Media

Ron Paul Has Testy Exchange on MSNBC: You‘re ’Putting Words in My Mouth’

Ron Paul went on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program on Wednesday in the wake of his second-place showing in the New Hampshire Primary, and Mark Halperin wasted no time before pouncing on Dr. Paul with a “gotcha” question.

After a brief, pro forma “congratulations,” Halperin asked whether a President Paul would discontinue the federal Head Start program for early childhood development.

Dr. Paul gave a long, in-depth, comprehensive answer:

“It’s not Constitutional, but I wouldn’t put that on the list… You know, if we want a perfectly free society, you can’t wave a wand and get everything you want. So you have to work our way out of this… Social Security, and these other programs are unconstitutional… I believe I’m the only one that has a program that would protect us so that we can work our way out of it. And hopefully… take care of these programs. But Head Start, you know, some conservatives would say, “yeah, let’s cut head start and say we’re cutting something.” No, we have to cut the big things. Cut five departments, some of this occupation overseas and these senseless wars and try to work our way out and take care of people who have become so dependent. The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, but my position isn’t to close it down in one day. My position is to give it competition and expose it for what it is and audit the Fed and work out of better monetary system. So I think that’s a much more reasonable approach than to say…”

At that point, Halperin interrupted, only to repeat the question about ending Head Start that Dr. Paul had just answered at length.

“But if you had you‘re way you’d eliminate Head Start,” Halperin interjected.

Dr. Paul slammed the attempt to corner him,  and replied to Halperin that ”you’re just putting words into my mouth, I don’t know what your goal is… you’re missing my whole point. It’s a total distraction, what you are talking about.”

Watch the testy exchange below, courtesy of MSNBC:

(H/T: Mediaite)

Comments (381)

1 2 3 ... 6
  • Kiba
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:51am

    I think there is a use for Paul in our screwed-up ‘Gummitt’, I just wish he wouldnt say the things he says about our military, altho a heck of a lot of it is right. It is a pain to have bases all over the world but as crazy as some of the countries, or leaders in other countries whatever are we must be at the ready and know first-hand whats going on out there. If we adopted the‘Paul Plan’ our crazy enemies would surround us before we knew exactly what was going on and it would be very hard to get a handle on the situation and could be pushed to where a nuke would have to be used to straighten it out, thus going backwards and biting off the nose to spite the face. What does he not understand about how most of our enemies that want to slaughter us live in the 5th. century and still think everything is settled with the edge of a sword? I guess he pays about as much attention to the news and world affairs as he did that news letter of his that he had out there. And where does he get his info? I dont get it, he says “so and so at the nuke watchdogs says he couldnt possibly make a bomb and there is no proof they are even trying” then almost daily we hear (usually from them) that they could have one very soon so what gives? If we and Isreals Moussad says they are doing it then thats good enough for me.

    Report Post »  
    • theaveng
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:56am

      Say about the military???

      Dr. Paul has received more donations from the Army, Marines, Sailors, and Air Force than any other candidate (even Obama). If he was saying nasty things about them, he would not be their favorite candidate.

      Maybe you ought to re-read what Ron Paul has said, instead of making false claims that he’s mean to the military.

      .

      Report Post »  
    • theaveng
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:01pm

      >>>”If we adopted the‘Paul Plan’ our crazy enemies would surround us before we knew”

      What nonsense. We have something like 10 aircraft carriers. We could surreound North America with those carriers, and any enemy that made an attempt to attack us would be shot down before they go within 500 miles of the coastline.

      Besides we are not the only Democracy in the world. The “enemies” also have to deal with the 500 million strong European Union, the democratic republic of Russia and Ukraine, as well as smaller allies like Japan, Australia, Brazil, and so on.

      The combined forces of democratic countries outnumber the “enemy” by 5 billion to 1 billion. There is absolutely no reason to cower in fear. You might as well be afraid that a rock will fall from space and hit you ion the head. It is illogical to be afraid.

      .

      Report Post »  
    • recoveringneocon
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:02pm

      Ron Paul’s PRO-AMERICA FOREIGN POLICY

      * Make securing our borders the top national security priority.
      * Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.
      * Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.
      * End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.
      * Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.
      * Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.
      * Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.
      * Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.
      * Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.
      * Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid.

      What is so Crazy about it?

      Report Post » recoveringneocon  
    • C. Schwehr
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:03pm

      Please get your facts straight. The world was not plagued with the curse of radical islam until the 7th century when an insane, failed bandit who lusted after pre-pubesent girls and the gold of others, did invent a way to bring other criminal types to his cause and bring chaos to the middle east and eventually to eastern europe and africa. They call it a religion while civilized peoples call it an abomination.

      Report Post »  
    • theaveng
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:06pm

      >>>“so and so at the nuke watchdogs says he couldnt possibly make a bomb and there is no proof they are even trying”

      Iran has said they have a nuclear REACTOR, not a bomb, and per U.S. treaty they are allowed to have a reactor. Plus even if they had a nuclear weapon, who cares? They would never used it aganst Israel because that would be MAD (nutually assured destruction). In essence you would have a Cold War between Israel and Iran, as currently exiss between Pakistan and India.

      This is the third message I’ve posted to you, because you don’t use some common sense. There is NO reason to cover in fear of Iran. They don’t have nukes. If they did they would not use them (because it would be suicide). And we have 5 billion Democratic peoples on our side. To be fearful is not rational.

      .

      Report Post »  
    • joan k
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:19pm

      @Recovering Neocon.. I am one, too. And I loved your list on Ron Paul’s Pro-American Stance on Foreign Policy and am borrowing it. TY!

      Report Post » joan k  
    • Righteous Outlaw
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:23pm

      I know some American’s who will immediately respond to any attack with overwhelming destructive force if America is attacked…They only know KILL orders and need not nor care about some far away base for support. We have the best of the best as well as the worst of the worst and many among us need only an excuse to show the world what we mean. Bring our troops home and lets take care of ourselves for a change. There are many Americans who could benefit from all that wasted overseas terror money. We are funding our own terror by giving the enemy our goods. Stop the nonsense and kick Wall St. out of the castle! Ron Paul Y’all,.. Ron Paul. If Glenn says any different, slap him in his bitch ass mouth! I fix that unworthy in 1 visit if he was lucky enough to get some. You hear the music?

      Report Post »  
    • guido.cavalcanti
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:33pm

      Given your scenario, with our enemies surrounding us, does it serve us better to have our troops nation building in Afghanistan (which does nothing to make us safer or protect our freedoms) or have those troops back in America? Does is serve us better that the majority of our combat troops worn out from several repeat deployments, or to have them rested in peace time and ready to actually defend our nation? Is installing a democracy in a “5th century stone age society” really enhancing our security here at home?

      Ron Paul hasn’t taken military action off the table with Iran, he just believes we need get it right if and before we go to war. This is why he has overwhelming support from our troops. With the Iraq war having just ended literally days ago, it’s amazing how so many Americans are rearing to go to war with Iran, all based on fear mongering from the media and from politicians who want to cuddle you in their arms and promise you they’ll keep you safe if they just get your vote. Since when has prudence been a bad thing when deciding whether or not a nation should enter war?

      Report Post » guido.cavalcanti  
    • PlowMan
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:33pm

      KIBA, I think you have a point. I would like to vote for Paul, but he scares the crap out of me. I think I know what caused WWI and WWII, which was isolationist people in this country. If I am wrong someone please correct me. This seems to me to be what Dr. Paul is trying to say when he says we don’t need all those troops around the world. How many of them are in combat anyway. If we staybilized Afganistan and got combat toops out of there how many combat troops would we have around the world anyway.

      The long and the short of it is that what Dr. Paul is saying in this interview is very reasonable. Head Start is unconstitutional, period. He is not saying just take an axe to it though, more like plant a few other plants around it and see if they are better and maybe then chop HS down becuase the others have taken over for it. There are many other programs that the feds have going on that are similar to this, and can be handled in the same way. It took us about 100 years to get this far from the constitution so I don’t think one guy is going to get us back there.

      Report Post » PlowMan  
    • DRFilms
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:46pm

      Technically, if you vote for one of the other candidates that wish to expand our military around the globe, it would only make us less safe. If we go after Iran and try to find their nuke… How fast do you think we’d find it? It only took us 10 years to find a decrepit old man hooked up to a kidney machine that orchestrated the biggest attack on us in history. One nuke? How about all those stockpiles of WMDs? We find them yet? While our military is over there bombing them and looking for a nuke, they are sneaking in our southern border and potentially killing us HERE. Maybe being HERE would be a better defense for our military ya think?
      Oh.. sorry for using logic.

      “Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn’t come on your property and break your windows” -Chris Lyspooner

      Report Post »  
    • TheWholeTruth
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:54pm

      Here’s to the crazy ones – The misfits – The rebels – The troublemakers – The round pegs in square holes – The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules and they have no respect for the status quo. You can praise them – disagree with them – quote them – disbelieve them – glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you CAN’T do is ignore them. Because they change things.

      Report Post »  
    • guido.cavalcanti
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 1:13pm

      @ PlowMan I think I’ve heard this isolationist argument too many times now to stomach. It goes something like this; If the allies hadn‘t taken an isolationist position after WWI the Nazi Party wouldn’t have come to power and all types of bad things would have been prevented. Maybe so, but I’m still trying to figure out how you apply that piece of history, with all of it’s vast intricacies and contextual complexities, a period in history like no other the world has seen, and then try to transpose that onto what is happening in today’s world, is a little presumptuous.

      To say your logic is flawed is a mere understatement. Would interventionism have worked back then? Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t know that all historians agree on this issue. But to say interventionism worked then, in that precise scenario, and it would work now in our precise scenario , which just happens to be nothing like back then, is a huge leap my friend.

      To sum it up, put away the GOP talking points, this isolationist argument is silly and ridiculous. It may work in throngs of Rick Santuckabee supporters, but not in a place where the human mind is functioning.

      Report Post » guido.cavalcanti  
    • KidCharlemagne
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 1:17pm

      Kiba
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:51am

      If we adopted the‘Paul Plan’ our crazy enemies would surround us before we knew exactly what was going on and it would be very hard to get a handle on the situation and could be pushed to where a nuke would have to be used to straighten it out, thus going backwards and biting off the nose to spite the face.
      =========================================================

      That’s the same strategy that the Soviet Union used…..they thought that if they invaded and occupied all the countries that surrounded the Soviet republic and converted them to communism that they could keep their enemies at arm’s length…..

      But the Soviet Union went bankrupt after a 10 year occupation of Afghanistan…

      So how long can you keep printing money to pay for this strategy?:

      http://www.usdebtclock.org

      Report Post »  
    • CS Lewis FAN
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 1:24pm

      KIBA, please do some reading on what Ron Paul has said from his own books, not the twisted & spun lies from the agenda-bent media. RP knows more about foreign policy than anyone running, even Newt.

      Report Post » CS Lewis FAN  
    • Libertyluvnmomma
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 1:35pm

      KIBA stop letting tv/radio personalities think for you. you make the “dumb masses” ridicule seem true.
      Remember how we got shafted with a Mccain candidate.
      make one point and know as much about as you can. Remember Limbaugh and Beck don’t run for office..because their opinion is entertaining.That’s it.

