Ron Paul Raises $2.5 Million in Just Five Days in Latest ‘Money Bomb’ Fundraiser
- Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:08pm by
Tiffany Gabbay
- Print »
- Email »
In the last five days alone, Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign has raised an “off-the-chart” sum of money totaling more than $2.5 million. In his latest “money bomb” fundraiser, the GOP contender has garnered some 44,000 donations across 50 states thus far, and hopes to add another half-million dollars before the event’s conclusion. What is most interesting, perhaps, is that multiple small contributions comprise Paul’s growing stack of millions.
Speaking with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto on Tuesday, Paul said he’s very pleased with the fundraising outcome so far: “We still know we have a ways to go because sometimes we don’t get on the headline news.”
Paul also spoke about polls, explaining that while he never quite surges, his numbers continue a steady climb upward. Paul stated, “We are very steady,” he said, “[and] we haven’t lost ground, but we do need to prove ourselves. And that’s why we are working very hard in the early stages.”
Watch the entire interview below:
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 583 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 412 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 374 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 364 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 412 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 364 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (302)
Look4DBigPicture
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:26pmThis is an awful lot of money to raise in such a short time …. where’s it coming from? Something isn’t right. Is it possible some wealthy liberals are putting money behind him because they know he’ll look foolish in a debate with Obama. Heck … he looks foolish in a debate with people who agree with him on a lot of things.
I don‘t trust what’s happening. Ron Paul is a strong Constitutional Conservative with strong convictions, but he doesn’t have what it takes to be an effective POTUS. If this were the case, he’d be Speaker of the House or at least be in a more influential role in Congress.
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:09pmLiberals have a lot to gain with a Ron Paul Presidency. You think we have chaos now? Just think about the chaotic Liberal mind and what a Ron Paul Revolution would mean to them. It’s not a good scenerio.
Report Post »Fella
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:22pmlol, is there ever a reasoned response from any of the detractors? I think both of you need to go change your diaper and take your meds before your game show starts.
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:30pmOkay FELLA, I’ll clear it up for you so that you can clearly understand. I’ve posted this before… you must have missed it.
Ron Paul supporters are naïve about the range and perversity of human desires they propose to unleash. They can imagine nothing more threatening than a bit of Sunday-afternoon sadomasochism, followed by some recreational drug use and work on Monday. They assume that if people are given freedom, they will gravitate towards essentially [bourgeois] (not too tough a word for you right FELLA?) lives, but this takes for granted things like the deferral of gratification that were pounded into them as children without their being free to refuse. They forget that for much of the population, preaching maximum freedom merely results in drunkenness, drugs, failure to hold a job, and pregnancy out of wedlock. Society is dependent upon inculcated self-restraint if it is not to slide into barbarism, and libertarians attack this self-restraint. Ironically, this often results in internal restraints being replaced by the external restraints of police and prison, resulting in less freedom, not more.
Report Post »Fella
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:40pmYou have this bizzare fantasy that electing Ron Paul opens the floodgates of immorality and that there are no more laws and that government ceases to exist. Or that even your wildest ideas of whatever policy of Pauls you oppose would get us to this point. You are insane, that is not a reasoned response.
Report Post »KidCharlemagne
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 10:17pmYepImaConservative
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:30pm
They forget that for much of the population, preaching maximum freedom merely results in drunkenness, drugs, failure to hold a job, and pregnancy out of wedlock.
==============================================================
Most of that stuff happens already though in a limited freedom environment…..so what would really be any different then than the way it already is now?
