Aides Say Ron Paul to Declare 2012 Candidacy on Friday
- Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:02pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
WASHINGTON (AP/THE BLAZE) — Campaign aides say Texas Rep. Ron Paul will run for president for a third time. According to them, Paul — who formed a campaign exploratory committee last month — will announce those plans on Friday. Politico reports:
The Texas congressman will make his announcement from New Hampshire during the 7:00 a.m. hour of ABC’s “Good Morning America.” Paul is then scheduled to speak at 10:00 a.m. in Exeter, part of a two-day swing through New Hampshire following a stop in Iowa. Paul will also be keynoting the Grafton County Republican Memorial dinner on Friday night.
The aides would speak only on background because the announcement is not yet official.
Paul ran for president in 1988 as a Libertarian and sought the Republican nomination in 2008. He amassed a large following with his libertarian views but it didn’t translate into a significant number of delegates.
He calls for dramatically reducing government spending and scaling back management of the economy.
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 681 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 640 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 523 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? 312 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 152 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 189 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 152 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 (201)
welovetheUSA
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:05pmAnother nice guy…………but he’ll be in the way as usual.
Report Post »TheGreyPiper
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:04pmI think “nutcase” is a wee bit over the top (especially compared to the current occupant of the Oval Office), but I agree that he has never struck me as presidential material. I absolutely agree we need to return to a stricter Constitutional government, and his message is critical — but the job of president is bigger than a Johnny One-Note. I repeat what I said on the thread where he was talking about his own bin Laden ideas, that he really sounded out of his depth responding to some very essential questions.
Report Post »Finally, he can probably continuing doing a more important job right where he is than he could ever accomplish as president.
ShyMan
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:00pmZzzzz!
We r in trouble.
This from prolifeprofilesdotcom
“Ron Paul wants to be pro-life but is officially pro-choice state by state, and so contradicts himself and wrongly assumes that states’ rights supersede human rights, concluding that a state like California has the right to permit abortion. But the right to life is God-given so there can be no ‘right’ to decriminalize child killing.”
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:53pmIf he’s getting in to keep Libertarian principle alive in the GOP, that’s fine. But he won’t win.
Report Post »SmokenRon
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:53pmAlan West for President!
Report Post »MightyBee27
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:52pmWhy doesn’t his son run?! and Ryan for Treasury Sec. Beck for Foriegn(just for sh*ts and giggles), and West for Homeland Sec
Report Post »reconmarine
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:51pmHe blew his chances for the 2012 bid with his Bid Laden comments.
Report Post »kdzndogdad
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:48pmAfter what he said on WHO in Iowa about “arresting” bin Laden, there is no way that he can be taken seriously. Before his statement I thought that he had a chance – he does have some sound ideas. We don’t need another nut-less wonder in the white House. His statement is going to come back to haunt him.
Report Post »SavingtheRepublic.com
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:47pmSecond that, this guy is not Pres material the ideas and passion are there but the MAN is all wrong. For all the RP drones out there he has tried to run multiple times and has LOST. America doesnt want him for Pres… get over yourselves and come back to reality.
If I was elected Pres tomorrow I would sick him on the Fed but thats about it. He is not Commander and Chief material, foreign policy lacks oh and you forgot the huuuuge stereotype: he is an angry old(76 yrs) white politician! Thats how the hardcore radicals will paint him.
Report Post »Its Gonna Getcha
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:41pmDon’t bother. He comes across like a liberal hack. If he’s the face of the “Tea Party” I want no part of it.
Report Post »The Old Duffer
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:37pmI always supported Ron Paul. But now that he is promoting and taxing prostitution, he can count me out. Looking now to Herman Cain.
Report Post »Cris1980
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:05pmMost of the people on here who are talking smack about Ron Paul do not want freedom. You want freedom when it suits your needs. Government is not their to control or regulate the social norms of society. It is man. Man can rule himself. What most of you want is a candidate who panders and says one thing and does another depending on the audience in front of him. He is not electable because of establishment GOPers forgetting what the Republican party stands for and just wants a eloquent talking head. GOP and DEMs are almost one in the same. Look at the Speaker of the House he is starting to wavier and I think he is going to raise the debt ceiling. That’s what we need. Not.
Report Post »UnreconstructedLibertarian
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 8:00pmCris1980
Most of the people on here who are talking smack about Ron Paul do not want freedom. You want freedom when it suits your needs. Government is not their to control or regulate the social norms of society. It is man. Man can rule himself.
____________________________________________
You get a rather large AMEN from me on the above comments. I could not agree more.
Report Post »boringolme
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 8:22pmAfter listening to the debate the other night and this “conservative?” said he’d legalize ALL drugs, I thought brother if it‘s you or Obama I’m not voting!! WTH has everyone lost their damn minds?? A man has a few good ideas about issues we all worry about and then says some of the stupidest damn things I’ve ever heard. And Newt? Give me a break! Why don’t the old guard Republicans just throw McCain out there again for christ sake. Please, Please find a real hero, if not we ARE doomed.
Report Post »american1st
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 9:22pmunless i am mistaken he would make them a states rights issue, so if you want them illegal you can keep them that way in your state… also wouldn’t the new law need to be written by congress to get rid of the federal drug laws that are on the books?