      Report Post » Libertyluvnmomma  
    • b.mclane
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 1:52pm

      What is it with Paul supporters??? They fly off the hinge at the least thing. THEAVENGE …..KIBA just said he doesn’t like some of the things Paul says about the military……..never insinuated Paul insults the military. You went in that direction all by yourself. KIBA is referrring to abandoning all overseas military bases. YES, WE KNOW PAUL GETS MOST MILITARY DONATIONS. We get the news. You are not supplied a special feed. I like PAUL too but his supporters freak me out. Rabid for their cause. Engrossed by their own superiority. Hands down the rudest people on the Internet. A lot are very young and immature and are a hair’s width from being identical to OCCUPY Losers.

      Report Post » b.mclane  
    • young conservative
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 1:57pm

      I understand your concern, i used to feel the exact same way on his foreign policy. But then i actually listened to what HE was saying, not the media and felt much better about it. He is for a very strong national defense, just not going everywhere and getting involved in nation building. He voted to go to Afghanistan after 9/11, but he believes if we go to war we should declare war through Congress, not these endless occupations we are taking part in right now. I don’t think more than half of active duty soldiers, a large number of veterans and 4 former CIA chiefs would all endorse Paul if they thought he would make our country less safe. But i do understand your concern because literally the entire MSM and GOP establishment are flat out lying about his foreign policy.

      Report Post » young conservative  
    • rabblechat
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 2:05pm

      Do you not realize WE ARE THE ONES that surround everyone else with our military! Its not the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans and definitely not the Iranians that have bases and troops in well over 100 countries, its us!
      Do you really think the Irains are going to overtake us? They have a speedboat Navy and cannot even rescue their own sailors from 3rd world pirates!
      Do you really think with today‘s ICBM’s our enemies need to invade us by ground? Where would they stage the force? How many troops would it take to subdue a nation of 300 million? I can assure you it couldn’t be done under our noses…. Dr. Paul is not going to roll over like a whipped dog and let Iran take over America, I’m willing to bet if he decided to take us to war, it would swift, violent and utter destruction for our enemies not this wishy washy police action crap were we are afraid to hurt someone….
      We cannot sustain the current level of military spending, we are on the brink of financial collapse due to over spending.
      “A great civilization is not conquered from without, until it has destroyed itself from within.”
      We are almost there folks…

      Report Post » rabblechat  
    • Clara88
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 2:14pm

      The Ron Paul Myth….Military Donations
      http://floppingaces.net/2012/01/05/ron-paul-myth-military-donations-favor-the-crazy-ol-uncle/

      and here they all come in 1 2 3 4 5…..

      Report Post » Clara88  
    • techengineer11
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 2:15pm

      Kiba: Yes indeed we have so much extra money in order to maintain bases over the Globe… Like that’s what our Founders envisioned anyway. Are you really that foolish? My god where do these anti-American idiots come from?

      I heard this hit job live this morning. Was even late to work so that I could hear the honorable Dr. Ron Paul speak. He’s on message and his message is Resonating with the American people. I even had the pleasure to hear my dear old mom speaking about Sound Money last night after Dr. Paul’s speech.

      Can’t stop the Momentum! It’s a Revolution!

      Ron Paul 2012!

      Report Post » techengineer11  
    • Maggie18
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 2:16pm

      I don’t think you totally understand what Ron Paul has been saying. You sound as if you have been listening to too much Fox, CNN, etc., who are just repeating what the White House wants you to hear. Hasn’t it struck you as odd that we have been taking down country after country? Doesn’t it strike you as odd that this was planned many years ago? Our government is abusing the heart and kindness of the American people. We currently are putting in a base or two in Australia. We have done that in South America. They are angry about it. You sound like such a great person. I would suggest that you start listening to alternative media (and that does not mean Beck or Limbaugh). You will gather more information and find out that you will start understanding what Ron Paul is saying. Our current government does not want these wars to end. Many people profit over the lives of our young generation. Why do you think that the military supports Ron Paul. They get it.

      Report Post »  
    • American Soldier (Separated)
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 2:20pm

      As a side note to US Military and support for Ron Paul, I gave my good friend a few Super Brochures of Ron Paul to bring to work. Talk about overwhelming support and optimism! They wanted more brochures and they wanted to know more! He reported back to me this morning that even he was overwhelmingly surprised at how many people in his company alone that supported Ron Paul. Those that didn’t or were on the fence, took a super brochure and read through it and my friend said he saw light bulbs turning on in their heads.

      The Revolution is here. Our military is as sick of deployment as Ron Paul is with sending them overseas. As a veteran of the US Army, 101st Airborne Division from 2006-2011, I fully support Ron Paul and know more then anyone could imagine in active duty that fully supports him as well!

      RON PAUL 2012. Restore America NOW!

      Report Post » American Soldier (Separated)  
    • Peacewise
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 2:21pm

      The Paul critics are so uninfomed. Vey Sad.
      The likes of Beck’s two clown side kicks do not help either. Amazingly shortsighted and blind.
      FYI, Paul has a daily podcast available to help educate folks on his positions if you are truly interested in making an informed decision.

      Report Post »  
    • theaveng
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 2:32pm

      >>>”I think I know what caused WWI and WWII, which was isolationist people in this country.”

      What???

      No. What caused WW1 was Germany declaring war on the allied powers. The U.S. had nothing to do with it and did not enter the war until 3 years after it started.

      And WW2 was caused by Germany’s desire to continue WW1 (which never ended, but was merely a ceasefire). The Europeans had been fighting one another for 1500 years… to blame the U.S. for that makes no logical sense. Fighting is what Europeans did.

      .

      Report Post »  
    • theaveng
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 2:44pm

      >>>”What is it with Paul supporters??? They fly off the hinge at the least thing. ”

      We don’t like lies (Paul is racist, Paul is a nut, Paul hates the military)

      And we’re sick of liars (Clinton, Bush, Obama, …..).

      BTW I didn’t fly off. I’m actually quite calm and methodical (think Mr.Spock from Star trek).

      .

      Report Post »  
    • BlackBeaver
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 2:44pm

      Do you even know what Mr. Paul‘s ’plan’ is? His biggest fault is that he has not explained himself well in the area of foreign policy. Some of his statements make great ‘instant soundbites’ to criticize him. For example, he suggests we listen to what others are saying about us, and widely criticized on his explanation. Yes, we should always listen.. But we should not limit our ‘listening’ to what others specifically want us to hear- their propaganda- but also what they are saying to their own people.

      Conside this: Do we really need to ‘defend Europe’ or should we begin to remove from NATO? Do we really need the web of treaties and alliances that made some sense in the Cold War days, but no longer are useful? Certainly the WWII treaties require us to protect Japan (in exchange for their agreement to demilitarize), we are still in a war in Korea (halted- but not ended- by a cease fire), and it is definitely in our best interests to maintain the flow of oil from the Middle East (- and our support of Israel is a key factor in this). Beyond those obligations, wouldn‘t it be best if we ’downsized’ our committments elsewhere?

      Too bad Mr. Paul has been unable to get the message out that he favors an orderly change in committments, both domestic and foreign.

      Mr. Paul should take the time to explain all of his positions as well as he explained his ‘budget cutting’ in this clip. But of course, the media would still find fault, or “put words in [his] mouth”.

      Report Post »  
    • recoveringneocon
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 2:55pm

      @blaclbeaver

      Ron Paul’s PRO-AMERICA FOREIGN POLICY

      * Make securing our borders the top national security priority.
      * Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.
      * Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.
      * End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.
      * Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.
      * Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.
      * Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.
      * Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.
      * Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.
      * Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid.

      Report Post » recoveringneocon  
    • theaveng
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 2:57pm

      Someone said the U.S. surround the world.

      Here’s a map showing where we have troops. Notice how the word is U.S. red. We are now bigger than the British Empire at its height.

      http://spacebob.us/pages/articles/assets/usa_empire.jpg

      .

      Report Post »  
    • techengineer11
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 3:25pm

      theaveng
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 2:32pm
      >>>”I think I know what caused WWI and WWII, which was isolationist people in this country.”

      What???

      No. What caused WW1 was Germany declaring war on the allied powers. The U.S. had nothing to do with it and did not enter the war until 3 years after it started.

      And WW2 was caused by Germany’s desire to continue WW1 (which never ended, but was merely a ceasefire). The Europeans had been fighting one another for 1500 years… to blame the U.S. for that makes no logical sense. Fighting is what Europeans did.

      I generally agree with many of your thoughts but I think that you may be off base here. I would not blame Germany for starting either WW1 or WW2 but especially not WW2.

      In the case of WW1, the allies declared War on Austria who was allied with Germany.. In WW2 again it was the allies that declared war on Germany after Germany was forced to reclaim some of their territory from Poland.

      Stating that Germany started both world wars is akin to saying that the South started the War of Northern Agression by desire to be free of Northern tyranny.

      Report Post » techengineer11  
    • recoveringneocon
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 3:31pm

      @Blackbeaver
      RON PAUL’S “PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA”
      http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

      Report Post » recoveringneocon  
    • va_magoo
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 3:38pm

      Yes our spy satellites wouldnt work unless we have troops stationed all over the world. Who made us the World’s police force? Name one nation on Earth that has the sea power to launch an invasion of US soil. You think an entire invasion force could sneak up on the US coast without us knowing it?

      Report Post » va_magoo  
    • FlamingFartSyndrome
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 3:49pm

      The problem with that statement is that the military supports Paul’s message more than any other candidate. So for someone to say that he has a wrong military message when more military personal agree with him over the other candidates is just plain ignorant.

      Report Post » FlamingFartSyndrome  
    • colt1860
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 3:49pm

      @Kiba I understand your position here. However, the way most of the MSM and talking radio heads present Paul’s foreign policy is akin to the same kind of fear the gun-control crowd spouts if we allow citizens to carry guns, the same kind of fear Big Government politicians spout if we don’t raise the debt ceiling, the same kind of fear the liberals spout if we cut Government healthcare, etc. Now, back on track. Paul adheres to the principles of non-aggression, strong national defense, and Just wars. He bases his foreign policy on the limits and restraints found in the Constitution. Regarding Iran. Paul in the NH debate said he doesn’t want Iran to have a nuke. Senator Rand Paul said of his dad, “[he] doesn’t want (Iran) to have nuclear weapons, he thinks it would be destabilizing for them to have them, but he thinks there needs to be a healthy debate in Congress about what our response should be.” Paul has repeatedly said that if we want war, we should declare it, fight it, win it, and come back home. No nation building. Paul was a handful that supported Israel‘s decision to bomb Iraq’s nuclear facilities in 1981. When asked what he thinks about Israel attacking Iran or Iran’s nuclear facilities, he responded that if Israel felt threatened, she has every right to defend herself and protect her interests.