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 1:03am@YepImaConservative All that you have said already is happening. What’s the point of your argument? Our solution is not more Government and the Nanny State. Last time I checked, our society and culture are in decline, while drugs and all sorts of bad things are prohibited and illegal. So please enlighten us. How is your alternative point of view helping or decreasing our society’s present immorality? Or, how is what we have in place now helping to decrease our society’s present immorality? The answer to our problems is getting rid of all these ‘we know whats best for you’ progressive laws. We need God back in our lives, not Government in our lives. A religious revival and a fear of God is the answer, not more bureaucratic legislating. Our ills in society have been caused by a departure from God in our private and public lives, and disobeying his perfect Word. We must choose to good and act upon a virtuous character of self dependence, self reliance, and individual responsibility. If you want to really seek solutions, I suggest you pick up a bible and go to your local church or neighborhood meetings ground and preach on.
Report Post »sambachico
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:02amRon Paul is against the corporate-fascist state who picks the winners and losers in this country. Do you really think most congressman and senators are moral people? They are more opportunists on enriching themselves than being principled. That’s why Paul has never passed a bill, as his bills are always aimed at limiting government interference and influence. If you want to continue harping on the earmarks it’s quite simple – he believes taxation is theft and he wants to return as much of the loot stolen from his constituents as possible. Would you rather have money not allocated from the federal budget returned to the executive branch for their special little piggy bank? I would rather have it go back to the states where it won’t be used for tyranny.
@ YEP – your notion of freedom isn’t freedom. Man is a flawed being and government cannot resolve this. Your screen name should be YEPIMASTATIST instead of a conservative. As a Christian I don’t agree with many behaviors people do, but it is not my place to tell them how to live either. Laws have never changed the morality of man, only God can change a man’s heart and improve his character/morality. It’s people w/ the holier than thou-attitude like yourself that sincerely believe their world-view is supreme and should pertain to all others, not much different than the liberal democrat statists wanting to employ social justice. FYI – Everyone has a lot to gain with a Ron Paul presidency – like individual lib
Report Post »Norm D. Plume
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:26pmNo article about Paul having won the Ohio Straw Poll over the weekend?
53% Paul
28% Cain
8% Romney
4% Gingrich
…
I think those were the numbers. I know the Paul number is about right, for sure.
But no mention of it, eh?
Funny.
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:47pmYou would be right!
Ron Paul 53.50%
Report Post »Herman Cain 25.47%
Mitt Romney 8.88%
Newt Gingrich 5.37%
Rick Perry 2.80%
Jon Huntsman 2.10%
Rick Santorum .93%
Michele Bachmann .47%
Write-In .47%
YepImaConservative
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:57pmThat‘s because they’re pretty much insignificant. Fred Thompson won with 33% in 2007.
Report Post »SavingtheRepublic.com
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:27pm~^~v~~^~~v~^~
@YepImaConserv
LOL So true.. careful now for saying that you are a neocon, sheep, shill for the zionists controlled republicans etc. Surprised Paul followers havent gone in full OBAMA style attack mode at you for saying that! I was at another site and they are beyond vicious and vile towards anyone talking down this poll! One even commented they would have driven HOURS to cast a vote. Thats epitomizes how useless straw polls have become. Like Occupy movement organizing here and there the Paul followers are doing the same for straw polls… pretty sad. Oh I guess I am a neocon, zionist for the right & republicants now too for responding in favor of YepIma!http://SavingtheRepublic.com TAPGW
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:45pmThe headlines would have been easy to miss regarding Paul because they were written like this.
CAIN WINS SECOND IN OHIO STRAW POLL
It goes on to talk about Romney and Perry with Paul almost scrubbed from MSM notice.
But it doesn’t matter. There are a bunch of people in the State selling Paul and Cain as the frontrunners.
http://davidkretzmann.com/2011/10/ron-paul-wins-ohio-straw-poll-with-53/
Report Post »kralspaces
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:48pmI knew very little about Ron Paul before this week-end and after viewing every video I could find on him as far back as the early ‘90’s, I now have a new favorite.
Report Post »jb.kibs
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 9:38pmyeah they are meaningless when Ron Paul wins them…
even though, “No Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio.”