Report Post »i think most of what people fear about his more libertarian ideas are just unnecessary fears!
a libertarian president can only do so much and without a libertarian congress… he could only do what conservatives are willing to go along with…
Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on May 13, 2011 at 9:43amAh yes, do unto thee but not unto me. Got it. Great platform. Be sure to wrap the flag around yourself and look longingly at the constitution when you vote too. True liberty means having to defend something that you don’t like. Don’t like prostitution? Don’t go. Evangelize outside of a brothel. Hold up signs and try to counsel people on the evils of it. I’m fine with all that, it’s your freedom too. But don’t tell me that your about liberty when you want to legally prevent two people from making an agreement to do things with their own bodies. For Petes sake, is there anything MORE of an example of freedom than commerce and your own body?
And yes, I’m a Christian and I think prostitution is wrong. I don’t do it, I hope my kids wont ever do it and I think is morally wrong. But, it isn’t the job of the government to make moral judgements like this. It is to protect my rights not to decide them.
Report Post »quizibo
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:33pmThis man needs to be president of the United States, he is the only logical choice with his fiscal and international policy. You Americans are truly idiots of the world if you dont see it. Every other country likes this man but Americans are really playing their stereotypes of how the world sees them when they dont vote for the man and just vote towards their party.
Report Post »kdzndogdad
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:51pm“You Americans”? So what nationality are you?
Report Post »31BravoZulu
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:04pmYeah, there is another guy “the whole world” liked sitting in the White House right now, how’s that working out? Voting for a man because the rest of the world likes him is akin to voting for a person based on the color of their skin, we can see how that is working out. No thanks. Ameicans, real Americans, will decide who we want to be the next president. He may not get the nomination, but I surely would LOVE to see Newt maul the faker-in-cheif in a debate. I truely believe Newt would send the man-child home needing therapy after debate 1.
Report Post »siebegorman
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:39pmGuess what, we Americans don’t give a crap who the rest of the world would like or not. Our job is to look out for AMERICA’S best interests, not the worlds.
Report Post »Blackhawk1
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 5:22pmIf the Rest of the World likes a candidate, it’s only in their own interest. Yet another reason not to elect him.
Report Post »jeffyfreezone
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:33pmPaul for Treasury Sec!
Report Post »siebegorman
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:30pmRon, hurry up and put your tin foil hat on.
Report Post »Creestof
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:30pmAnother nutcase wannabe with no chance. Hey Ron…you’re just going to do like the last election and dilute the vote down so that we get stuck with another McCain on the ticket.
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 5:28pmI like how your suggesting that it is “Ron Paul’s Fault” that the vote is diluted.
The vote is diluted, because of people like you who don’t vote on principle.
Nice try though.
Report Post »BlazingInSC
Posted on May 13, 2011 at 12:37amI agree with you 100% LibertariansUnite. People were so worried about not getting Obama elected, they threw away their votes on McCain in some act of desperation because they are unprincipled. I cast my vote for Chuck Baldwin in 2008 because you can‘t write in a candidate in South Carolina on a national ballot and RP wasn’t on the ballot here in the generals – but if he was, he would have had my vote 100%. The unprincipled voters are the ones who wrecked it — the ones who voted for what they saw as the “lesser of two evils”. Stupid is as stupid does I suppose.
Report Post »ScribblerG
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 9:39pmI‘m no Ron Paul fan but he’s far less of a kook than your master, Glenn Beck.
Report Post »swampbuck
Posted on May 13, 2011 at 6:41pmspoken like someone who has never watched more the 5 min of Glenn.
Report Post »sailfished
Posted on May 14, 2011 at 12:08amA voice of reason in a forum that is regaining it’s integrity,thanks, even one year ago the Paul haters would be 3 times the # they are now. The people truly are waking up.
Report Post »UpstateNYConservative
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:30pmPerfect photo–at first glance, he looks like he’s thumbing his nose.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:55pmStealth editorializing by the Blaze? Say it isn’t so.
Report Post »LAM2
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:27pmAgree Ironmann — or perhaps Treasury Secretary.
Report Post »Unfortunately, I can’t see him gaining wide support, because a large cross-section of Americans don’t understand or care about the Constitution. It‘s like trying to pursuade someone who doesn’t believe in God by saying, “….because it says so in the Bible.” I hate to say this, but an added burden is his lack of both charisma and physical appeal. Way too much to overcome.
Micmac
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:27pmI like this guy alot but I think he can’t hold his own against Owebama in the long haul. I see some of the old tricks used against McRINO being pulled out of the bag.
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 5:30pmRon would destroy Obama in a one on one debate.
His policies also reach across the entire spectrum of voters, stealing at Obama’s base.
Ironically, he can’t “hold his own” against Obama.
Do you read what you type?
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:22pmPat Paulsen is is running for President again …….oops Ron Paul
Report Post »Mr. Nice Guy
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:30pmIf only Mr. Paulsen were running.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:20pmI like a lot of what he says but, when you start talking about eliminating The Dept. of Education etc. the Dems will have a field day with him. I‘m not saying I don’t agree with eliminating waste and the Dept. of Ed. is a waste but, the MSM will turn this guy in to the worlds biggest loon in a general election. It’s a shame but, you know it would happen.
Report Post »Ballgame
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:19pmIt’s his foreign policy and view on drugs that will keep him out of office. Libertarian candidates will not win because of those two items unless they move more center.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:39pm@BALLGAME …
Agreed .. but he adds “interest” to the debates.
Report Post »Gail
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:19pmAfter he said getting Bin Laden was NOT the right thing to do……he won’t go far.
