constitution, LOOK CLOSELY THEIR RECORDS TELL YOU WHO THEY REALLY ARE and most are not the tea party saviors they make themselves out to be
get informed we CAN’T afford any rinos or neocons this time around!!
Report Post »so far i see only one truly “tea party principals” compatible candidate in the race…..
abbygirl1994
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:37pmWhere is Chris Christie.. please step forward.. we need yu!
Report Post »bulletsinthegun
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:49pmplease stay home
Report Post »Sicboy
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:15pmI seen him at 7-11 buying two box’s of twinkies.
Report Post »qpwillie
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:36pmAll the candidates are smart enough to recognize the power of the tea party movement. We have to be careful to discern which ones will only use that realization to enhance their chances of winning the nomination.
That said, the worst of them is worlds better than letting 0bama stay there for another four years.
Report Post »lonewolf57
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:35pmIf Herman Cain is’nt picked as a VP,by any candidate,then I’ll be pissed.
TEA!
Report Post »bolsen00
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 2:09amHerman Cain is a good guy and businessman, but he’s in the wrong race. Cain needs to go home and run locally, working his way up and getting executive and legislative experience. Cain also needs to deal with disasters and have experience being in charge of the military in his state. All of this is valuable experience and can’t be replaced by anything else. Bachmann is also missing executive experience and needs to run for governor of her state first. Legislative experience is not enough and that was a big problem with the election of our current president. Romney has the right experience all the way around. Romney is steady and presidential and his intelligence and expertice shows when he speaks. When Perry speaks, I feel distracted by the struggle with his words and the drama with his hands. There are several very troubling facts in his background, the biggest of which is that he spent half his life as a democrat trying to elect Al gore and Perry has a problem enforcing immigration. Romney 2012!
Report Post »Luci Hurley
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:33pmIf an AP Poll said the Tea Party approval rating was 46% among adults what does that mean it is if you are using a truly fair and balance poll?
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:37pmWe all know Bachmann supported the extension of the Patriot act and a tax collector.
Report Post »that makes the tea party skin CRAWL ….
Herman was a federal reserve employee
Ron Paul is the only choice for change.
tower7femacamp
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:40pmWhy is Jim Demint on this story ? Is that idiot running ?
Report Post »MODEL82A1
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:49pmTOWER, Ron Paul is the current Chair of The Bilderbergs. Man, has he got you fooled. In more way than one.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:08pm@Model
Thank you for showing us all what you are, a liar.
Why spend so my time being a liar if what your standing on is truth…..
Why should any of us listen to anything you have to say when you openly blatantly lie?
Quit using the same tactics used against us TEA party supporters on Ron Paul supporters. You discredit us TEA party members and you discredit yourself.
Ron Paul 2012
Report Post »jjoy
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:32pmromney and perry are liberal losers…
Com’on Sarah… Throw your hat in the ring!
Report Post »LibertarianForLife
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:30pmLove the little 2 lines about Ron Paul, even far right websites ignore him. Complete embarrassment that Jon Stewart can cover this guy better then all the moronic media put together. By they way, love the “Top Tier” comment, especially when Paul is beating Bachmann in the polls.
Report Post »MODEL82A1
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:36pmRon Paul is a complete nutjob. As illustrated by his blind, ignorant followers like you.
Report Post »Luci Hurley
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:40pmHe got more coverage than Gingrich. You should be thrilled that they didn‘t remind the reader of Paul’s less popular stands – like withdrawing from all wars and isolating ourselves on our continent. Paul has a few really good ideas but we can’t count on him – if elected – to stick to the things regular people agree with, like cutting taxes and excavating the bureaucracy, and not going off the deep end. I‘m glad he’s out there, encouraging the party as a whole to lean further right, but I don’t want him to be THE candidate.
Report Post »LibertarianForLife
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:44pmModel, if your picture isn’t bad enough as is, the fact that you speak makes it even worse. Please jump off a cliff and beg your relatives not to reproduce.
Report Post »LibertarianForLife
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:47pmLuci aka neo-con fool, less popular stands? What in the world are you speaking of fool. 73% of the country supports that position.
Report Post »Vunks
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:48pmRon Paul is the one this country needs.