      Report Post »  
    • West Coast Patriot
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 3:52pm

      To everyone here. How is it that you think having bases and our troops spread all over the world makes us safer? In this day and age, we have the technology through our Navy and Air Force to take care of any crisis that would begin anywhere in the world. The fear about nukes makes you believe that we need troops stationed all over the world? Take Korea as an example. If North Korea decided that they wanted to use a nuke against South Korea or the U.S. with 25,000 or more troops on their border, they could carry one down close to the border, set it off and all those troops would be gone in an instant. How would that make us safer to lose that many in one fell swoop? What if a country snuck over and invaded us here with our troops over there, which I doubt could ever happen, but what if? Are we safer with having all those troops overseas, or would we be in a better position if they were all here?. Do you all not trust our Navy, the strongest military force in the world, to take care of wackos overseas? Come on. Our biggest threat to the loss of our country and freedom is our economy. If we do not get a handle on it, we will be toast and most likely under U.N.rule. Do not think that this cannot happen.Quit listening to all the lies.

      Report Post » West Coast Patriot  
    • colt1860
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 4:03pm

      @Kiba Unless we face an immediate threat or imminent attack, let’s not loose our cool. Let the Rule of Law and Reason prevail. We have more than enough resources to deal with any situation, and plenty of missiles pointed at our enemies, at any given time. We should be careful to not overreact or act too soon.

      “The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression – to preserve freedom and peace.” – Ronald Reagan

      We have spread our Military too thin around the world, especially our troops. They shouldn’t be used as a global police force or world peace corps, especially while our own borders are left unsecured and wide open. We have enough satellites, carriers, submarines, stationed missiles and other high tech weaponry to protect our homeland and our interests here at home and abroad. In our pursuit to detain our enemies, we’ve elected Big Government politicians, who are at the same eroding our Rights and trashing our Constitution. I don’t desire to surrender my Rights and Liberties, that the Government may grow and expand its Powers, just to achieve some special agenda. Irregardless of who the POTUS is, we have the greatest military ever organized and the best troops ever trained. Our enemies can not defeat us. No nation can compete with us. If we be destroyed, it will be from within.

      Report Post »  
    • SgtB
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 4:09pm

      I’ll be honest, after reading the first few lines of your idiotic neocon comment, I stopped and completely dismissed you and your ability to use the few brain cells you have left. If you truly think that shifting from an imperialistic military presence to a constitutional national defense will bring “our enemies” to our shores, you are sadly mistaken.

      You see, there are reasons why wars are fought. The most notable and demoralizing of which is religion. That said, I find it extremely difficult to believe that our nation would be attacked by any large scale religious movement. The logistics are not the same now as they were a thousand or even a hundred years ago. No fleet of ships or formation of troop carrying planes will ever get near our shores without first turning into fish food. The second most reason is resources. Now please tell me what nation out there thinks that they can take over a nation of 320 million gun toting individuals just to get their crop land or natural gas? No one is going to do this. China has areas of land that would be much easier for them to assume control of and they have already proven that they are willing to kill the Asian people to get it. If they haven’t yet taken that land, I can say with the utmost certainty that they aren’t planning on taking our land anytime soon.

      Report Post » SgtB  
    • brothaslide
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 4:11pm

      I believe we have over 900 military bases around the world, last time I checked. The Paul detractors will claim that Ron Paul is an “isolationist” because Ron Paul wants to remove many of these basis to save money, etc. If that is being an isolationist, then I guess, England, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Poland, Spain, and so on are all isolationist because they do not have military bases around the world.

      Oh please people, we have the strongest military in the world and can project our power when needed. We don’t need all of these bases and the associated costs to protect our national interests.

      Report Post » brothaslide  
    • SgtB
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 4:20pm

      @ Plowman, You must be the most ignorant SOB to have ever walked the earth! Do you really think that American “isolationism” (actually, we weren’t isolationists, we were doing alot of trade and weapons supplying to France, England, and China as well as air support by providing US trained pilots to their armed forces. We even saved China a few times from violent rebellion and invasion.) caused WWI or WWII? It couldn‘t have been the assassination of a nation’s leader or a madman’s lust for genocide through eugenics that caused either of those wars could it? NAH! Silly me, the US caused both world wars…end sarcasm

      Report Post » SgtB  
    • noczars
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 4:31pm

      @Kiba=Ron Paul would be a GREAT Secretary of Treasury. However, our President has full control over the Military, and that is what scares most of us. I just read another site on The Blaze and RP was shaking hands with an Anti-Zionist that rants about how Isreal is killing Palestinians. He is standing in the video with signs crossing out Israel. Don’t tell me Ron Paul did not know who this guy was. And if he didn’t know, then it is no worse than the fuppa Hermain Cain made.

      Report Post » noczars  
    • techengineer11
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 4:40pm

      SgtB: “We even saved China a few times from violent rebellion and invasion.) caused WWI or WWII? It couldn‘t have been the assassination of a nation’s leader or a madman’s lust for genocide through eugenics that caused either of those wars could it? NAH! Silly me, the US caused both world wars…”

      We did intervene for China and had no business in that conflict. You are also right about WW1. The unfortunate assasination led to things spiraling out of control in a matter of hours… And we have fools that are itching to bomb Iran today… lol Like things couldn’t very quickly get out of hand over there.. Patriots really need to pause and thoughtfully consider the “risks” involved in bombing Iran.

      The final assertion is the one that I have trouble with.. I know that you are smarter than that. Remember that Hitler wanted a Germany for Germans. Personally I really like idea myself. Consider a Nation of France for the French, England for the English, China for the Chinese, etc You get the picture. It was a very common way of thinking for literally thousands of years. Now all of suddenly we are to believe that a “melting pot” is what works the best anyway I diverge. Hitler even admired the immigration policy of the US back in the day.. lol

      My point is that Hitler didn’t have a lust for genocide. He had a lust for Nationalism.. A good thing. He only wanted Jews out of the country before the War. No Genocide. Afterwards when the allies declared War, he held Je

      Report Post » techengineer11  
    • Big M 2011
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 4:50pm

      At first, I wrote off Ron Paul as a kook! But the more I think about it, the more inclined I am to at least accept some of his positions. The sticking point is though he has never responded to the question of what he would do if several thousand or tens of thousands of Americans were killed by a terrorist sponsored country how would he respond. Saying it’s our fault is simply not acceptable.

      Report Post »  
    • TH30PH1LUS
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 5:15pm

      Mark Halperin,

      thanks for re-inforcing the stereotype of reporters as entertainment prostitutes tricking for their next headline

      Report Post » TH30PH1LUS  
    • Tower7_TRUTH
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 5:29pm

      Logic would dictate that If the chicken little NeoCons are right about Iran dropping a Nuke in
      a US city if Ron Paul gets elected, then why hasn’t Pakastan dropped one of their hundreds
      of Nukes on US yet ? Are the NeoCon Zionist saying Pakastan is not a threat ?
      North Korea is not a threat ? Only Iran and only because Ron Paul will not blow them into
      Oblivion… Logic and Reason is always better than Fear and Hate.

      I call Shenanigans on the LYING Media, and that includes Rush and Beck

      Report Post » Tower7_TRUTH  
    • hallkbrdz
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 5:31pm

      PlowMan,

      “KIBA, I think you have a point. I would like to vote for Paul, but he scares the crap out of me. I think I know what caused WWI and WWII, which was isolationist people in this country. If I am wrong someone please correct me.”

      The problem was that no one in Europe did anything. Again, with Iran – why does the US, half a world away – have to be the solution? Iran is on Europe’s doorstop, it is time someone else spilled blood and payed taxes to correct what is wrong over there. We have Mexico to deal with, and a porous border that can be used to smuggle in WMD’s from wherever.

      Report Post » hallkbrdz  
    • colt1860
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 6:29pm

      @Big M 2011 After 9/11, Paul voted to go into Afghanistan and find Al Qaeda. After 9/11, he wrote a bill, a constitutional Letter of Marque and Reprisal, to catch or kill Bin Laden and associated Al Qaeda members. This was also done by Jefferson to go after the Barbary Pirates. Paul was a handful that supported Israel‘s decision to bomb Iraq’s nuclear facilities in 1981, when most were against Israel’s action. When asked what he thinks about Israel attacking Iran or Iran’s nuclear facilities, he responded that if Israel felt threatened, she has every right to defend herself and protect her interests. Paul in the NH debate said he doesn’t want Iran to have a nuke. Senator Rand Paul said of his dad, “[he] doesn’t want (Iran) to have nuclear weapons, he thinks it would be destabilizing for them to have them, but he thinks there needs to be a healthy debate in Congress about what our response should be.” Paul has repeatedly said that if we want war, we should declare it, fight it, win it, and come back home. No nation building. In congress, he often urged Bush’s administration to go into Pakistan, for he believed Bin Laden was there, when most doubted it. Paul know what’s going on. I challenge you to watch this video, and tell me where he is wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meFjza6BpEA

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 6:45pm

      Before WW2, did we adhere to the principles of non-aggression, strong national defense, and war as a last resort? Before WW2, were we militarily prepared for any immediate threat or imminent attack on our homeland, or did we have an overspread, disorganized military all around the world? Before WW2, did we respond to threats with appropriate force and act according to the facts and evidence presented, or did we act on preconceived notions or assumed threats based on fear? During WW2, was there a constitutional Declaration of War passed by our Congress? During WW2, did we actually face a potential threat or actual attack from a foreign Nation? During WW2, was there an actual threat or possible breach to our National Security? During WW2, did we fight a third world Nation, or a highly civilized, technologically advanced, and militarily developed Nation? During WW2, did we have an ally in actual danger and risk of being defeated? During WW2, did our allies ask for help and aid in fighting against their enemies? During WW2, did we go to war, fight the enemy, win the war, and return home? During or after WW2, did we engage in nation building? Was WW2 preventable? Was WW2 a regional conflict or unavoidable worldwide conflict? Was WW2 fought over ideology and religion, or abusive Government and mass centralization of Power? During WW2, were we as a Nation and People respected and admired throughout the World because of our trade, friendship and Christian charity?

      Report Post »  
    • Al J Zira
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:13pm

      @KidCharlemagne: The Soviet Union didn’t go bankrupt because of the occupation of Afghanistan. They went bankrupt because they’re communists and their form of government does allow people or the government to prosper. Sure the occupation didn’t help but that is far from the reason they went bankrupt.

      Report Post » Al J Zira  
    • A Conservatarian
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:40pm

      Theaveng rules.

      Report Post » A Conservatarian  
    • MackBerserk
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:52pm

      @ West Coast Patriot

      Ron Paul did in fact claim America was responsible for 911, several times…
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuX73Ixqtbg

      Iran has VERY close ties to China. If they want a nuke, there‘s no reason why China wouldn’t supply them with any materials they lack… Paul wants to completely retract ALL U.S. influence from the middle east, which is a hotbed for terrorism (even against their own people) and contains no small amount of anti-israeli regimes. Paul may very well react as you say to a threat like Iran when they ALREADY have a nuke… But I don’t see how neutering our military capabilities and ability to respond in that region will help serve that purpose. Defense spending makes up not even a fifth of our budget… That leaves… alot to trim from domestic spending.