Report Post »american1st
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:58pmhe said violating a another nations sovereignty to get bin laden was not the right thing to do…
Report Post »he was absolutely FOR getting bin laden w/o breaking the law… a big difference
kryptonite
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:53pmAmerican1st: “he said violating a another nations sovereignty to get bin laden was not the right thing to do…he was absolutely FOR getting bin laden w/o breaking the law… a big difference”
Report Post »—
Absolutely a big difference. What the SEALs did — and Obum approved only because his polls were in the dumps and a “Mission Impossible” proviso had been put in place — was the only way to capture UBL in real life. Getting him without breaking the law is the utopian fantasy of libertarian nutjobs.
american1st
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 5:56pmhe was assassinated not captured ;)
Report Post »we have captured and killed many terrorists w/o breaking the law, it is hardly a utopian fantasy.
i don’t know the details of who was protecting Osama in Pakistan, but it seems very likely to me that getting Osama the way we did, had more to do with American politics, Obama’s popularity ratings, and his views on Guantanamo, and trials, than it does with there being “no other way to do it”
kryptonite
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 7:21pmAmericanist,
My bad :) but please don’t repeat the vile accusations from the vermin on the left. Our heroes did not “assassinate” UBL. They killed a terrorist. In the real world, our SEALs could not wait and see what the top jihadist had up his sleeve — literally — before they fired; bullet to the head, job well done, American patriot.
So you think the Pakistani govt was not protecting bin Laden? Who are you gonna believe, them or your lying eyes?
Report Post »american1st
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 7:49pmassassinated, ordered killed or killed in battle, either way the government couldn’t keep their story straight, i don’t blame the seals or take anything away from the great job they have done…
sure the some of Pakistanis were protecting him, but not all of them were, there are many ways to skin a cat.. if you want permission to go get him there are ways to get it w/o leaking the operation, if you want to capture him there are ways to make it happen, or if you want him dead you order him killed and send in the men that can do the job better than any others.. i think we did things the way we did because this was the result we wanted, i still don’t buy that it was the only way it could be done…
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 9:08pmAmerican1st,
No dude, we couldn’t get him alive. Believe me, if you keep a top terrorist alive, the backlash is a million times worse. Besides, there was no place to hold him. Gitmo is officially closed. If that doesn’t convince you, would you have wanted even more taxpayers’ money wasted to keep this man safe, well-fed and watching al-Jazeera while he awaited trial… The mere thought makes me want to puke.
You are being vague about what could have been done differently. Zardari is a corrupt man, and he’s in bed with the Taliban. Actually, I don’t blame him entirely for playing both sides. Once Obum pulls our troops out, Zardari will be at the mercy of the Taliban, so he’s looking out for himself. Remember what happened to Bhutto? Besides, Pakistanis hate, no, they absolutely LOATHE Obama.
Face it, friend, you are living in la- la land too. :)
Report Post »american1st
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 9:44pmyou just made my point obama didn’t want him on trial.. or in gitmo it was done this way for obama’s political reasons … we certainly put Saddam on trial when he was captured, we have tried other terrorists, the only reason obama couldn’t do it, was his political posturing against gitmo and military trials, and that he cant go back on it now…
i am not being any more vague than Obama’s story about how he ordered his to death or died in a fire fight, or how foreign sovereignty had to be thrown out,
neither of us know for sure how it might have played out with a different foreign policy or a different president, but you know if bush had invaded Pakistan that way the media would have eaten him alive for it,
the bottom line is i will take a candidate that has a long history of speaking his principals and sticking to them, i don’t think Ron Paul is weak on national defense or weak on getting terrorists… he is just not in favor of interventionism and having our military meddling in other country’s,.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on May 13, 2011 at 7:12amAmerican1st,
You keep conflating Obama‘ motives with the military’s. Our SEALs did what they had to do, and Obum went along with it because it happened to serve his political ends. For the first time in my adult life I am glad he is a narcissist and decided to approve the operation, albeit begrudgingly. In other words, Obum’s motives were wrong, but the military did right by the American people.
You are right about Bush. He would have been dragged to La Hague, put on trial and hanged. Ha!
It was the Iraqis who tried and executed Saddam, although as usual the left blamed Bush for what they did (but now they say Obum is “gutsy”).
==> i am not being any more vague than Obama’s story…
Given your moniker, why use Obum as your measuring stick? Just sayin’.
==> Ron Paul… is just not in favor of interventionism and having our military meddling in other country’s.
Therein lies the problem. Clinton thought so too (isolationism is not a new concept) and then had to backpedal when Saddam took him at his word and started to head back to Kuwait.
Report Post »american1st
Posted on May 13, 2011 at 1:26pmthe military takes orders from the commander and chief not the other way around, and don’t get me wrong i am glad he is dead, but no more glad than i would be if he was in gitmo being interrogated..
i mention Obama’s story because that is what you are citing when you made the claim that “this was the only way we could get him”
i have been reading your argument in favor of the neoconservative interventionist foreign policy up above so you don’t have to double it up here, but i think we should re-think it, if we are asked to help a nation or ally where we have a national interest it is one thing, invading and nation building are another, we can no longer afford to be in a perpetual war whose main beneficiary is the military industrial complex… i see no harm in drawing back from those policy’s (to what ever degree one president can manage) and giving us some time to get on sound footing at home financially, we cant build democracy or defeat terrorists at all if we have a financial collapse or lose our republic here at home…
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on May 15, 2011 at 12:54amAmerican1st,
WTF?? My reply to you was deleted. I’ve got too many enemies in the mod room. Grrr!
For what it’s worth, I said I agreed with the last part of your comment.
Report Post »jeff.cooper
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:18pmIts good to get more ideas and perspectives in the GOP debate. I don’t think Paul is electable but his common sense approach is unequaled.
Report Post »Mr. Nice Guy
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:29pmMr. Cooper,
You hit the nail right on the head..