Report Post »TheBMT
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:56pmIm glad he was at least mentioned. I know talking about his 2008 run as the beginning of the tea party is tough for many people. Especially when his supporters of Liberty had a Boston Tea Party event in Dec of 2008, discussing the very things that are part of this movement. There was a descendant of the Black Coat Regiment speaking(who Glenn reminds me of in a contemporary way). Edwin Viera a Constitutional lawyer talking about the proper role of the militia in a constiutional republic, as well as discussing the Federal Reserve(notes) and what real money truly is for our country. It goes on and on.
As for his unpopular stances… like ending unnecessary and prolonged wars(nation building). Both of which are draining our resources of brave men and women, as well as financially. For what? Maybe the concept of invading countries to change regimes is an idea that has never been “conservative”, but rather progressive.
Isolationism is when you build a Great Wall of X and you have no trade or diplomacy with any countries. Ron has never said he would do any of that. He wants to be involved MORE diplomatically and MORE trade to further relationships which current and past administrations ignored at this country’s own peril.
4 star General Wesley Clark discussing our foreign policy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMAONc7GeIc&feature=youtu.be
Report Post »qpwillie
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:56pmLibertarianForLife,
Ron Paul is not going to get a lot of coverage because nobody wants to deal with the bunch of wackos who spam every internet forum, lauding him as Saviour of the world and trashing everybody else. I know for a fact that some radio talk shows won’t take calls from that bunch because they know they would take over the whole show if they were ever allowed to get started.
I have my favorite candidate too but I know that trying to force that candidate down people’s throats is not going to help anybody.
Report Post »MODEL82A1
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:58pmLIBERALFORLIFE, your ignorance knows no bounds. We all know the only reason you support Paulmis that he is Anti-National Security. Your reaction to my avatar is exactly as intended. It is an instant idiot-indicator.
Report Post »PeachyinGA
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:16pmLibertarianforlife, your responses speak volumes for the Ron Paul camp.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:54pm@PeachYinga
And it speaks volumes for so many claiming to be from the TEA Party to use the very tactics and insults used against the TEA party on Ron Paul supporters….
Crazy
Report Post »Racist, anti Semitic
“paulbots”, like “beckbots”
Joey8
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:13pmVery entertaining to read. I love that the worst insults that people here can hurl are “liberal” or “neocon”. Ron Paul has good ideas but he will never be the Commander in Chief. I refuse to have a scrawny old man who thinks that the best way to deal with bullies is to ignore them be my Commander in Chief. A question for his followers on here, how many of you are truthers? Uh oh, I‘m not a truther or a Paul supporter so I’m a neocon liberal rino! There’s a place for him, just not as the leader of our country
Report Post »PeachyinGA
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:50pmOkie, thanks for leaping to defend LibforLife. Circle of Life for Ryan complete. Never said any of the things you listed, but thanks for defining yourselves for us outsiders.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:54pm@Joey8
I’m not a truther, Government did 9/11 itself, but I do believe 9/11 is blow black from US action as the CIA has said. Are you saying the CIA is wrong? Are you saying Osama was wrong when he said why he did it…
You’d prefer to have someone in the White House that would do what? Jump and react every time America is threatened and rule the world with an Iron fist? Hmmmmmm…..Not me. I want someone in the White House that follows the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
You are either for the Constitution and it’s limited powers put on Government, including dealing with “bullies”, or you are not. There is no grey. Which are you?
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:01pm@PeachYinga
Did my post say you said those things? No.
My post was a replicate of yours to show how self described conservatives and TEA party supporters are using the same tactics used on the TEA party.
Nothing more.
Report Post »Joey8
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:21pm@okie
Report Post »proved my point. you think people hate us because of something we’ve done. you are wrong; there are people that hate us because of what we believe and because of who we are. i want countries that hate us to know that if they mess with us, we’ll throw everything we have at them. i want our country to be respected by our allies and feared by our enemies and that won‘t happen with ron paul in the office and that is why i’ll never support ron paul. he’s a wimp. you can call us neocons all you want, but we won’t vote for him. and i do believe in the limited powers of government, but one of the powers i do believe the government has is the protection of our lives and our liberty and my life and liberty doesn’t feel safe with scrawny old ******* in the white house thinking of how to hide from iran.
PeachyinGA
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:35pmOkie, what nonsense! Scroll up to see my original response to Okie. You’ve added words to my thoughts then claimed them as my statement! Nice argument … I’m so NOT part of the Ron Paul mentality!
Report Post »PeachyinGA
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:42pm*Fixed* my original response to Libforlife>
Report Post »TheBMT
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:44pmJoey… you are absolutely wrong about why they hate us. I fell for the propaganda too for a long time. That they hate us cuz we are free, that we do things big, yada, yada.