Search YouTube for Ron Paul sometime, watch a few videos…
Report Post »He is right… and he’s been fighting for our liberties for 30+ years… he’s been filing law suits on our behalf of our constitution… he’s got more experience and knowledge than most of the congress combined… lobbyists don’t even approach him, he has never voted to raise the congressional salary, he does not partake in the congressional pension plan (our tax dollars) … he’s going to lower the salary of the president to match that of the national average … the list for his credibility is endless…
verilite
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 9:41pmIts sort of hard to keep track of how many he has come in first on because they never put it in the news .I know he came in first on the Bloomberg/ Washington Post debate at 88% but you could hear a pin drop about it.
I think that makes eleven firsts for him. Anyway I know he has come in first place more than any other candidate.
Report Post »Susie Liberty
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 10:01pmThank you for posting that, Norm. I’d seen the poll numbers – somewhere – and these results are so important to dispel the notion that he‘s not doing well that’s often floated by Corporate Media – OR THEY SIMPLY IGNORE HIM! (Makes them bonkers that he BELONGS to NO CORORATE LOBBY – and is NOT FOR SALE!)
Just so pleased to see coverage on Ron Paul HERE!
Report Post »booger71
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 10:19pmMaybe Ron can run for the Straw President since that is the only thing he can win outside his own district.
Report Post »IndyNWguy
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 10:31pm@Republicorp
Report Post »Why are you so afraid of the truth? Lumping RP in w/ Code Pink is the ultimate act of desperation and dishonesty.
I‘m beginning to think you’re a sock puppet for a very scared Ecinom (or whatever his/her name is)
jb.kibs
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 10:34pm1. Michele Bachmann (4,823 votes/28.6%)
2. Ron Paul (4,671 votes/27.7%)
August 20, 2011 – New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll
1. Ron Paul (45%)
2. Mitt Romney (10%)
August 27, 2011 – Georgia State GOP Straw Poll
1. Herman Cain (26%)
2. Ron Paul (25.7%)
September 12, 2011 – Cincinnati Tea Party Straw Poll
Before the debate, Ron Paul came first, Rick Perry came second.
After the debate, Ron Paul was still first. CNN have not released the full results of this poll, instead holding an online poll which OMITTED Ron Paul from the choices.
September 17 – California GOP Straw Poll
1. Ron Paul (44.9%)
2. Rick Perry (29.3%)
October 7–9, 2011 – Values Voter Straw Poll
1. Ron Paul (36.9%)
2. Herman Cain (22.5%)
October 13, 2011 – RPLAC Straw Poll
1. Ron Paul (53.4%)
2. Herman Cain (14.6%)
October 22, 2011 – Ohio GOP Swing State Straw Poll
Report Post »1. Ron Paul (53.50%)
2. Herman Cain (25.47%
jb.kibs
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 10:37pmRepubliCorp
Report Post »do a little homework… we give more aid to anti-israel nations than to israel. on top of that, we don’t let israel defend themselves… look it up… Ron Paul was one of few who condoned Israel bombing Iran…
TheBMT
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 11:09pmactually it was 2 days… but who is counting?
Report Post »Susie Liberty
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 11:10pmMust re-acquaint myself with this format and regret that I can‘t reply to an individual’s post, but WHY are the remarks on here so ‘harsh’ re Ron Paul supporters? And some seem angry that we might want to express ourselves on an article/subject re the candidate we support?
Was on a thread yesterday on another website that ended up with almost 4K posts re Dr. Paul and the Student Loan Program. Several ppl commented it was the most courteous/informative exchange they’d ever had on a thread.
If there‘s a ’secret’, please share with me, in order that I may return some day or simply know to stay away. (And BTW, not RP Supporters; rather, the harsh comments are from his detractors.)
Report Post »metalurgy
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 11:12pmCan’t wait till the primaries and Paul comes sweeping in from nowhere. I’ll be bringing my five silver half ounce Ron Paul NORFED $25 Paul Dollars to the party. “Gold Standard in Leadership” Honost Government in 2012.