      Nobody talks about the reason why we spend so much on our military to have bases in places like, say, Germany. Originally, they were there as a safeguard against the Soviet Union. Now they serve a political purpose by allowing countries (many European) to maintain small militaries while also having significant security (which is why NATO is really just America). Obviously, these all need to be reassessed as to the necessity and benefit from the standpoint of the United States, but many ARE necessary. Why? International relations.

      Report Post »  
    • techengineer11
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:17pm

      Big M 2011: Colt was right. Dr. Paul is by no means a Pacifist. He’s a veteran unlike many on the Republican stage today. As Americans we all believe in protecting our interests and certainly defending our borders. He even voted to go after Bin Laden… But not to occupy Afghanistan for 10 years! Or to invade Iraq which had nothing to do with 9-11.

      Report Post » techengineer11  
    • Jaycen
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:38pm

      It‘s as if Ron Paul’s campaign staff swarmed the comments section today.

      On the actual topic of this article, Mark Halperin is dishonest. Ron Paul gave a great answer.

      On the topic of the frothing Ron Paul support – I see A LOT of people explaining Ron Paul’s positions for him, as if he doesn’t state his own positions. Funny, it‘s almost like you’re telling me what YOU think about these issues, instead of conveying your candidate’s actual message.

      On Iran, you can’t possibly know what Iran will do. They’ve stated consistently that they will use a nuclear weapon on Israel and on the United States, and I have no reason to disbelieve them. Every other threat is carried out. They openly praise people who murder others. Yeah, I should believe you when you say “Iran is all bluster”, because that’s the historical mountain of evidence in front of me. You make as much sense as Ron Paul.

      The most annoying trait of Ron Paul supporters is “if you don’t believe and support Ron Paul, then you’re the opposite of everything for which Ron Paul stands”. That’s not true. I want to end the FED and most federal agencies. I think our military should get pulled out of many other countries. I think Afghanistan was a gigantic waste of resources and lives. I don’t believe in nation building.

      I still think Ron Paul is a Progressive. He voted against legislation designed to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits rising from the use of guns in the commission

      Report Post » Jaycen  
    • ashestoashes
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 9:41pm

      .@C Schwehr
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:03pm
      Please get your facts straight. The world was not plagued with the curse of radical islam until the 7th century when an insane, failed bandit who lusted after pre-pubesent girls and the gold of others, did invent a way to bring other criminal types to his cause and bring chaos to the middle east and eventually to eastern europe and africa. They call it a religion while civilized peoples call it an abomination. ”
      This is how Islam was created. http://www.remnantofgod.org/books/docs/How-the-Vatican-Created-Islam.pdf
      And this is how it is coming full circle. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150757

      Report Post »

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:19pm

      @MACKBERSERK Those comments made by Paul do not amount to him blaming America for 9/11. The man has been saying the same thing for years, well before 9/11!

      He said this in 98: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hJTisovvjc

      He said this in 99: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd8jPKwArsM

      @JAYCEN It‘s not that we’re speaking for him, is that we’re defending his actual message which is distorted and taken out of context purposefully by the MSM. Even the Blaze has engaged in writing misleading Headlines on articles about Paul. Do you understand that Progressive means expanding Government and enlarging the powers therein, especially to advance some agenda or special interest, though such initiative is contrary to the limits and restraints found in the Constitution? Paul has never done such a thing.

      Paul said, “In Congress, I never vote for any piece of legislation that violates the Constitution’s strict limits on government power. I also do not participate in the congressional pension system. As President, I give you my word that I will only exercise my authority within the confines of the Constitution, and I will work every day to rein in a runaway federal government by binding it with the chains of that d o c u m e n t.” http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/statement-of-faith/

      Take a look at Progressives Gingrich and Santorum:

      nationalgunrights.org/flip-flop-newt-still-not-coming-clean/

      nationalgunrights.org/rick-santorums-anti-gun-history/

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:23pm

      @JAYCEN When Congressman Paul votes for a bill, he takes into full account the words of the FEDERAL Constitution, and does not compromise on his Oath. He follows no special interest, or personal agenda.

      That vote was made, by Paul accordingly, because the Federal Government does not have any legitimate power to legislate anything to do with firearms. How’s the ATF doing lately? Congress cannot ban them outright, institute waiting periods, nor can these Congressmen preemptively decide who may or may not be sued. That is, if you adhere to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. These are, as stated by Amendments 9 and 10, Powers left to the States.

      “Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to defend and restore the Second Amendment.” – Larry Pratt, Executive Director, Gun Owners of America

      “No member of Congress pays more attention to Second Amendment issues than Dr. Ron Paul.” – Dudley Brown, Executive Director, National Association for Gun Rights

      Paul has fought the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton‘s attempt to get the US on board with the UN’s Small Arms Treaty:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul#International_organizations

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:26pm

      @JAYCEN Paul has worked to repeal most federal gun laws. He has sponsored legislation to repeal the following:

      * the Brady law;
      * the requirement to lock up your safety (guns);
      * the law permitting the US to be part of the UN (which, among other attacks on American freedoms, seeks to ban privately transfered firearms);
      * participation in UNESCO — which has been used to dumb down US education standards;
      * the federal prohibition on importation of guns on a sporting basis test;
      * federal prohibitions on any pilot wishing to carry a handgun to and in his cockpit; and,
      * the so-called “assault weapons” ban (prior to its sunsetting in 2004).

      Paul has sponsored legislation requiring states to treat the concealed carry permit of one state the same as they do that state’s driver’s license.

      Paul has viewed his opposition to a national ID card as a protection for gun owners. A national ID card would most likely identify the bearer as a gun owner, among other things.

      Other sponsored legislation by Paul:

      Second Amendment Protection Ac t- Defends law abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights to own firearms.

      National Park Second Amendment Restoration and Personal Protection Act – Prohibits firearm regulation within the National Park System.

      Citizens Protection Act – Repeals the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 as amended.

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:26pm

      @JAYCEN Here’s the good Doctor on the floor of Congress, fighting for We the People:

      Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, January 9, 2003

      Mr. Speaker, I rise to restore the right the founding fathers saw as the guarantee of every other right by introducing the Second Amendment Protection Act. This legislation reverses the steady erosion of the right to keep and bear arms by repealing unconstitutional laws that allow power-hungry federal bureaucrats to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

      Specifically, my legislation repeals the five-day waiting period and the “instant” background check, which enables the federal government to compile a database of every gun owner in America. My legislation also repeals the misnamed ban on “semi-automatic” weapons, which bans entire class of firearms for no conceivable reason beside the desire of demagogic politicians to appear tough on crime. Finally, my bill amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 by deleting the “sporting purposes” test, which allows the Treasury Secretary to infringe on second amendment rights by classifying a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) as a “destructive device” simply because the Secretary believes the gun to be “non-sporting.”

      Continued…

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:30pm

      Continued.

      Thomas Jefferson said “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; …that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” Jefferson, and all of the Founders, would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising their right and duty to keep and bear arms. I hope my colleagues will join me in upholding the Founders’ vision for a free society by cosponsoring the Second Amendment Restoration Act.

      The end.

      Read the Gun Owners of America review on Paul’s record: http://gunowners.org/ronpaul-2012.htm

      “Guts. That is the one word which describes Rep. Ron Paul of Texas best. Perhaps the most consistent vote in the Congress, he can be expected to oppose any unconstitutional expansion of government, no matter how politically difficult that vote might be… Paul has been a powerful advocate for the Second Amendment and has sponsored legislation to repeal most gun laws dating back to 1968 — as well as, legislation to get the U.S. out of the anti-gun United Nations.”

      Now, where were all the so called Conservatives at when the Congressman was trying to protect our Rights?

      The TEA party was begun because we Americans felt abandoned by our Representatives, and had enough of these modern day, self interest, big mouth, two tongue, progressive Politicians from both parties. We must elect a TEA party congress that follows the Constitut

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:31pm

      *We must elect a TEA party congress that follows the Constitution so that we can restore America!

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:33pm

      @MACKBERSERK Those comments made by Paul do not amount to him blaming America for 9/11. The man has been saying the same thing for years, well before 9/11!

      He said this in 98: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hJTisovvjc

      He said this in 99: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd8jPKwArsM

      @JAYCEN It‘s not that we’re speaking for him, is that we’re defending his actual message which is distorted and taken out of context purposefully by the MSM. Even the Blaze has engaged in writing misleading Headlines on articles about Paul. Do you understand that Progressive means expanding Government and enlarging the powers therein, especially to advance some agenda or special interest, though such initiative is contrary to the limits and restraints found in the Constitution? Paul has never done such a thing.

      Paul said, “In Congress, I never vote for any piece of legislation that violates the Constitution’s strict limits on government power. I also do not participate in the congressional pension system. As President, I give you my word that I will only exercise my authority within the confines of the Constitution, and I will work every day to rein in a runaway federal government by binding it with the chains of that d o c u m e n t.” ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/statement-of-faith/

      Take a look at Progressives Gingrich and Santorum:

      nationalgunrights.org/flip-flop-newt-still-not-coming-clean/

      nationalgunrights.org/rick-santorums-anti-gun-history/

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:56pm

      @@MACKBERSERK Paul knows what he’s talking about. I challenge you to watch this video and to tell me where he’s wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meFjza6BpEA

      Here‘s a better analysis of Paul’s foreign policy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbZa4GOJxnY

      Report Post »  
    • KidCharlemagne
      Posted on January 12, 2012 at 1:09am

      Al J Zira
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 8:13pm

      @KidCharlemagne: The Soviet Union didn’t go bankrupt because of the occupation of Afghanistan. They went bankrupt because they’re communists and their form of government does allow people or the government to prosper. Sure the occupation didn’t help but that is far from the reason they went bankrupt.
      ====================================================================

      False.

      Communism in the Soviet Union lasted from November of 1917 until December 25, 1991 (a total of 74 years)….

      …..and seein’ as how Soviet communism lasted for almost 75 years, then we can absolutely say for certain that the existence of Communism by itself doesn’t immediately lead to collapse like you say it does.

      Report Post »  
    • Ruler4You
      Posted on January 12, 2012 at 5:49am

      “You‘re ’Putting Words in My Mouth’

      I thought everyone knew that was what the MSM does? And MSNBC in particular? They have admitted that they are a branch of the obango propaganda machine on the air.

      IMHBLO, I don‘t care who you are or what your plans are if they don’t include supporting obango, I’d avoid dungeons like MSNBC. It’s like walking into your own inquisition on your own accord. Sorry, I’m going to be a little late.