It is EVERYTHING to do with how we approach the world. If you think going and stomping around in other people’s countries with our military and CIA is somehow going to generate goodwill, you are absolutely on the wrong path.
Just like you want to be left alone by OUR govt. People in other countries would prefer to not be bombed, or invaded, or have a CIA coup(IRAN) in their country. They are people like you and me, with goals and aspirations. To blindly march forward with a foreign policy which is so preposterous is just insane.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:48pm@Joey08
You must agree then you and Obama hold that view together and in opposition to Ron Paul. Libya???
I’m voting furthest from Obama, not like him.
Ron Paul 2012
Report Post »Joey8
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 2:45amnever said anything about libya. libya has nothing to do with us and never posed a real threat to us.
@thebmt “If you think going and stomping around in other people’s countries with our military and CIA is somehow going to generate goodwill, you are absolutely on the wrong path.”
I do not give a crap about good will, i care about my family and my country’s safety. i dont care if people hate us and im not ever going to pander to the world to make them like me. i dont bow like obama does and apologize to the world for hurting their feelings. you want to try and compare me to obama, look at yourself. radical muslims dont hate us because we hurt their feelings, they hate us because they interpret their religion to say to kill us. go and read what some of these clerics say.
ron paul also wouldn’t have gone after osama so i agree with obama and disagree with paul on that. youre not convincing anybody that paul is the right one. like i said, he has a place and its not as commander in chief.
Report Post »TheBMT
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 10:32amJoey***
I do not give a crap about good will, i care about my family and my country’s safety. i dont care if people hate us and im not ever going to pander to the world to make them like me. i dont bow like obama does and apologize to the world for hurting their feelings. you want to try and compare me to obama, look at yourself. radical muslims dont hate us because we hurt their feelings, they hate us because they interpret their religion to say to kill us. go and read what some of these clerics say.
ron paul also wouldn’t have gone after osama so i agree with obama and disagree with paul on that. youre not convincing anybody that paul is the right one. like i said, he has a place and its not as commander in chief.***
Point 1. If somebody killed your family and just labeled collateral damage for the greater good, since the country doing it was just trying to fight an evil force in your country. What would you do? Yes radical elements exist, but they wouldn‘t be able to recruit if we weren’t killing their families.
Point 2. He never said he wouldn’t go after Osama. He said he wouldn’t have gone in without permission. An example would be if RUSSIA had come into our country to kill a terrorist who was hiding in our country. With them doing so without our permission.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 12:15pm@Joey08
You can not cheer one day for the progressive agenda under Bush and then talk crap about it under Obama. Obama went into Libya for the same reason Bush went to Iraq. Both gave up free markets for bailouts. Both are progressive.
What is odd is neither one has done anything against Iran and being the threat you say they are, why not?
Just think, your cheering on the progressives taking over the world. Think about that……..
Don’t be part of the problem, be part of the solution and vote Ron Paul.
Report Post »Joey8
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 3:06pm@thebmt
Report Post »alright man, no more trying to talk to you. im in the military and i dont waste my time on anyone that tries to tell me the reason there are terrorists in the world is because the military is killing their families. youre not doing ron paul any good representing him like that
@okie
do we really need to point out the differences in why we went to iraq and why were in libya. there was a blaze video a few months ago with condaleeza rice explaining why we went into iraq i suggest you watch that and ask yourself if it compares with libya. when have i cheered george bush by the way. you are terrible at debating, trying to make up my points to argue against. you ron supporters are not getting the military vote and the more you reply, the more obvious it becomes.
Joey8
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 3:18pmi believe our biggest difference in opinion centers around a belief in God and also a belief in the devil. I believe that if we just leave everyone alone, then evil will disappear and that all the terrorists will go away and leave us alone. i believe that the devil exists just as much as i believe that God exists, and that he has an influence on people. I also believe that the world will be full of crazy people that hate our existence and religion until Jesus comes again. We can agree to disagree but ron paul will never get my vote because of this. ill say it again for the tenth time, he has his place just not as commander in chief.
Report Post »Joey8
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 4:09pm*meant to say you believe that if we leave everyone alone, then evil will disappear and that all the terrorists will go away and leave us alone
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 6:30pm@Joey08
The point is your choosing to say it was alright under Bush to wage war for whatever excuse, this case a false excuse or manipulation, and then be enraged about Obama, another Progressive, going into Libya for whatever excuse or manipulation.