Report Post »heavyduty
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:59pmUnfortunately Mr. Cooper, Ron Paul lost my vote when he said he wouldn’t have killed Obama. Can‘t have a President that can’t make the calls needed. If they fold on such and easy call then what else will they fold on?
Report Post »ShyLow
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:11pmIf Ron Paul becomes president…We will all become heroin addicts and start raping chickens…We need a really strong black man that can lift up our national dept and destroy it,buy throwing it into the sun…Ron Paul could easily win against Obama…With the anti-war vote…The pro freedom vote…And the anti big-government vote…
Report Post »Diamus
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:38pmI would rather capture bin laden than kill him any day.
Report Post »Mandors
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:39pmRon Paul didn’t support the OBL raid. He shouldn’t even bother to declare. If he was unelectable to begin with, and he is, his comments only make him more so. Ideas are great, but clouding the waters with backbiting unelectable bobbing heads is not going to help the GOP.
Report Post »Blackhawk1
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 5:11pmI have issues with Ron Paul’s stance on illegal aliens,a weak military, and legalizing drugs. If Ron Paul is such a Constitutionalist then he must realize the only spending directly mentioned in the Constitution is to provide for a strong military (provide for the common defense) in the Preamble. The Founding Fathers‘ intentions regarding the Constitution’s meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve. He has run for the POTUS twice already and been rejected, I don’t see a change in that now
Here are some interesting stances of Ron Paul. He is all over the place.
Protect all voluntary associations; don’t define marriage. (Oct 2007).
Report Post »No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda. (Sep 2007)
Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007)
Changed opinion to anti-death penalty due to many mistakes. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998) Don’t WE pay these people?
Cut off all foreign aid to Israel (Dec 2007)
Avoid double standard–follow international law. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
Allow Americans to travel to Cuba. (May 2000)
Sponsored bill to end the Cuban embargo. (Apr 2003)
Allow travel between the United States and Cuba. (Feb 2009)
Inappropriate to impose sanctions for persecuting Christians. (Sep 2007)
China trade not contingent on human rights & product safety. (Se
searching for the Truth
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 5:27pmThanks, Blackhawk.
Report Post »Reemul
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 5:40pm@RED MEAT
Report Post »“It’s a shame Ron Paul does nothing and still manages to juxtapose himself against all that is evil within the GOP. Where’s the Fed investigation Ron? Too busy campaigning now.”
I dont think you understand just how powerfull the FED is. There is little he can do from where he is now. Even as president it would still be hard. Reagen atempted to take on the FED and failed miserably.
LibertariansUnite
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 11:14pmWe will go line by line.
Protect all voluntary associations; don’t define marriage. (Oct 2007).
Report Post »(Personal liberty, the government has no place to declare what is or is not morally correct, if you cannot predict future problems with that, you should review it.)
No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda. (Sep 2007)
(Same point, personal liberty.)
Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007)
(He actually according to his book used to be pro death penalty, however he changed over the years under the impression that it doesn’t do much, but that is not even relevant.)
Changed opinion to anti-death penalty due to many mistakes. (Sep 2007)
(Same point)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
(He advocates that illegals should get work permits, and not be entitled to the welfare system/and or citizenship. Read his book.)
Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998) Don’t WE pay these people?
(Personal liberty, next.)
Cut off all foreign aid to Israel (Dec 2007)
(He does not advocate foreign aid at all, to anyone.)
cont….
youngngrizzled
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 11:17pm@blackhawk
Report Post »everything you cited against RP is exactly what he stands for. The constitution does not care if you are gay. It does not state we should have bases in countries we defeated half a century ago. It does not care if you choose to destroy yourself with drugs. It does say that you can have the freedom to do as YOU see fit. If YOU choose to be a jacka** more power to YOU, just don’t ask the government to bail you out later. RP is very much like my Granpa. He has stood back and watched the nation make an ass out of itself. Much like a young kid in college, we have burned virtually ever bridge we crossed. Now he is the one guy saying to us, “Come back., I know there is only one path back, but it’s a good one. Yes, I know it’s old but the guys who built it did it right the first time and it will hold up.” He is he sticks to his beliefs, beliefs that have help up for over two hundred years. We need to go back from whence we came and as a nation we will all be better for it. Your criticisms are actually his campaign promises. If you want all of the stuff you mention vote big gov’t, vote Rommney.
LibertariansUnite
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 11:17pmVoted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
(He doesn’t support NATO or UN, so obviously there is some other things attached to said bill.)
Allow Americans to travel to Cuba. (May 2000)
(Personal liberty, in a free state people should be allowed to come and go, citizens rather)
Sponsored bill to end the Cuban embargo. (Apr 2003)
(He promotes free trade, your point?)
Allow travel between the United States and Cuba. (Feb 2009)
(Same point.)
Inappropriate to impose sanctions for persecuting Christians. (Sep 2007)
(What other countries do is their business, and you are truly naive, if you believe we can push a theocratic type policy. Listen I am a Christian, but individuals choose to believe or not in a free state, why should we pay special attention to Christian persecution?)
All in all, you have said nothing. His votes follow his policies.
Next?
Report Post »Blackhawk1
Posted on May 13, 2011 at 10:23amLibertariansUnite
Which is why he won’t get elected. The policies he advocates destroyed Amsterdam fiscally and morally. No Thanks.
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on May 13, 2011 at 4:34pm@BLACKHAWK1
I went through the courtesy to analyze your post, you should give me that same courtesy.
Why exactly, do you feel that Ron Paul will destroy this country?