      Report Post » Ruler4You  
    • jimjetearl
      Posted on January 12, 2012 at 10:59am

      @ Plowman, Yes you do have it wrong about what caused WW1 and WW2. It was not Isolationist here. America had nothing to do with starting those wars. How ever we did have uber wealthy Americans fund both sides of the wars for profits. WW2 we were allowed to be drawn into the war because President Roosevelt ignored a 2 day old warning that the Japanese were on their way to Pearl Harbor. He wanted to let it happen so we could have a reason to get involved. Constitionally we have to be a non interventionist nation. We cannot go to war unless we have been attacked first and have a declaration of War by Congress. Then and only then can we go to war and at such time we fight it to win decisively and come home. We let that nation rebuild it self all by it self. Iraq did not attack us nor did they have plans to. Iran has not attacked us nor do they have plans to. Even if they get a nuke we have no Moral or Constitutional authority to as Rick Santorum puts it ” Tell them to disarm and if they don’t we will disarm them”. We have become the bully of the world because Americans have turned in to pansies and are afraid they might get hurt. I for one am tited of endless deployments into countries we shouldn’t be in fighting for no reason and then when My kids ask me why I am there I have to look them in the eye and tell them the truth. Because War makes Very Rich men even Richer. I can’t lie to them and say I am defending their freedoms. Our Constitution isn’t in jepardy in Afgahnist

      Report Post » jimjetearl  
    • Jefferson
      Posted on January 12, 2012 at 11:43am

      All of these other wedge issues will become TRIVIAL in the face of a dollar collapse. If the dollar collapses, society will collapse, and it will be a wild west situation like you could never imagine.

      Ron Paul has been warning of the financial collapse for 30 years. He PREDICTED the recession (soon to be depression) we are facing now. And he’s the ONLY one who has the understanding of the Federal Reserve and the business cycle to save our country from ruin from within.

      “Ruin from within” is what the societal engineers want, so that they can bring “order out of chaos.”

      This is why ALL three branches of the ministry of disinformation (CNN, MSNBC,Fox) have circled the wagons against him.

      They plan to completely destroy the middle class, drive the US into 3rd world status, and then integrate it into the NAU or the North American Union.

      These plans were drawn up, and have been written about a long time ago.

      The threat is not Iran or some Muslim Caliphate. It is right here within our own borders, and they are taking steps to quell any kind of resistance to it, with things like the NDAA, and the “Patriot Act.”

      “Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. ”
      Henry Kissinger
      Speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992. Bilderberg meeting.

      Report Post »  
  • Righteous Outlaw
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:50am

    Why you use unflattering stuff like that? Ron Paul is only the messenger…Donk kill the messenger lest you die by the sword! Romney lost to the guy who lost to Obama!..You hideous MSM N-words!

    Report Post »  
    • theaveng
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:22pm

      Glenn Beck and his Blaze hate Ron Paul. Glenn Beck wants to defend Israel at all costs, even if he has to wage war against all 1 billion Arab-muslims.

      “I’m telling you, there’s nobody that can school anyone on the Middle East like Rick Santorum,” Glenn said. “Ron Paul I think uses his libertarian sometimes as an excuse.”

      And: “I’m sorry, but you cannot sit down with a [Radical Muslim] who says, ‘The matter is clear. It is not right to let an infidel live.’ The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit or live under the scrutiny of Islam or die. Excuse me, but we don’t have anything to talk about. None. — We don’t coexist with people who believe that. If they strike, you strike them back. You protect yourself. You protect your friends. Because it is in the national interest,” Glenn said after taking calls from two Ron Paul callers today.

      And: “If that’s not enough, the global economy is on the verge of complete collapse, Europe is on fire, China is on the rise, and Russia isn’t very happy with us (are they ever?). So, what better time could there be to drastically reduce the size of our military???”

      Report Post »  
    • techengineer11
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 2:26pm

      theaveng
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:22pm
      Glenn Beck and his Blaze hate Ron Paul. Glenn Beck wants to defend Israel at all costs, even if he has to wage war against all 1 billion Arab-muslims.

      That’s about the extent of it… Beck is an agent for IPAC a real personification of the Rodeo Clown.

      Report Post » techengineer11  
    • Tower7_TRUTH
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 5:21pm

      In a somewhat bizarre change of subject during an interview with Fox & Friends, host Gretchen Carlson seemed embarrassed, stating “Congressman, excuse me for saying this but do you believe some people call you kooky… for your foreign policy only? Is that the reason why?”

      Paul responded “They use those terms because they can’t defend themselves intellectually.”
      “If they say my foreign policy is kooky, maybe they ought to look at what is happening.” Paul added. “…invading a country like Iraq, who never did a thing to us, killing a lot of people and turning it over to the shiites who are allies with the Iranians, I call that kooky.”

      “I call it kooky allowing our president now to go into numerous countries, even today he went into another African country without permission of the Congress. Fighting undeclared wars, that is kooky, and that is why the American people are sick and tired of what we have.” Paul urged.

      Report Post » Tower7_TRUTH  
    • Shasta
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:07pm

      techengineer11, Glenn has said over and over that he believes we should support Israel with our policies and NOT our troops. And he also has pointed out that Israel does not want support from our troops. You all should use facts, and not emotions.

      Report Post » Shasta  
  • jose wasabi
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:45am

    Most of the MSM doesn’t have the brain capacity to understand Ron Paul. Not that they really care. This interview is a perfect example.

    Report Post » jose wasabi  
    • paperpushermj
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:16pm

      Your right: This was just setup by the network as a Gotcha Opportunity. The questions would be asked not to get him to expand on a thought, but to expose something dastardly about him, there by earning high 5s from their pals and peers.

      Report Post » paperpushermj  
    • Freedomluver
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 1:30pm

      I wish Ron Paul had a copy of this to read to that left wing socialist.

      James Madison, Feb. 3, 1792 “…It is to be recollected that the terms “common defence and general welfare,” as here used, are not novel terms, first introduced into this Constitution. They are terms familiar in their construction, and well known to the people of America. They are repeatedly found in the old Articles of Confederation, where, although they are susceptible of as great a latitude as can be given them by the context here, it was never supposed or pretended that they conveyed any such power as is now assigned to them. …If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare…they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor;… in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare”
      Ron Paul 2012

      Report Post » Freedomluver  
    • circleDwagons
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 1:31pm

      Paul handled the interview very well. i don’t know what is wrong with Beck for not whole heartly supporting Paul. levin is a statist, rush ?, hannity?

      Report Post » circleDwagons  
    • techengineer11
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 2:31pm

      circleDwagons
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 1:31pm
      Paul handled the interview very well. i don’t know what is wrong with Beck for not whole heartly supporting Paul. levin is a statist, rush ?, hannity?

      All agents of IPAC. America‘s welfare is not what they are most concerned with but Israel’s interests are what they promote 24/7!

      Report Post » techengineer11  
    • colt1860
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 4:13pm

      @Freedomluver Thanks! I’ve been looking for that text, I couldn’t remember where I read it. I think Jefferson or Franklin said something similar also, they were explaining the meaning or definition of “general welfare” and it’s relation to the Constitution. “General Welfare” only includes those Powers granted to the US in the Constitution. Wikipedia has this as a Reference:

      See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) (”Although th[e] preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments.”); see also United States v. Boyer, 85 F. 425, 430–31 (W.D. Mo. 1898) (”The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se. It can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them.” (quoting 1 JOSEPH STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES § 462 (1833)

      Report Post »  
  • countryfirst
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:36am

    I like what Mr. Paul say’s but this verbiage is to extreme for the parasites that are dependent on the host, and the politician keeping the host on life support for their own power grab are the largest problem.

    America will eventually hit the bottom of the cliff we are fall down, And only then will things truly change. I just hope we can remain a free people.

    Report Post » countryfirst  
    • theaveng
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:48am

      Mr. Paul’s secood answer could have been better:

      “But if you had you‘re way you’d eliminate Head Start,” Halperin interjected.

      Answer: Not immediately no, because my first priority is to beat Obama in the election, because we can’t afford a second term (audience cheers). Next I will focus my efforts on bringing our young men and women back home to their families (cheer again), followed by getting a balanced budget passed through the Congress. We must stop borrowing money from China, Arabia, and other foreign powers.”

      .

      Report Post »  
    • theaveng
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:52am

      >>>“verbiage is too extreme”

      Try: Too complicated. Most jurnalists were frat boys and sorority girls in college. They barely used their brains back then, and barely use them now. It’s doubtful the MicrosoftNBC reporter understood what Paul just said

      “Uh… um… I have no idea what this Congressman just said….. er, uh, does not compute. I’ll just reepeat the same question.” – Halperin

      .

      Report Post »  
    • hwcmo4
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 1:38pm

      Paul is greasing the skids for someone to eventually run on a similar platform (maybe Rand?). He‘s really the only one you can somewhat trust and he’s spot on with the message but when most people who don‘t follow him or the liberty movement see them and his delivery they don’t listen to the message and just see a crazy old man. Enough people are waking up though and hopefully we can get more reps and senators in office and in the next election cycle or two another candidate to carry more of a libertarian message like Paul because it is electable. A new poll camp out saying Paul was only behind Obama by one point while others like Santorum and Newt were back 5% or more.

      Report Post »  
  • RejectFalseIcons
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:34am

    If this had been Santorum, the headline would have been:

    “Rick Santorum puts overstepping MSNBC anchor in his place.”

    I hope that while Glenn is recovering from his back injury, he’s reading what his writers are putting out on his webpage. Either the captain is asleep at the wheel, or Glenn Beck has jumped the shark.

    Report Post » RejectFalseIcons  
    • JustPeachy
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:36am

      Maybe he doesn’t “micromanage?“ Have you ever worked for a ”micromanager?”

      Not a fun thing.

      Report Post » JustPeachy  
    • Paulbot
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:44am

      We must silence people that do not follow Glenns and our agenda!

      Report Post »  
    • martinez012577
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:47am

      @ just

      Having your media site go completely one direction regarding a candidate isnt micro. This has been done because Glenn has a agenda. The man has changed since he left Fox. And it hasnt been in a good way. All I have to say is…

      Santorum and Bachman.

      Patriot act, debt ceiling, more wars, and social engineering. This is completely opposite what he talked about on Fox.

      Report Post » martinez012577  
    • recoveringneocon
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:48am

      Do you think “nnelG” is not giving the orders here? Is this not his “Propaganda Machine” ?

      Report Post » recoveringneocon  
    • American Soldier (Separated)
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 2:23pm

      @JUSTPEACHY but you’re willing to elect a President who would not only micromanage here at home domestically but internationally, into other nations sovereign affairs?

      Essentially, the Federal Government is micromanaging our lives now. We need less of that, significantly less!

      Report Post » American Soldier (Separated)  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 2:37pm

      God, you Paulbots are as bad as Jesse Ventura with your conspiracy theories. Must be why you defend him too. First off Paul handled this interview wrong, and he is on the wrong side of the issue for a Constitutionalist.

      He claims the Military are the cause for the deficit, when Social Security and Medicad which are completely unconstitutional stand to create $130 Trillion deficit in the next 20 years. That way outweighs the $4 trillion on the the War on terror over 10 years. You guys claim to be smart, but fail (like Paul) at basic math. Paul’s stance is because he will lose the general election do to the senior citizens. he is no better than the other political hacks.

      That’s the truth.