:-)
Report Post »cous1933
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 11:51pmKralspaces,
Report Post »Thank you for doing actual research and not buying into all of the misleading slander and misrepresentation of policy that Dr. Paul is subject to on so-called “conservative” media (including The Blaze). I believe that any rational conservative who would do the same research would come to the realization that Ron Paul is the real conservative in the race and is actually the only candidate that offers real solutions to the problems that face America.
If I may recommend more sources for good info on Ron Paul, please look at lewrockwell.com (a great archive of Ron Pauls written articles), Jack Kerwick (under the “opinion” tab) at NewAmerican.com, Tom Woods.com, and of course Ron Pauls own books like Liberty Defined, Revolution, A Manifesto, and End The Fed for starters.
Br@dley
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 12:04amright? the truth lives here my a**.
and it was over 2.75 million. i donated twice.
Report Post »veracity79
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 12:22am@Susie
The secret is that the Republican supporters here go on the attack with falsehoods and try to call out the Paul supporters for being like the left. Yet their very words make THEM like the left. Look at the ‘savingtherepublic” comment. They try to marginalize and deflect by saying that they will be called neocons.
If you look up the definition neocon, it is your ideology that makes you one, not the fact that you do not support Ron Paul. If you think we are the world’s police and nation builders; no amount of preemptive deflection will change the word that best describes your position.
It is one thing to claim that code pink counts RP (he can’t stop them from saying that) and another to say he supports Palestine over Israel. OWS are the people calling the elite Zionist Jews, not Ron Paul. Additionally, I am Jewish and there is a big difference between Zionist and Jewish. It’s Fox, Beck and conservatives that support the federal reserve system, who claim that talking of Zionists is anti-Semitic. There are many white Zionists.
The right has adopted the tactics of the left to marginalize RP supporters. In doing so, they accept the main trait of the left… hypocrisy.
To the poster that cites “urban dictionary” for the definition of necon? Please. Cain supporter and constitutional moderate? Fiat money and a private bank printing our money is forbidden by the constitution. You are a progressive.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 6:55amINDYNWGUY Birds of a feather……… live with it
http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2011/09/30/ron-paul-cair-and-the-aclu-agree-killing-al-awlaki-was-wrong-2/
Jackers
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 7:50amRon Paul is a rare breed indeed when it comes to politics because Ron Paul is an actual HONEST politician!
Ron Paul stands firm on the Constitution, the rule of law, and what works best for America. For 30 years, Ron has consistently voted according to the Constitution; and he is not one of your typical “bought and paid for” politicians.
Ron Paul is the only running candidate who offers America any real chance for real change with common sense solutions to our current crises.
The more FOX News and the rest of our government propaganda/media tried to ignore Ron Paul, the more Americans started listening to what he had to offer. Now these political pundits have no choice but to acknowledge Ron, and it pains them to do so…
The American people are tired of the usual “two-party/one-party” scam! The fact that Ron keeps winning polls and surveys nationwide, straw polls, and money bombs proves that Americans aren’t as “uneducated” or gullible as our political elites would like…
Americans are sending our establishment politicians and their media pundits a loud and clear message – The gig is up, we’re tired of the status quo, and we’re ready for real and positive change.
Ron Paul is the only one who can offer the true changes that we truly need to get America back on track.
Report Post »techengineer11
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 11:05amPaul is the only candidate who will advocate for Liberty and stand up for the Constitution. That’s why the Marxist on the left and in the Media and the Neo-Cons on the right hate him so much.. They coudln’t actually allow a candidate that stands up for the US Constitution to become President could they?
Please get over your blood lust Neo-Cons and get behind Dr. Paul.. Even if slaughtering Arabs and occupying their Nations was the thing to do the fact still remains that we are absolutely broke! We can’t afford it any longer.. Furthermore, what is it accomplishing? Nothing but creating more radicalization! Give it up please for the sake of our Nation!
Report Post »ClassicalLiberal
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 11:14amRP is the only guy I will consider voting for in either party. He is the man.