They are the same, used the same tactic, and your saying one was right and one was wrong. Your upset it wasn’t “your” party raging war. Had it been a Republican President going to Libya you’d be shouting for joy like John McCain!
Learn to be consistent…..Open your eyes and see your views are more progressive then you can admit. Wake up. Don’t be a useful idiot.
If you believe in God and the Bible, you know no matter what you do the World will turn as the days of Noah, ungodly…..You also know persecution is not allowed.
Report Post »Joey8
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 7:24pm@okie
Report Post »what are you saying? is your tactic to put words into my mouth is that how youre going to convince me? “whatever excuse”? what are the suitable excuses for you to go to war? did you listen to condaleeza rice? i feel they did the right thing in going after saddam after he continued to deny us access to inspect his weapons and had not yet complied with the agreement to disarm. he posed an active threat to us and our allies. how does that compare to libya at all? you are just making me more pissed off at the ron paul crazies especially with 9/11 coming up. go shoot some meth with your code pink friends you freakin pansies and let the rest of us keep the country safe.
TheBMT
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 11:23pmJoey, just because your in the military doesn’t make you right. Just because I am not in the military doesn’t make me right either. There is truth on both side of the argument, I am just trying to point out that there is a different way of looking at our wars. I have many friends who are in the military. I am not blaming YOU or any of them. Im blaming the system of whereby we exist in other countries trying to force our will by a big govt interventionist approach. Which puts the soldiers in situations that they shouldn’t have to be in. Whereby civilians do die, not because the military wants them too, they are just there. I am trying to point out that the interventionist foreign policy will always yield blowback.
Evil will always exist. The question is why does evil exist in other places, yet we do nothing? Thats my final point though. This is getting a bit old. Thanks for the discussion.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on September 7, 2011 at 2:02am@Joey 08
Getting mad is your weakness, not mine. I’d suggest understanding what your mad about? Truth. It is hard to face sometimes.
Reasons to go to war are pretty common sense. Attacked, or a massed to do so. Congress declares War and then the President acts, fully, to eliminate the threat, completely. Territory soon then becomes a State, of the United States.
The reason we went to war in Iraq was hyped up fear to go to war, arrogance and aggressiveness. The CIA will tell you the same.
The reason we went into Libya was hyped up fear to go to war, arrogance and aggressiveness in repayment to Europe for support in Iraq. CIA will tell you the same.
Just another reason to go to war, eh?
The rhetoric from Iran is big, even provocative. Reaction could be what they want? I also believe Israel will handle them fine, like they did Iraq‘s in the 80’s and we condemned it. Odd isn’t. Even odder is we backed Iraq in Iraq Iran war while simultaneously selling weapons to Iran thru Israel to fund a group in South America to overthrow another government.
All Power needs is an excuse to crush YOU. Don’t give them one.
Report Post »Daddymac10
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:20pmEven though he know he’s not getting the Tea Party vote, impressed that Mitt Romney participated anyway. Very disappointed Rick Perry skipped-out again. I know he‘s got responsibilities in Texas but he couldn’t wait another hour?? That’s why he have an assistant, you would think..
Report Post »taxed
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:24pmI am so glad we do have a few conservative candidates in there. We just have to keep hammering against Perry and Romney.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/index.php?board=1.0
Report Post »abbygirl1994
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:36pmI don’t care to hear any lies from Perry anyway!! Flip flop… thanks.. I have had enough deception the last few years.. and I promise that Perry has some deceptions.. when he explains them the I will listen to him.. somebody please ask him the tough questions.. like the Bilderbergs, like his liking a open border and not it is not so.. etc!
Report Post »TheBMT
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:57pmyea, I can’t wait to see Perry debate. Then we shall see what he truly knows, or if he is just parroting it.
Report Post »MODEL82A1
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:19pmAs always, the Left has won the war on language. Here’s a primer:
Report Post »Revenue = Tax Increases
Immigration Reform = Legalize Illegal Immigration
Tea Party = Racists
You will these and many more used ad nauseum in the Obama 2012 campaign.
Get used to it.
Stuck_in_CA
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:26pmSenator DeMint…………PLEASE change your mind! RUN!
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:47pmYou forgot one:
Ron Paul supporters = “crazy” for believing in freedom and you can decide best. Remember, the label and tactic you personally use against those supporting Ron Paul.
Does that make you just like the “left”?
Report Post »MrsK
Posted on September 5, 2011 at 8:14pmBye Bye, Zero.
Report Post »