      His military ideas and foreign policy are just as worse. The only powers granted by the Constitution to Federal government is or dealings with foreign countries (especially with regards to military actions). That is why Glenn does not support Paul. Glenn is high against Social Security, he has blasted O’Reilly and others for supporting the $130 Trillion of unfunded future spending (by best estimates).

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • theaveng
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 3:14pm

      >>>”He claims the Military are the cause for the deficit, when Social Security and Medicad which are completely unconstitutional stand to create $130 Trillion deficit in the next 20 years.”

      Mr. Paul knows that.

      Why do you think he said he would phase-out SS over time? Starting with people 30 and younger (they could opt out),. Jeez. It’s like you anti-Paul haters don’t even listen to the man when he speaks. Also he is the ONLY candidate who has a balanced budget for 2013.

      Clearly he‘s not just sitting idle if he’s the only one with a balanced budget.

      Report Post »  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 3:45pm

      @ theaveng

      Phase it out after the babyboomers collect.. Sorry theaveng…. but that does not solve the issue with $130 Trillion of deficit. It needs to end now.

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 3:54pm

      “Jeez. It’s like you anti-Paul haters don’t even listen to the man when he speaks. Also he is the ONLY candidate who has a balanced budget for 2013.”

      The problem is his stance on Social Security is progressive and would make his “balanced budget” for 2013… Not for 2017, or 2021 which would have an added $60-70 Trillion to it if the baby boomers are ALLOWED to collect. Dropping those under 30 does not solve the issue…

      Problem is we KNOW the issues, unlike you Paulbots.

      At the height of the Social Security and Medicad spending for baby boomers, there will be 2 payers (IE workers) for every collector. Those under 30 will opt out of collecting, but will be subject to still pay… You can’t rely on 35-50 to pay for all the baby boomers. That is even more unconstitutional. The correct thing is to end it now and tell those 55-65 year olds the truth and let them live with their kids or keep working.\

      Paul just doesn’t want to lose votes, which is why he has his stance (which is the same as any progressive RINO. Keep it intact to insure votes and still screw the youth.

      you guys need to wake up to the real issues that plague the system. It is not the Patriot Act (which I am against), or foreign aid, or war. While I agree with legalized drugs, I will not waste a whole country allow that either. Paul is too dangerous on military, foreign policy, and the deficit.

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • colt1860
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 4:24pm

      @JohnnyMidknight Paul has always stated that he wants to end the Welfare system. Our Government spends the most money on Welfare programs and entitlements. Paul has always been against the Welfare State and Nanny State. The second most expensive budget is Military spending. As Paul stated, why do we need to spend ONE BILLION DOLLARS to construct an embassy in Iraq bigger than the Vatican?

      “The 104-acre compound, bigger than the Vatican and about the size of 80 football fields, boasts 21 buildings, a commissary, cinema, retail and shopping areas, restaurants, schools, a fire station, power and water treatment plants, as well as telecommunications and wastewater treatment facilities. The compound is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York, and two-thirds the size of the National Mall in Washington. It has space for 1,000 employees with six apartment blocks and is 10 times larger than any other U.S. embassy.” Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,476464,00.html#ixzz1jBfHQ7Jm

      Report Post »  
    • recoveringneocon
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 4:24pm

      REAL SOLUTIONS

      As President, Ron Paul will lead the way out of this crisis by:

      * Vetoing any unbalanced budget Congress sends to his desk.

      * Refusing to further raise the debt ceiling so politicians can no longer spend recklessly.

      * Fighting to fully audit (and then end) the Federal Reserve System, which has enabled the over 95% reduction of what our dollar can buy and continues to create money out of thin air to finance future debt.

      * Legalizing sound money, so the government is forced to get serious about the dollar’s value.

      * Ending the corporate stranglehold on the White House.

      * Driving down gas prices by allowing offshore drilling, abolishing highway motor fuel taxes, increasing the mileage reimbursement rates, and offering tax credits to individuals and businesses for the use and production of natural gas vehicles.

      * Eliminating the income, capital gains, and death taxes to ensure you keep more of your hard-earned money and are able to pass on your legacy to your family without government interference.

      Report Post » recoveringneocon  
    • noczars
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 4:54pm

      @reject=You prove that RP crazies are trying to infiltrate Glenn Beck & The Blaze. You are a bunch of immature college kids that only want to join the revolution in Syria, Egypt, AND here in this GREAT land. You are not fooling any of the REAL Glenn Beck followers OR The Blaze. I do agree with you in one way, “I also hope Glenn Beck is reading these posts” because he will see all of the POSER posts, including names that say “Patriot” and other poser names. Glenn Beck followers are well studied and pay close attention to the candidates “IN THEIR OWN WORDS” like Green; Alynsky; Soros; Obama and yes Ron Paul”.

      Report Post » noczars  
    • colt1860
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 6:51pm

      @noczars Reading the Blaze articles does not make one well studied, nor does reading articles wherein words and phrases used by candidates are cherry picked in order to portray the candidate a certain way, count as taking any candidate by their own words.

      Report Post »  
  • dannyo
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:34am

    wonder if einstein or bell or jobs or whitney or ford or newton or jefferson or washington or franklin ever participated in Head Start, oh well, they did pretty good without it…

    Report Post »  
    • Freedomluver
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 1:34pm

      Something that every Patriot should read, and yes…the founders thought about just such an issue.

      James Madison, Feb. 3, 1792 “…It is to be recollected that the terms “common defence and general welfare,” as here used, are not novel terms, first introduced into this Constitution. They are terms familiar in their construction, and well known to the people of America. They are repeatedly found in the old Articles of Confederation, where, although they are susceptible of as great a latitude as can be given them by the context here, it was never supposed or pretended that they conveyed any such power as is now assigned to them. …If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare…they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor;… in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare”

      Ron Paul 2012

      Report Post » Freedomluver  
    • John_The_Beloved
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 2:38pm

      @Freedomluver

      What you just posted sounds like government providing education, helping the poor in form of general welfare, and providing for defense of the homeland. Being that original founder said these things, sounds to me that Social Security and Medicare are Constitutional which contradicts Ron Paul. I think James Madison realizes that the Church as I do can only do so much in helping the poor, sick and the elderly. If government doesn’t help the poor, sick and elderly, builds the raods for commerce, empowers the people and helps enforce the laws on a local level. Then what good is government? Why even have government and why even pay taxes if government doesn’t do these things?

      Report Post » John_The_Beloved  
    • Freedomluver
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 3:13pm

      @John_The_Beloved
      You should go back and re-read the quote, as what Madison was saying is that was NONE of the federal governments business, and that those issued belonged to the states. The founders well all for education and considered it essential, but those issues were best handled at the state and local level.

      Report Post » Freedomluver  
    • theaveng
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 3:41pm

      That quote from Madison does not sound like Madison. It’s probably one of those false quotes that floats around the net. (Similar to Jefferson’s false quote about bankers inflating and devaluing money.)

      .

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 4:29pm

      @John_The_Beloved See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) (”Although th[e] preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments.”); see also United States v. Boyer, 85 F. 425, 430–31 (W.D. Mo. 1898) (”The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se. It can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them.” (quoting 1 JOSEPH STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES § 462 (1833)

      Report Post »  
    • Shasta
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:10pm

      Thanks for your comments. I got this far down in the posts and forgot what the article was about until I read your posts. The Paulies got me thinking it was about a war between extreme Paulies and Beck.

      Report Post » Shasta  
  • SquareHead
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:27am

    Does anybody trust the electronic voting machines, after the scandals. They have all been riddled by scandals. This is why they made such a big deal regarding the “chads” during the 2000 election, in order to brain wash the people to think that electronic voting is harder to tamper with….
    There are hackers that have hacked into the Pentagon from their basement. How much more likely isn’t it that the establishment with unlimited funds will hack the system and rig the count. They have billions$ to loose with a Ron Paul in the Whitehouse. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4FPuLNjvAc

    Report Post »  
    • theaveng
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:29am

      Apparently Beck’s off his rocker, because here’s audio where he says “I’d rather Ron Paul than a progressive”

      http://youtu.be/RNlNFtC0slQ

      Flip flopper.

      .

      Report Post »  
    • theaveng
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:32am

      Glenn Beck wants to defend Israel at all costs, even if he has to wage war against all 1 billion Arab-muslims.

      “I’m telling you, there’s nobody that can school anyone on the Middle East like Rick Santorum,” Glenn said. “Ron Paul I think uses his libertarian sometimes as an excuse.”

      And: “I’m sorry, but you cannot sit down with a [Radical Muslim] who says, ‘The matter is clear. It is not right to let an infidel live.’ The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit or live under the scrutiny of Islam or die. Excuse me, but we don’t have anything to talk about. None. — We don’t coexist with people who believe that. If they strike, you strike them back. You protect yourself. You protect your friends. Because it is in the national interest,” Glenn said after taking calls from two Ron Paul callers today.

      And: “If that’s not enough, the global economy is on the verge of complete collapse, Europe is on fire, China is on the rise, and Russia isn’t very happy with us (are they ever?). So, what better time could there be to drastically reduce the size of our military???”

      Report Post »  
    • JustPeachy
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:33am

      Well, others might argue that it was rigged–and that‘s why another candidate didn’t win (Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman. . .).

      In fact, anytime our favored candidate doesn’t win, we could claim “voter fraud!”

      Report Post » JustPeachy  
    • Babeuf
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 4:01pm

      What about all the Democrats that registered to vote for Paul.

      I am a Paulbot and I am one of the White Punks On Dope…. I mean the 99%

      A Conspiracy of Equals

      Report Post » Babeuf  
  • Churchill
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:24am

    The media have gone all out to destroy Ron Paul, they‘re terrified as they know he’s the only candidate looking to make serious cuts to their beloved big government. Like him or loathe him you can’t deny Dr Paul is the best candidate to roll back years of socialism.

    Report Post »  
    • JustPeachy
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:31am

      Sorry, but I disagree as do many others.

      Report Post » JustPeachy  
    • jose wasabi
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:44am

      You are 100% correct.

      Report Post » jose wasabi  
    • Paulbot
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:46am

      Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who proposes making cuts to the Federal Government. Name ANY candidate who advocates spending cuts. Romney can’t even bring himself to admit SS is a ponzi scheme.

      Report Post »  
    • C. Schwehr
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:53am

      Not really since he’d still be looking at a Congress which will not be wanting to work with him on all the roll-backs he wants. It would be like when Jesse Ventura was govenor. The only thing that BOTH parties did was to fight him on every since item he wanted….very little was accomplished, and Ventura was out in one term. The only candidate that is acceptable to the GOP is Romney, which will push us down the road to MORE of the same……and the progressives will be laughing all the way to the graves they’ve dug for themselves.

      Report Post »  
    • escape_from_socialism
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:55am

      Justpechy, what you smocking? It is obvious msm with beck, pat, stu, rush, sean, levin, savage, simmone, are up for destroying Ron Paul.

      Report Post »  
    • TheTrumanShow
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:55pm

      Hey, guys. Calm down. JustPeachy is right on.