Report Post »TheBMT
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 1:13pmSooo Republicorp, is it ok to kill you with a predator drone if the us govt deems you a threat?
Is it ok that Al-waki’s son was also killed, who was a non-combatant and also an American citizen?
Should we just start using drones all across america taking out drug gangs, mafia members, cars driving to fast for the cops to catch- call in a drone strike.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 5:02pm@REPUBLICORP Hahahahaha. These desperate slanderous tidbits you provide are becoming really funny. You never debate, discuss, or argue any of your points or issues with facts or reputable sources. You just throw anything against Paul and hope it will stick to the uniformed or gullible. You try to slander Paul by falsely associating him with other groups or persons. Let’s get something straight. When you try to blame or put fault at one person through the association he holds to others, in all cases, there must be an actual association. For example. Obama attended the radical leftist church of Reverend Wright for 20 years. Rev. Wright was Obama’s pastor. Rev. Wright even baptized Obama’s family. Etc. Obama has an actual association with the church and is personally acquainted with the Reverend. Wherefore, reasonable accusations through association may be put against him. On the other hand, what you provide, is nothing more than hearsay and slander. Paul has never been associated or affiliated with the groups or persons connected to CAIR or the ACLU. The fact that the ACLU has fought in some cases for private rights or personal privacy does not mean that everyone who believes in private rights or personal privacy agree or share the same philosophy or intent as those groups. Paul’s positions are based on Law and the Constitution. He has no desire to influence his decisions on personal interests or agendas, as do sometimes the ACLU or CAIR.
Report Post »Timothy_Reid
Posted on October 27, 2011 at 8:29am@republicorp I looked at your link. The issue they all had was the suspense of Due Process. I believe I read somewhere that we had a right to that…..now where was that……..oh I remember…..the 5th Amendment in the Bill of Rights……silly me….
Report Post »Timothy_Reid
Posted on October 27, 2011 at 8:32am@ everyone who opposes Paul If you have a problem with the guy, fine. Your right to do so. But please stop having a problem with the guy because he wants to use the Constitution as the set of rules by which the country should be governed………..Do your homework!
Report Post »LIBS-ARE-DINGLEHEADS
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:18pmMy Prediction:
2012 Election:
Obama: 27%
Paul: 41%
Romney: 32%
Popular vote…you heard it first here. Bronze this post if the numbers hit.
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:36pmWrong! If Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate it would look like this.
Obama 47%
Paul 12%
Romney 38%
Ala Ross Perot gave us slick Willie Clinton.
If Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate he will A: Be a liar B: Confirm our beliefs about him.
Report Post »c0mm0nsense
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:52pmOr did the people who voted for Slick Willy give us ……ahhh Slick Willy?
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:08pm@OoksPay
You are wrong. Ron Paul would steal Obama voters (10%) and Republican voters (10%) and keep his 20% leading to 40%.
Your analysis doesn’t factor correctly because you are biased.
Secondly, think what you want of Ron Paul. I hope he does run 3rd party if not nominated. The other Republicans are corrupt flip flopping cronies and can be easily seen in their record.
You put Romney, Perry, Cain on the ticket:
Obama 60%
Republican 40%
As bad as Obama is disliked now, those 3 are even more disliked by the general public. Wake up!
Report Post »KidCharlemagne
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:16pmOokspay
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:36pm
Wrong! If Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate it would look like this.
Obama 47%
Paul 12%
Romney 38%
Ala Ross Perot gave us slick Willie Clinton.
If Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate he will A: Be a liar B: Confirm our beliefs about him.
==============================================
Looks like you’d better be sure to vote for Ron Paul then in the primary, ’cause I know a whole lot of folks that ain‘t gonna’ vote for either one of the other two liberals that the corporate media has selected for us to choose from.
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 10:41pm@Okie, How do you think Ron Paul would “keep” his 20%? I have never seen him above single digits even in the primary polls.