Report Post »GONESURFING
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:14pmGreat, another very smart guy who will never win, doesn’t look strong, or presidential. Of course anyone is better than Obama, but we need to win. As so many have said Paul would make a good treasury secretary or something else.
Report Post »Hell of the Upside Down Sinners
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:01pmAnyone is electable with the right campaign. Now is the time for RP. Well, if its not now it wont be ever. The Tea Party movement is strong and we need someone like RP. Its a shame that so much about winning the presidency is looks…………
Report Post »american1st
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:09pmi hope you are wrong on that! we need a change from the tired old republicans that we have been getting…. and when it comes to understanding liberty he smokes ALL the competition,
he will be attacked from the establishment on both sides,
Report Post »i hope his campaign is strong enough TO GET THROUGH TO all the conservatives that have been repeatedly burned by their candidates and elected officials,
if conservatives cant hear his message, or let it be pushed aside in favor of RINO propaganda about him….. it is our country and freedom to loose…
JohnGalt
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:16pmWe do need RP policies, I don’t agree totally with everything he believes, but it’s a million times better than where are heading, and the guy who’s driving us.
Report Post »the_zazzy
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:22pmCan we hold the election then, too? Please, oh, please??
Report Post »Cris1980
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:30pmHere is the link to the bill Ron Paul introduced shortly after 9-11 and this would of saved lives of are men and women in the armed forces
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-3
It is time to go back to the constitution, he speaks the truth regardless of the backlash. RON PAUL 2012
Report Post »Secret Squirrel
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:32pm….
I‘d vote for Paul before I’d vote for Trump or Newt.
The problem is…..we need someone who can win!
And it’s none of those three.
Bachmann / West
Report Post »banjarmon
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:36pmWest, Palin or Caine have MY first VOTE.
Report Post »Anybody but BO. NO/BO
Sinista MACE
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:38pmHe WILL win, he does look presidential (He looks like Uncle Sam iconic image to me), and according to polls conducted recently Paul has THE BEST CHANCE OF BEATING OBAMA.
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:39pmUnfortunately, as we learned in the last election, style trumps substance. We need a younger, smarter, guy/gal who can charm the pants off of everyone, especially the media. It will be hard to pull the media away from Obummer.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:45pmRon Paul making Nader and Fringe candidates look sane. Sorry we don;t need another half wit racist from Texas in the White House.
Report Post »jhaydeng
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:53pmWhy is no one talking about Cain? He is never mentioned as a candidate? Any thoughts?
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 4:54pmRon Paul:
Consistency and Integrity – Is predictable simply because he always votes the constitution.
Bringing the Troops Home – Believes in finally ending this pointless “war on terror”.
Sound Money – Abolishing the Federal Reserve, so that the government can’t print and spend for their wars or unsustainable domestic policy.
Cleaning up welfare state – Ron Paul doesn’t support welfare programs that are killing us economically.
Taking Moral Judgments out of the Federal Government – Finally, one of the few Presidents that would truly act on the idea that the Federal Government has no right to tell some individual how to live!
Ron Paul 2012!!!!
Report Post »Red Meat
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 5:01pmIt’s a shame Ron Paul does nothing and still manages to juxtapose himself against all that is evil within the GOP. Where’s the Fed investigation Ron? Too busy campaigning now.
Report Post »Sinista MACE
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 5:10pmIf he doesn’t win, we all lose.
Report Post »Do Obama like Osama.
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 5:36pmlibertarian ?! MY ASS.
Report Post »He a friggin pacifist panty waist with a load of liberalism up his keester.
kryptonite
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 5:40pmLibertariansUnite: Ron Paul: Bringing the Troops Home – Consistency and Integrity – Is predictable simply because he always votes the constitution. Believes in finally ending this pointless “war on terror”.
Report Post »———-
Our heroes never thought it pointless to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic,” and that includes Islamists and jihadists. Our problem has never been fighting wars. Our problem has always been the inaction and relentless propaganda from the left wing and its media.
We Are Not Alone
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 5:41pmI like RP but think that his age is against him…. image shouldn’t be important but it will be…. obama still has a high likability, not from me, but he does….. So much has been exposed about this president & his administration but it doesn’t make any difference if 30% of the media is owned by spooky dude…. we are in trouble as a country and it won’t matter who the candidate is, it’s going to be very difficult to overcome this culture of corruption BUT we can do it.
Report Post »Sinista MACE
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 5:48pmI don’t believe any of you neocons stating that you “like” Ron Paul, and then proceed to trash him based on…NOTHING!
Watch me write his name in anyway. You can have your Police State.
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 6:43pm@KRYPTONITE
First off, those heroes you refer to is I, I was in Iraq for 15 months with the 1-504th PIR. If you honestly believe we are fighting a war worth fighting, then you simply have no clue what this is all about.
And I have a problem with fighting endless wars, and letting personal friends of mine die, for no reason.
Report Post »lcledwell
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 6:44pmI can’t wait to vote for a true constitutional conservative. I already have a Ron Paul 2012 bumper sticker on my car. If we don’t fight to get a trustworthy person on the Republican ticket….what’s the point.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 7:08pmDo the math. A Republican will vote for a Republican to in.
Who will vote for Newt? Republicans.
Who will vote for Trump? Republicans and a few retards
Who will vote for any general Republican candidate? Republicans
Who will vote for Ron Paul, if is going head to head against Obama? Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, Disgruntled Democrats. In other words, those that would not normally vote for a Republican (but would vote to re-elect Obama before they elect Palin) will vote for Ron Paul.
He will be the only candidate that will actually steal votes from Obama. If he gets the nomination, I guarantee the Libertarian party won’t run a serious campaign.