      Help me out here, JustPeachy. Tell these Paulbots the details of Romney’s plan to fix the economy and return the USA back to its founding principles. Here’s your chance to show all the crazy Paul supporters that the stupid idea of ACTUALLY cutting $1 TRILLION in the first year along with returning the Federal Budget back to 2006 levels isn‘t nearly as good as Romney’s plan. Come on Peachy, help me out. Tell everyone the details…

      Thanks for the help, Peach.

      Report Post »  
  • JustPeachy
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:20am

    Not a Ron Paul supporter, but he answered this just fine (to express his views).

    This is just how the stupid liberal media plays.

    This isn’t really news.

    Report Post » JustPeachy  
    • TheBMT
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:41am

      It isn’t news, your right.

      yet somehow it is vital we here him explain about headstart? Really… we are 15+ trillion in debt and your worried about headstart?

      How about this, anybody rather watch something more interesting should watch his speech after the election for the Cause of Liberty. That is something worth watching.

      Report Post »  
    • Freedomluver
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 1:43pm

      Wouldn’t it be nice if the likes of Beck, Rush, or ANYONE in the media would ask the candidates just what their position is regarding the NDAA?

      The fact nobody is willing to ask this question clearly demonstrate the fact that they are all trying to pick the “chosen one” for us.

      What complete and utter corruption.

      Report Post » Freedomluver  
  • ThePostman
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:19am

    They forgot to ask him if he is still a cannibal. Maybe the blaze can do a follow-up and pin him down on that issue.

    Report Post »  
    • JustPeachy
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:24am

      I wish sometimes the candidates could start asking the media stupid questions and then rather than listening to what they say and accepting it, simply state what they want the answer to be–you know–just like the liberal media does. We need to begin turning the tables on the DUMB media! (And maybe begin starting up our own.. alternatives. . .). Sick to death of them, myself!

      Report Post » JustPeachy  
    • martinez012577
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:31am

      Im are sure they are working on finding a picture of Ron Paul shaking hands with one of the Uruguayan rugby team downed in the Andes to make a link to it now that you said it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571

      Report Post » martinez012577  
    • 3monkeysmomma
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:48pm

      HA! good one.

      Report Post » 3monkeysmomma  
  • Jude 4
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:18am

    People denouncing the bias subjectivity of this Halperin, while they encourage the same dishonesty from the neocons that marginalize Mr Paul.

    Report Post » Jude 4  
  • Welfare-Warfare State
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:17am

    The unspoken inference of the question is that Paul wants children to be uneducated. If only the government schools were educating in any real sense of the word.

    There is this notion that if the government wasn’t there we would all be illiterate derelicts sprawled out in a ditch somewhere. It‘s so comical that I can’t believe anyone falls for it.

    There are those that are stuck on the idea of government central planning and force. They can see no other way. I count Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich among that group.

    There is a natural intellectual curiosity in man. It is the government schools that beat it out of so many.

    I like Paul’s idea of a transition. We can take care of those that have become dependent due to government mandates while working to transition back to a voluntary welfare society and free markets. Government is not society. It attempts to replace it to bad effect.

    Those people who have a default position of government force can’t prove that community cooperatives, self-initiative, home-schooling, and private schools will fail. What there is proof of is that the compulsion of government and central planning efforts have failed miserably.

    What other politician is so forthright as Dr. Paul. You always know where he stands. His default position is liberty. It takes a lot to get him off of it. It’s far better than a default position of government compulsion. Those with the latter position never seem to learn. Stuck on Stupid.

    Report Post »  
    • junior1971
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:20am

      Well said.

      Report Post » junior1971  
    • RejectFalseIcons
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:27am

      Very well said.

      Report Post » RejectFalseIcons  
    • recoveringneocon
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:56am

      HOMESCHOOLING CHAMPION

      Ron Paul believes no nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family does.

      And the truth is, no big government spending program can or will solve our nation’s education problems.

      One-size-fits-all central planning simply does not work.

      As a congressman, Ron Paul has been a consistent supporter of homeschooling and educational freedom.

      Being a homeschooling parent takes a unique dedication to family and education.

      Report Post » recoveringneocon  
    • recoveringneocon
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:06pm

      PAULS PLAN FOR TAX CREDITS FOR HOMESCHOOLING

      In many cases, homeschooling families must forgo the second income of one parent, as well as incur the costs of paying for textbooks, computers, and other school supplies.

      And with combined taxes taking almost 50 percent of the average family’s income, there is little left over for low- and middle-class parents to even consider other educational opportunities.

      That’s why, during his time in Congress, Ron Paul has introduced legislation to:

      * Help parents better educate their children by providing parents with a $5,000 per child tax credit for tutors, books, computers, and other K-12 related educational needs.

      * Ensure that the federal government treats high school diplomas earned through homeschooling the same as other high school diplomas.

      Report Post » recoveringneocon  
  • ironchefjoel
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:17am

    Hear we go again, Ron Paul is making the most improvement of any canadite and since they don‘t have any dirt on him because he is the only canadidatte that sticks to his morals over all the years and hasn’t flip flopped like all the others. They try to trap him into saying something. The only problem is that Ron is smarter than all of them and they get mad because they can’t stop the Revolution!!!!! Ron Paul!! Ron Paul!! Ron Paul!!! All these other canadidates are slimmy polititians!! Out for their own pride and filling their own pockets on the side!!!! Speciall Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich… Look at their records and what they have done and you can’t deny it. So if you want the same old same old vote for those Morons!! I mean mormans…

    Report Post »  
    • joan k
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:15pm

      Exactly why the people who voted in NH said they voted for him based on his MORALITY and CONSERVATISM.

      Report Post » joan k  
  • SquareHead
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:14am

    The establishment RNC and DNC need to stop Ron Paul since he is the only one that cannot be bought.
    Click on link to see who is bought by lobbyist:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/lobbyist-donors/2011/10/27/gIQAEuFNNM_graphic.html

    Report Post »  
    • TheTrumanShow
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:41am

      That is too funny!!

      Ron Paul: $201 LOL

      I can’t think of a better graphic to show the corruption.
      By this measurement, Romney is 92,318% more corrupt than Paul. Now that tells you something.

      Report Post »  
  • Rob
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:09am

    Anyone that goes on Morning Joe knows what to expect. I think conservatives should just stay completely away from those loons.

    Report Post »  
    • JLGunner
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:18am

      Ron Paul is a libertarian not a conservative, but I agree.

      Report Post » JLGunner  
    • Roaran
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:27am

      Libertarianism is a government view and does not exclude a person from being a conservative.

      Ron Paul is easily the most conservative candidate, and if someone thinks he is not a conservative, explain how all the other progressive candidates are.

      Report Post »  
    • JustPeachy
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:35am

      Sometimes it seems as if people I’ve known who claim they hate labels, actually love them. . .

      Report Post » JustPeachy  
    • JLGunner
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:45am

      Ron Paul is a part-time Conservative. His policies, ideology and views are more in line with the Dem Party regarding most everything except the economy and a couple other domestic issues.

      Report Post » JLGunner  
    • Paulbot
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:50am

      Ron Paul is the only real fiscal conservative up there. All the other candidates will spend us into oblivion to achieve their agendas. Santorum is ready to go to war with the Middle East AGAIN. Romney loves Gov healthcare.
      Ron Paul is not a strict social conservative.

      Report Post »  
    • martinez012577
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:57am

      @JL

      Please point out the views Ron Paul has in common with the democrats.

      I am guessing you will say the pull back of our military from overseas wars and bases. Well that is inline with the beliefs of the founding fathers and they were for certain not democrats.

      Without a declaration of war you cannot set up a guide for victory. Why are we stuck in these countries. Its not based on a time table. It should be based on the conditions of victory outlined in the declaration of war. If Ron Paul is elected to president and Iran builds a bomb a declaration of war could be taken to the congress and allow them to vote on it. In that declaration it would outline our objectives. Once said objectives are complete, war is over come home. No nation building. No bomb someone then rebuild them. No overseas bases number in the 900 range in 130 countries.

      Report Post » martinez012577  
    • WiredRight
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:58am

      @JLGUNNER According to a study published in the American Journal of Political Science Ron Paul was the “most” conservative of all 3,320 members of Congress from 1937 to 2002 but you say that somehow he’s not a conservative. Care to explain that one?

      Report Post » WiredRight  
    • C. Schwehr
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:14pm

      WIREDRIGHT: Dr. Ron Paul is at heart a libertarian. He even ran a presidential campaign one year on the Libertarian Party ticket before returning to the repub party. His philosophy is more libertarian (especially concerning the Constitution and economis where he shines) than pure conservative and that shows mainly in his non-interventionist policies concerning the military. He is pure libertarian in that area and want’s to see the military scaled back severely…especially when it comes to elimination of our overseas presence (pulling our forces out of just about every foreign country and bringing the troops home for the first time in a century) and having the Navy as our only projection of power outside our own shores…….a wonderful concept if we didn’t have enemies who are building nuclear weapons with the absolute intent of using them on us and Israel in the near future.
      Gotta admit, I do agree in part with him on bringing the troops home…much of that is a hold-over from the Soviet cold war and is unnecessary now….but ignoring Iran? That’s where he loses me!

      Report Post »  
    • CptStubbing
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:27pm

      Ron Paul is:
      Pro-gun
      Pro-life
      Pro personal responsibility
      Wants to phase out entitlements
      Wants to cut government spending
      Wants to give back the states their 9th and 10th amendment rights
      Just to name a few

      Yet, somehow, he’s a democrat because he is anti-war, against policing the world and doesn’t think the government should be throwing aside the Bill of Rights?

      Wow. I didn’t realize the democrats changed their positions, I guess I am voting democrat now.

      Report Post »  
    • AxelPhantom
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 1:53pm

      There are two ways of looking at this: (Devils advocate)
      The Progressive Dems believe that:
      1) a woman should not be denied an abortion if that is her choice,
      2) that the use of drugs such as marijuana and heroine should be a choice
      3) that prostitution is simply a victimless crime where a woman/man decides to use his/her body as they see fit
      4) that you do not have the right to take the life of another person and play cop, judge and jury with the use of personal firearms
      5) they believe the state does not have the right to take a life via the death penalty
      6) they believe it is wrong to kill foreign enemies without a trial for the same reason as #5
      7) they are anti-imperialists and believe that wars fought on foreign soil are not defensive in nature and therefore unjustified killing of innocents
      8) they believe that the concept of “borders” is ridiculous and that all people should be free to live wherever they wish (immigration)
      9) they believe that marriage is an option for all people regardless of their sex
      10) they believe that tax money should not be used to bail out wealthy entities/people

      With the exception of #4 all of these are Libertarian stances shared by the Progressive Democrats although the reasoning for supporting the platforms is very different.

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 4:53pm

      @JLGunner

      Do you understand that Progressive means expanding Government and enlarging the powers therein, especially to advance some agenda or special interest, though such initiative is contrary to the limits and restraints found in the Constitution?

      Do you understand that Liberal means advocating for the Government to assume duties not implied in the Constitution, especially to promote some entitlement or social program, though no such Power has ever been delegated to the Government?