Should RP win the GOP nomination, I will vote for him and wholeheratedly back him as our nominee. Will you guys do the same? Or will you take your ball and go home?
Report Post »jb.kibs
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 10:48pm1. Michele Bachmann (4,823 votes/28.6%)
2. Ron Paul (4,671 votes/27.7%)
August 20, 2011 – New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll
1. Ron Paul (45%)
2. Mitt Romney (10%)
August 27, 2011 – Georgia State GOP Straw Poll
1. Herman Cain (26%)
2. Ron Paul (25.7%)
September 12, 2011 – Cincinnati Tea Party Straw Poll
Before the debate, Ron Paul came first, Rick Perry came second.
After the debate, Ron Paul was still first. CNN have not released the full results of this poll, instead holding an online poll which OMITTED Ron Paul from the choices.
September 17 – California GOP Straw Poll
1. Ron Paul (44.9%)
2. Rick Perry (29.3%)
October 7–9, 2011 – Values Voter Straw Poll
1. Ron Paul (36.9%)
2. Herman Cain (22.5%)
October 13, 2011 – RPLAC Straw Poll
1. Ron Paul (53.4%)
2. Herman Cain (14.6%)
October 22, 2011 – Ohio GOP Swing State Straw Poll
1. Ron Paul (53.50%)
2. Herman Cain (25.47%
that is because the media is lying. as if you didn’t already know… come on.. look up the straw poll results if you don’t believe these… these are as is…
Report Post »JustJerry
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 11:38pm@Ookspay
quote: Should RP win the GOP nomination, I will vote for him and wholeheratedly back him as our nominee. Will you guys do the same? Or will you take your ball and go home?
I will take my ball and go home. Once you have been bitten by the bug of liberty, it is well…liberating. No longer will I contribute to the uni-party system. I don’t see it as Republicans vs Democrats, I see it as freedom vs oppression.
I will give Republicans some credit tho, they will slow down the self destruction of our country.
I will not easily forget the failed policies of the Bush/Cheney administration. Fox News and other conservative media are already setting the stage to make them sound as tho they were “iconic” leaders. No matter how they try to rewrite it, I remember who said Iraq had WMD’s, I remember who supported the Patriot Act and I remember who supported the bailouts.
I use the word “I” a lot as I only speak for me.
JJ
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 1:07am@OoksPay
You actually think Romney or Perry wouldn’t continue down the same path as Clinton, Bush, and Obama? Hahahahahahaha!
I will not vote for either. I will either write in Ron Paul or not vote lowering the Republican voting base. If 20% or as you say “10%” do not vote because the Republican party will not listen to their base and keep putting up Progressive flip floppers then the Republican Party deserves to lose.
And if you have any honesty, you know there is way more then 10% support for Ron Paul.
So Yes, I’ll take my ball and go home if ignored thru the primaries. I’ll let you progressives duke it out over the game of who will destroy the country first, Obama or Romney/Perry. I cannot be a part of that game. Anyone with honor wouldn’t be a part of that game. Have a good night!
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 1:18am@OOKSPAY,
He’d keep his 20% because people like me are sick and tired of voting between a Bush and Gore, Bush and Kerry, or a McCain and Obama. If Ron Paul doesn‘t make the cut in the Republican party primary and isn’t allowed on my ballot as an independant… I will write his name and what I nominate him for in sharpie all the way across the front of my ballot and sign and I’ll even staple a copy of my voter registration card to it so that there is not doubt that an actual voting citizen wanted to vote for a real candidate and a politician.
I did like Cain until he stopped supporting the FairTax and I realized that the only reason I wanted Cain to win was so that we could compete with the black man already in office. I’ve since learned my lesson, and although I think Cain would be a better president than Obama dreams he is, Ron Paul is the only man I will vote for for president. So to me, it is you who seems to be the spoiler. It is because of people like you that we never get a true candidate of the people and the most bland and spineless politicians get elected over and over.