RON PAUL 2012! I voted and campaigned for him in 2008 (while deployed in Afghanistan!) and I’ll do it again this election cycle.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 8:39pmLibertariansUnite: “First off, those heroes you refer to is I,”
Thank you for your service to our country.
–
==>If you honestly believe we are fighting a war worth fighting, then you simply have no clue what this is all about.
It saddens me greatly to hear you say that. So you would have let Saddam invade Kuwait, and then take over Saudi Arabia and the rest of the ME? Because that was his plan.
Conservatives agree that we should’ve started drilling here a decade ago, so I hold that against Bush, but allowing Saddam to take over the entire ME then would’ve been just as detrimental to our safety as letting Ahmed or Egypt do it now. In re the war in Afghanistan, we lost it from the start, because the top Taliban leaders fled to Pakistan. It was just a matter of time before they came back and spread their tentacles there.
I want our boys to come home because Obum is a traitor and HIS reason for going to war was to demoralize and destroy our military.
==>And I have a problem with fighting endless wars, and letting personal friends of mine die, for no reason.
I have a problem with that too. I just don’t agree with your premise that the war on terror was/is pointless. It hurts to hear you say that, because when pride in the mission is gone, then we have fought in vain and, yes, our heroes will have died in vain. I hope to God our military will do what must be done so that won’t happen.
Report Post »LetUsReason
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 8:44pmI can respect Ron Paul’s stance of not breaking the law to get Bin Laden. It’s frustrating the UBL was killed. It seems to me like that was simply destruction of evidence. Besides, since when does Obama decide who lives and who dies? Since when was the executive branch also the judicial branch?? I say, give Osama a trial….let him speak. Too late I guess.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 9:21pmAmerican Soldier (Separated): Who will vote for Ron Paul, if is going head to head against Obama? Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, Disgruntled Democrats.
Report Post »——–
Repubs, for the most part, will not vote for Ron Paul in the primary. He will never win the GOP nomination.
123gone
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 9:44pmMaybe now Ron will explain what he meant during the debate, when he mentioned the One World Government.
Ron, are you for, or against having the UN decide how we will live our lives?
Report Post »BidBerthaDotCom
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 10:23pm@123Gone:
Report Post »Ron Paul is against the UN.
MHP
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 10:40pmencinom
You need to go to thinker’s atheist website
Especially in the sexuality posts, as that’s where you belong.
It‘s all you’re worth
http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 10:41pmRepost, I put it in wrong spot.
@KRYPTONITE
Listen I don’t condemn you for your opinion about the wars, but let me try to assure you, that this is simply a fear tactic to continue pushing militarism.
In fact, the reason for me joining the military was because I was a junior in High School when 9/11 happened, and I felt like I had to do something to fight for my country.
When I was deployed, originally I felt as strongly as you do, about us being pro active about military action. What changed me rather, was that during Iraq I had lost a few friends, Ill call him D, to keep the name secret, to name one, shot in the neck pulling security on a major road, and bled out. I don’t really want to guilt trip anyone else but what exactly do you say to their parents for that?
We spend 700 billion dollars a year on our military, 2nd in china at 80 billion. There is NOTHING that any nation could do to us directly, without losing their status. Yet we have hundreds of bases worldwide, that do nothing but provoke aggression.
The Taliban, if you didn’t know, was inspired by OUR CIA, to fight the U.S.S.R. They used a lot of religious propaganda to fire them up against the Soviets, how is that working out now?
To support this thesis, we obviously have technology, which allows our helicopters to move without radar detection, and insert troops in a neutral nation, and pull out without anyone knowing.
Do you really believe that if we pull out of our world bases that ch
Report Post »southernORcobra
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 10:43pmWill never support him especially after his osama comments grampy needs to give it up.
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 10:45pmContinue cut off repost:
Do you really believe that if we pull out of our worldwide bases that global chaos would ensue?
Life is not a guarantee for anyone, life is a risk you take, if you continue to sacrifice freedom in order to obtain security, you WILL LOSE BOTH.
This is a lesson repeated many times in history, and it is our responsibility to learn from our mistakes, and make this republic work, not for us, for the future generations that rely on us to do the right thing.
Militarism is something a totalitarian nation would support, militarism is NOT something a free society would ever support.
Report Post »No1YaKnow
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 11:18pmHe is not electable, though extremely smart, some of his views are soft and squishy. Furthermore, some of his supposed followers are enamored in a way that cannot be explained—they say things regularly such as “he is the ONLY man who can fix this country” “no one else knows how to do anything but him”, etc. I like him, but some of his stances concern me—-most of us do stand more libertarian than anything else, but he has proven in a few of his interviews that first, he is willing to claim he didn’t say something that he clearly did, second, forego common sense for so-called libertarian views. I am not talking freedom—I am talking common sense. Yes, let’s bring the troops home, but don’t sit down in the Oval Office and cut it all off pronto. Something isn’t right about this man. He has been in Congress how long now and never made a dent?
Report Post »KICKILLEGALSOUT
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 11:54pmLot’s of people have woken up to Ron Paul and what he has been saying over the years, now is the best time for him to be running. I will say it again what will make or break Ron Paul is his choice of running mate. If we see something like a Ron Paul/Herman Cain, The Dr./Godfather working together have so much experience, knowledge and talent between them it makes Obama look like a crackhead.
Report Post »Sinista MACE
Posted on May 13, 2011 at 3:00amThey always offer “the sky is falling scenario” to anything that goes against their agenda.
“If you allow everyone to open carry firearms, it’ll be like the wild west, and chaos would ensue.”