      Paul has never sponsored or written anything that even remotely resembles advancing or supporting a Progressive (more Big Government) law or Marxist (socialist and communist) agenda. Paul has never promoted anything to advance Globalism, never advocated for radicals to take over and cause mayhem in countries, never encouraged for international banks to control the world’s economies, and never supported globalist organizations. Paul has fought all those Marxist initiatives.

      Paul said, “In Congress, I never vote for any piece of legislation that violates the Constitution’s strict limits on government power. I also do not participate in the congressional pension system. As President, I give you my word that I will only exercise my authority within the confines of the Constitution, and I will work every day to rein in a runaway federal government by binding it with the chains of that d o c u m e n t.” http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/statement-of-faith/

      Report Post »  
  • KidCharlemagne
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:09am

    After a brief, pro forma “congratulations,” Halperin asked whether a President Paul would discontinue the federal Head Start program for early childhood development.
    ====================================================

    Well…..let’s check the U.S. Constitution to see if Head Start is actually constitutional first:

    Article I, Section 8 (Powers of Congress)
    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

    I don’t see Head Start mentioned anywhere in Article I, Section 8.

    Report Post »  
    • junior1971
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:19am

      I’m sure you could just run circles around this guy with your expertise in constitutional law. You are just another hack neo-bot.

      Report Post » junior1971  
    • Welfare-Warfare State
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:25am

      Most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. That doesn’t mean we can dismantle those things overnight. Paul is correct when he instructs that there must be a gradual transition. In the case of entitlement programs, the transition will have to be over decades.

      Report Post »  
  • republic2011
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:09am

    Well, at least they didn’t ask if he would outlaw condoms.

    Report Post »  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:16am

      Stephanopoulos wasn’t there to ask.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
  • 70mach
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:08am

    The Problem is No one thinks Ron Paul is Electable and is going to vote for Romney :( Romney will never get any Dems who are disillusioned with Obummer to vote for him because they think hes the next Bush, A warmonnger in thier eyes!! Only Paul will get those Dems!! Only Paul is going to get the Independents!!So quit believeing the paid MSM people and vote for the Only person who can beat Obama!! RON PAUL 2012 Before we no longer have a choice!!

    Report Post »  
    • Texas Chris
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 4:01pm

      I THINK HE’S ELECTABLE!!!!

      There’s also a poll out that Paul and Romney are both tied with Obama. Paul is surging, Romney dropping.

      Report Post »  
    • 70mach
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 5:02pm

      I was being sarcastic :) I think hes the only one who is Electable.

      Report Post »  
  • Timothy_Reid
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:01am

    LOL, nice work Dr. Paul. Don‘t tell me this guy can’t go head to head with toe-bama.

    Report Post »  
    • JLGunner
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:25am

      The last thing this was, was testy. I’m glad he threw it back but this was nothing compared to the handgranades comrad barack would throw.

      Report Post » JLGunner  
    • AmazingGrace8
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:28am

      Reminds me of this joke: Guy goes to the Country Doctor and says..”Doc, everytime I swing-my-arm-this way, it hurts”. Country Doc says,”Well, stop-swinging-your-arm-that-way.”
      Ron Paul says, like the ole’ country Doc, if the original-intent- system is failing, STOP “screwing-with-the-original-intent system (Constitution)”.
      Ron Paul 2012!

      Report Post »  
    • Timothy_Reid
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 3:18pm

      Just sayin it’s nice to see him call it like it is. When Oh hope for change has to go head to head with someone like that the distraction will be gone. Dr. Paul will make the magician show both his hands at the same time AND explain himself.

      Report Post »  
  • prmermen
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:59am

    good job..

    Report Post » prmermen  
  • justangry
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:54am

    Give’em hell Doc!

    Report Post » justangry  
  • the_ancient
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:54am

    I see with the Terrible Showing of The Blaze/Glenn Beck Choice Last night, Santorum, The “Truth that really does have an agenda” is out in force trying to stop Ron Paul Again

    It is Really sad, I once had High Hopes that the Blaze would actually be a beacon of truth, I can see now it is just a Voice for the Religious Right,

    Report Post » the_ancient  
    • dbkid6
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:59am

      I am not a member of the “religious right” and I have found The Blaze to be very fair and consistent. Sorry about your grudge.

      Report Post » dbkid6  
    • dbkid6
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:04am

      I am definitely not a member of the “religious right” whatever that may be, but I have found The Blaze to be fair and consistent. Before I first visited the website, my impression was that it would be a conservative leaning news/information source that would provide honest reporting and commentary. After several months of daily viewing, I have found this to be true.

      Report Post » dbkid6  
    • Detroit paperboy
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:08am

      I just cant picture a President Santorum, sorry, but he lost his last senate race by 20 points, Obamas billion dollar thugs would club him like a baby seal over that !!!! And he wants to get on with bombing Iran, he has said nothing about 1.6 trillion dollar annual deficet…. And everyone knows the president cant do squat about abortion, so why does that matter ? Its gonna take the courts to handle that one. However i will support whomever the nominee is !!!

      Report Post »  
    • My Two Cents
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:17am

      Since so many people love to throw around the moniker “religious right” there must be a “non-religious right” somewhere. How come nobody ever picks on them?

      Report Post »  
    • johnbarlycorn
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:19am

      I beg to differ with you on the Blaze being fair. As a part of a new corporate media outlet, the Blaze and other entities of the Mercury/ Glenn Beck stable have taken, do take, and no doubt will take, a decidedly biased view in presenting facts. It is very difficult to identify one scintilla of difference between this corporate outlet and the heretofore demonized mainstream media in terms of shading all information to suit an agenda. As an example, has any of the Beck group of companies and entities every said one word about Santorum’s links to the Capital Hill page scandal or his friendship and support for the Penn State pedophile? Not a peep. However, at every opportunity his corporate outlets belittle, demonize, ridicule, and attack Congressman Paul and in particular his supporters. The mask has worn thin on what once was going to be an alternative. It is now more of the same in the trappings of being better, true, and a place for conversation and debate. What a shame for this opportunity lost. By the way I am not a Congressman Paul supporter just a disaffected republican with the ability to tell when something has the stench of propaganda. Shame. Shame. Shame.

      Report Post »  
    • junior1971
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:27am

      As if the millons of readers on this sight are employed by Beck. You are the one who shares your hatred of people that wont see it your way when you talk about the religious right. Where is the religious left? Perhaps some ancient religion conveniently renamed liberalism. Let’s talk about seperation of Church and State because you and your kind are truly religious biggots.

      Report Post » junior1971  
    • JustPeachy
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:30am

      @Johnbarleycorn: I bet if Glenn and the rest–and The Blaze were totally enthralled with Ron Paul you’d have NO problem whatsoever with them.

      They didn’t particularly like my choice either–but I still think they’ve had pretty fair coverage.

      Some Ron Paul supporters seem to be extra sensitive about disagreements with and criticisms of their candidate.

      Report Post » JustPeachy  
    • martinez012577
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:43am

      @just

      No we are tired of this crap being forced down our throat. We had to deal with the same old thing and vote Mcain last time when everyone voted for the progressive that Rush, Hannity, and Oreilly wanted. But not this time. Its time for real Americans for vote and change our country the right way, because the next time its comes to needing real change its going to be with revolution. You can count on that. We are armed to the teeth and pissed off.

      Report Post » martinez012577  
    • johnbarlycorn
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 2:26pm

      @JUSTPEACHY
      I am sorry to disappoint you but I will say again I am not a Ron Paul suppoter. What I am is a disgusted viewer of the Glenn Beck media outlets. I was so accepting of the phrase “the truth has no agenda” that after a number of months being bombarded with clear distortions of facts about Congressman Paul, Mittens, and even Newtie, I had to point out the obvious: unfortunately Mr Beck’s corporations are a new twist on the same propaganda play. The only observable difference may be that Mr. Beck supports traditional values. At the end of the day propaganda is what it is and the agenda behind it does not change the facts – even if you agree with it. I do not wish to offend and if I have I do apologize. I believe what I have written here and I know that objective review of the facts support my claim. I had hoped Mr Beck and company would have been something more, unfortunately, they are not. Regards, JB

      Report Post »  
    • noczars
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 5:17pm

      It is very odd that The Blaze has been taken over by Ron Paul Crazies. Most Glenn Beck followers only READ the rediculous remarks from RP fans. It only takes one sentence to see they are RP fans. The Blaze IS news, it is just the RP crazies that are NOT news.

      Report Post » noczars  
  • Detroit paperboy
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:51am

    Both sides are deathly afraid of him…. He clearly threatens their cash flow….

    Report Post »  
  • TEIN
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:49am

    I am not Ron Paul fan, but I am glad he stood his ground and articulated his position..the MSM is beyond pathetic….trying to make a spin on the fly…

    Report Post »  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:04am

      I wouldn’t call myself a fan (yet) either but, the more you listen to him, the more sense he makes. I think it’s safe to say that we all know we need change in D.C., Does anyone really think Romney is the man to change anything?

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • The_Jerk
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:08am

      This is scary… I agree.

      Report Post »  
    • martinez012577
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:38am

      Look at the last two Blaze posts about Ron Paul. The Blaze has a agenda.

      Report Post » martinez012577  
    • TEIN
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 12:56pm

      To get true conservative change, it has to be a Pres. and a conservative Congress…Whether it is Paul or Romney or anyone else without the Congress to enact what is needed as well as a budget a Pres constitutionally can only do so…Hence trying to avoid the same setup as the current administration.

      Report Post »  
    • Snidely
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:06pm

      I agree with 90% of what Dr. Paul says, but I wish he understood the problem of radical Islam. It‘s the only reason I wouldn’t vote for him.

      Report Post » Snidely  
  • Obama Snake Oil Co
    Posted on January 11, 2012 at 10:48am

    Just like the questions about birth control and contraception….what is the point? Libterds, they are everywhere.

    Report Post » Obama Snake Oil Co  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:09am

      What do you expect from that “non partisan” midget Stephanopoulos? Why Republicans allow themselves to be moderated by hacks like that, I’ll never understand.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • Welfare-Warfare State
      Posted on January 11, 2012 at 11:22am

      Paul’s answer to the constitutionality of the question about contraceptives was the best. The Commerce Clause was intended to create a free trade zone among the states. This is one area where the federal government is given authority to ensure that the states don’t ban or place high tariffs on the free flow of goods across state lines.

      Does anyone remember that Romney deferred to Paul on this question at the debate the other night?

      Paul was the only one who knew the answer, and he answer it honestly and correctly.

      Anyone remember when the media kept repeating that Paul’s ceiling was 10%? Why did they constantly repeat that? They didn‘t try to drum that into the electorate’s head about any of the other candidates did they?

      There is still a real change, due to proportional delegates, that Dr. Paul can win so long as enough R’s wake up to the fact that only Paul can beat Romney.

      If the choice is between Romney and the other establishment R’s, then it‘s the equivalent of Obama’s second term. Nothing of substance will change with the others.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3 ... 6

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love