P.S. I’m also an Okie, though not from Muskogee.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 1:32amIf we get another McCain/Obama ticket, we’re doomed. Not enough conservatives will show up, again. I stayed home for the 2008 election. It wasn’t worth the time walking to the voting booth to vote for either of two progressives. I don’t compromise. Our problem is not us, it’s the compromises. They set a precedent of it being acceptable in nominating a lesser evil. For those saying just hold your nose when voting for our nominee, I say, you can only hold your nose for so long, before you begin to drown and die. I rather hold my own and not surrender.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 1:34am*I rather hold my own and not surrender. – I rather hold my own ground and not surrender.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 7:08am“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” (A. Lincoln)
Report Post »CHULAIGUY
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 11:54amWinning the Popular vote does not mean you win the Election. Electorial College votes are what are counted.
Report Post »TheBMT
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 1:17pmwho said Paul is running 3rd party? I expect IF paul wins, that a republican will run 3rd party.
Report Post »sambachico
Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:55am@ OOK
I won’t be voting for Romney anyways. I did that in 2008 and won’t be doing it again. Dr. Paul has my vote. If the Republicrats continue to settle for the lesser evil, they will continue this madness as many Paul supporters aren’t going along with it. For me it’s not anybody but Obama, but anybody who will actually reform the monetary system and the corporate fascist state. The other candidates besides Paul will simply continue this madness of nation building, militarism and continue propping up the banking cartel we call the fed (especially Cain). I’ve read your posts and you seem like a man who understands the reality. Most of us Paul supporters will not be going along with the Republican establishment. It’s about principles and conscience. The worst thing that could happen is that some fascist Republican gets elected and the people become passive again, simply ping ponging the election cycle from Democrat to Republican without any real change every 2-4 years.
Report Post »Rajabear1
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:12pmI am happy for him. I personally don’t feel like he is the right choice for pres, but I do believe he’s on the right path for almost all of our domestic policy and make an awesome pick as a Cabinet member such as Treasury I would also say Homeland security, but hopefully departments like that will be Xed out. His foreign policies worry me quite a bit, though. I am quite happy to see as BIG MONEY stuffs the coffers of Mitt and Perry that candidates that are more aligned with the Constitution are receiving money from the smaller donations of ‘we the people’ that will be voting. My gut says that all this talk of who‘s going to go the distance because of their ’war chests‘ isn’t going to mean a thing this year. It won’t be pounding us with ads that wins the vote this time. Hopefully…
Report Post »escape_from_socialism
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:30pmOk, you and others are saying same thing. “I’m like 95% agree with Ron Paul, but Iran”. It is like talking points. I will like to know your position on Iran. Tell me, I’m the Paulboot. I want to know what is better strategy with Iran then Ron Paul’s.
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:42pmBetter strategy you ask? Allow Israel to bomb the pi$$ out of them. With lots of intelegence help from the US.
If you had a next door neighbor who hated you and said someday he will kill you and your entire family. Then one day you noticed that he was building a huge cannon and it was pointed right at your house. Then everyday while he was working on it, he would yell “I hate your effing guts and I am gonna kill you all”. Would you wait until his weapon was completed?
Report Post »C0mmonMan
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:42pmWith Paul’s stance on Foreigh Policy, Isreal would be more than capable of bombing Iran. As far as Paul’s concerned, Isreal has a soveriegn right to protect itself however it chooses. I think Isreal has intel covered, we probably get half OUR intel from THEM, especially with a security oriented government. Paul believes in the Constitution to the letter. He’s the only guy saying “What gives me the right” .. all the others are worried about what the other guy is doing or coming up with some new tax gimic trying to slide in reduntant taxes (Cain looking at you)..
Paul believes in me making decisions for myself and that I have more of an interest in my own success than bureacrats in DC, go figure, that‘s what I’m about too.. novel concept I know.