“If America doesn’t police the world, chaos would ensue.”
“If you don’t let us monitor your every action throughout your entire life, well, chaos would ensue.”
Chaos chaos chaos.
The earth is going to explode into smithereens if man is allowed to govern himself.
Bull.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on May 13, 2011 at 5:50amLibertariansUnite
I hear you. We did the same with Saddam. It is the cost of maintaining a fragile balance of power in an evil and unstable world. I call it “the lesser of two evils quagmire,” because by tipping the scales we are able to contain major threats for a certain period of time only, and then we have to realign ourselves. Admittedly, we could learn from our mistakes and get better at handling world conflicts and crises with 21st century technology, but we have also had to simultaneously expend considerable time and effort in staving off the libs, who are hell-bent on destroying our superpower status. That weakens both our collective psyche and our political leverage in the international arena.
I salute you, LU. I am humbled by the courage of each and every one of our troops, and IMO you earned the right to speak out against military intervention. All I can say with absolute conviction from my vantage point is that I know what the world would be like without “American militarism.” Ironically, it appears that despite all our might and zeal for freedom, we have failed to detect the enemy from within, and regardless of who good people like you and me think is best for America, we have already lost our Republic.
I hope we can all put aside our differences and vote for whoever wins the nomination.
Report Post »searching for the Truth
Posted on May 13, 2011 at 8:00amYou have to have Trump. Money and know how.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on May 13, 2011 at 8:33amLibertariansUnite: if you continue to sacrifice freedom in order to obtain security, you WILL LOSE BOTH.
———-
I don’t view what we do as “sacrificing freedom.” As a conservative, I view any military interventions on our part as “fighting for freedom.” Also, I don’t see freedom and national security as separate things. Freedom is a state of being we espouse, and national security is the mechanism whereby we protect our Republic or the interests of our Republic so that said state of freedom is upheld. I think our point of contention is that you believe our interests should be exclusively domestic in nature.
I agree that sacrificing freedom to obtain security leads to a totalitarian state. What actually happens is that security devolves into oppression. That‘s Obum’s ideology and it is antithetical to America.
==> Militarism is something a totalitarian nation would support, militarism is NOT something a free society would ever support.
I don’t want militarISM, although, to be honest, when roaches have invaded your home or your friends’ homes (if you want friends), you need to get rid of the plague.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on May 13, 2011 at 8:50amAh yes, it only takes one Ron Paul thread to be reminded the difference between Neocons and libertarians.
First off, what does “electable” even mean? You people kill me. Look at the founders and heroes of our country. Grover Cleveland was a true liberty loving, small government conservative. He was fat and “unelectable”. Thomas Jefferson was by many accounts and anti-social SOB and hence “unelectable”. Lincoln was an ugly dude and the political satire of the day pointed that out. He too was “unelectable”. By contrast look at Warren Harding. Attractive, tall, well dressed, good pedigree, highly “electable” (many argue that was the only reason he won). Yet, he was dumb as a post, politically weak, and totally ineffective.
Furthermore, Ron Paul has been a constant for decades. He preaches the constitution. Period. Fin. Thats all. Really that’s all there should be. And for those calling him a pansy, you should say the same of Washington and other founders who were the first to champion non-interventionist foreign policy. Sometimes neocons are no different than liberals when it comes to picking and choosing which parts of the constitution/role of government they want to accept. Read the constitution again. Read the 5,000 year leap and then come back and tell me how great Romney and Christie are.
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on May 13, 2011 at 10:15am@KRYPTONITE
Simply put, Obama embraces government intervention because he pushes socialistic ideals. Socialism and Totalitarianism are the exact same result.
You have a much greater chance of dying in a car accident than you do a terrorist plot.
Shall we declare the war on autos?
You have a much greater chance of dying due to a medical disease than a terrorist plot.
Shall we declare the war on diseases?
You have a much greater chance of dying due to domestic crime than a terrorist plot.
Shall we declare the war on crime? (Which I believe was declared once, and let me tell you, very successful plan!)
Why live in fear of uncertainty? Why pursue wars and get people killed, and continue to waste money, in the name of a falsehood security?
Do you really believe that YOU are safer because some Joe is stuck in Iraq?
Do you really believe that YOU are safer because some Joe is in Afghanistan?
Furthermore, how long do these wars last, we do not even have a set victory condition.
I am not going to convince you here on a forum, but I would highly suggest reading “A Road to Serfdom”. This entire process of giving up freedom for security leads you into the totalitarian state.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on May 13, 2011 at 12:31pm@KRYPTONITE What I’m saying is that if he won the nomination, the republican neocons will vote for him. Guaranteed. Those people will vote for anyone with an R by the name. Trump, Palin, who ever they want to throw into the ring will get those votes. But what they won’t get is the Libertarian votes, the Independent votes, the Democrats who will cross party lines to vote for, who other than, RON PAUL. He can win it because of that factor. Throw in Newt and the Libertarians will run a serious campaign and maybe even spoil the election. Throw in Ron Paul and I guarantee the Libertarian party won’t put up a fight.
Report Post »Messenger4God
Posted on May 13, 2011 at 8:13pmYes, we need a smart person who will right-size government and save us from financial ruin. Ron Paul may not be good looking or a smooth talker but he is all about restoring individual freedom that has been “stolen” from us due to lobbying by special interest groups and activists.
Report Post »ByrdsofMisssouri
Posted on May 13, 2011 at 9:23pmAlthough I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says, I do not believe America is ready for a full blown Libertarian. I especially like the idea of being responsible for your self, like if you want to kill yourself with drugs, that is fine and your right, just don’t ask me to support you while you do it. I do not believe Ron can win, we can’t take a chance on losing this time around. Four more years of Obama will destroy America.
Report Post »hyperskeeter
Posted on May 13, 2011 at 11:12pmIs he thumbing his nose at everyone?
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on May 14, 2011 at 1:38am@American Soldier (Separated)
Report Post »I got what you were saying, namely that since non-libs will coalesce around Paul but will not support a Republican, then Repubs should vote for him. But, unlike what one commenter derisively claims, being electable is not the only concern, although it certainly is a factor in this day and age (some people need to understand that culture evolves). The truth is most Repubs won‘t vote for Paul because they don’t agree with his political views.
kryptonite
Posted on May 14, 2011 at 2:32amLibertariansUnite: Simply put, Obama embraces government intervention because he pushes socialistic ideals. Socialism and Totalitarianism are the exact same result.
—
If by “socialism” you mean communism, yes, communism is a type of totalitarian regime. However, there are socialist paradigms, in Western Europe, e.g., that are not communist. That’s why I always call that traitor what he really is: a commie. He’s got it in his DNA too.
—
Come on, you gave me a bunch of apples and oranges there. National security has nothing to do with personal safety, per se. People die every second for different reasons, but govts don’t enact national security policies based on general death stats, but based on THREATS TO THE NATION. You were trained to defend the Republic, not to direct traffic to avoid a fatal pile-up. :)
==> Do you really believe that YOU are safer because some Joe is stuck in Iraq ? …because some Joe is in Afghanistan?
Those are trick Q’s, soldier. I don’t feel safe with a traitor in the WH, period.
If our troops are stuck, well, no, that doesn’t make the NATION safer either.
In Afghanistan, definitely not, since it‘s Pakistan that’s got the nukes, and it’s practically gone to the Taliban.
You don’t have to convince me that we do not have a set victory condition. Agree 100%. In fact, that MF doesn’t give a d*mn what happens to our troops.
About the book, you wanna convert me, dude? ;)
Report Post »jcannon98188
Posted on May 14, 2011 at 3:14amI fully support the use of military to take out terrorists in the Middle East.
@Libertarian
There is a big problem with your statemetns about driving etc. Those are not going out of your way to kill you. Terrorists are. The military is the only thing good that can ever come out of the government. We need to use it to remove ALL threats against our nation.
People will hate us if we intervene or if we don’t. Either way people hate us. We may as well take out as many enemies as we can along the way.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on May 14, 2011 at 4:21am@ByrdsofMisssouri: “I especially like the idea of being responsible for your self, like if you want to kill yourself with drugs, that is fine and your right…”
——–
Glenn’s greatest political weakness is his libertarian views. No, it is not fine. People don’t live in isolation. If you want to kill yourself with drugs, you will more than likely kill someone else too, if not physically, without doubt, psychologically.
Drugs cause social disintegration. Yes, so does alcohol, but two devastating wrongs don’t make a right. Is it a person’s “right” to contribute to the breakdown of society, of civilization? Is that what you are teaching your kids, for crying out loud?
Humankind will never be ready for the “I’ll do my own thing and it’s none of your business” philosophy. That mindset is called “sin” in the Bible (each went his own way) and it is an asocial attitude. Instead of cohesion, which must exist for prosperity and happiness to flourish in a given social unit, that mindset promotes traits that are negative to social development, such as lack of empathy or social interrelation, which Glenn so vividly acted out when he figuratively stepped over the drug addict and went his merry way. Is that what he’s going to teach our kids? That hands-off mentality is the other extreme of collective salvation.
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on May 14, 2011 at 4:47am@JCANNON
Really is not as simple as you make it, when you look at it from an individualist point of view, these “threats” are not as different as you imagine.
The overall reality is that 100% security is unattainable, and we will inevitably break ourselves trying to establish a permanent presence worldwide, in order to sustain a permanent sense of false security.
@KRYPTONITE
“Book thing” – Book is not a Ron Paul book, it is a F.A. Hayek book, Austrian economist, who put together for me, the dangers of sacrificing pieces of freedom in order to preserve some false security. Not a conversion, merely a suggestion.
I give that suggestion simply because I find it absolutely fascinating that I used to think much like you do. After that last 6 months or so, of reading Austrian economics, and stumbling onto Ron Paul, it truly opened my eyes to how everyday you are pushed by society in believing that “worldwide presence”, and “homeland security”, and that Muslims simply want to kill us because we are successful. These are falsehoods, but of course I cannot convince you, you must convince yourself, simply because I am the same way.
Just don’t fall into the trap of labeling people who disagree with an “interventionist” military policy, as “unpatriotic”. That is a neocon’s greatest weapon when it comes to keeping our troops unnecessarily deployed for long periods of time.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on May 15, 2011 at 12:37amLU,
I was kidding, although the guy is libertarian. I don’t believe you are unpatriotic, any more than a believe Glenn is unpatriotic. That’s a lib-commie trademark — all rights reserved.
I do believe most of the world envies us, but that’s just human nature. As for Muslims, heck no, I wouldn’t call it “jealousy.” Have you ever visited the website barenakedislam.wordpress.com? The content is very graphic, and I guess you of all people want to stay away from that kind of news, but it does show how deeply evil and imperialistic Islam is.
Have a good weekend- or however you say that in “Austrian” :))
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on May 12, 2011 at 3:13pmRon Paul for President 2012.
This guy is a Constitutionalist. He will argue with people the Constitutional merits of his positions.
Report Post »