No fed? Love it.. No income tax? Sounds better than 9-9-9.. Bring all our troops home and let countries fight their own wars? Don’t see a downside there.. might even actually help our border issue, which is what the Army’s first duty of protection lies.. Can‘t tell me it makes sense to have over 700 military installations over the world and can’t secure our own borders…
I know most on here are just like me and believe you are well educated and make good enough decisions and when you make bad ones you learn from it and drive on. Most probably want as little government intrusion as possible in your life.. That alone is worth my vote for Paul.
Report Post »cor2879
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 9:18pmlol Israel doesn’t need intelligence help from us. Everyone who has studied the international spy game even a little knows that Mossad is the most respected spy agency in the world. They help us with intelligence, not the other way around.
All the so-called conservatives who are stuck on big government candidates can only come back with “Ron Paul is nuts”. Let’s have a discussion on substance because I guarantee that if you are backing one of the other candidates and we are talking about what is Constitutional, you will lose.
Report Post »jb.kibs
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 9:46pmOokspay, brother… research Ron Paul… he VOTED FOR Israel to Bomb Iran…
it is the USA and our “AID” to them which is keeping that tight CHAIN around their necks. we aren’t letting Israel bomb Iran because are entangled with the UN… look it up…
… Paul is for exactly what you say…
Report Post »jacket time
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 10:13pmI love how some people call for the bombing of Iran.
That would be wild to see Israel nuke Iran.
A non signatory of the non-proliferation treaty with nukes;
Bombing a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty that doesn’t have nukes
When is the last time Iran declared war and attacked another country in the past couple hundred years?
60% of Iran‘s population is under 30 and don’t go to church.They are Pro-Western.
Concerned about Iran getting a “bomb”
Report Post »More like they are enriching uranium in their American Built medical isotope reactors for research.
jb.kibs
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 10:47pmit wasn’t really calling for israel to nuke them. it was a vote on whether we let israel defend themselves. instead the UN handled it… and how did that work out for us?
Report Post »Fella
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 11:15pmOur entire military isn’t just going to disband and intelligence gathering agencies go away. Thats all just fear mongering BS. We have got Israels back.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 11:43pmPaul said that if Israel feels threatened by Iran that they should go right ahead and take care of them. And that if they are in need of aid and ask for help that he would not decline. He supported Israel when they bombed Iraq’s facilities, when many others didn’t. He wrote a constitutional Letter of Marque to go after Bin Laden and his minions. He co-sponsored a bill to go into Afghanistan to capture those responsible for terrorist attacks, like Al Qaeda. He urged Congress and the federal administration to go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden, when most other officials doubted he was even there. He is in favor of Pilots being armed and ready for defense, and that we should profile and investigate real suspects in an airport.
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 1:30am@OOKSPAY,
It is obvious that you do not believe in the idea of sovereignty. Iran is a sovereign nation like it or not. There is nothing that we can or should do to prevent them from doing what they want with their own resources and human labor. If they want a nuke, fine. We have had nukes for nearing on 3/4 of a century and so has Russia. Add to that China, Pakistan, India, UK, France, and a great number of other countries and then add the fact that none but us have ever used such a weapon in hostility on an enemy and the facts of the matter are that the destruction and death caused by such a weapon are their own deterent for their use.
If you say that we have a “right” to tell any other sovereign nation what it can or cannot have in terms of weaponry is hypocritical at best and opens us up to the like of the UN, which I will assume for now that you enjoy since you so much think that there is not such a thing as national sovereignty.
I’d hate to hear what you think of individual sovereignty. I‘m afraid you don’t like the idea that people have inalienable rights.
This video was created to teach children the principles of Liberty. That said, it is a good primer on what true Liberty is and more importantly, what it is not.
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Jeff65
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 4:02am@OOKSPAY You say “ALLOW” Israel to bomb Iran. Ron Paul’s position is that Israel should be treated as sovereign nation and that they should not need to get permission from the US to do anything. He has publicly stated a few times that if Israel wants to take out Iran’s nuclear facility, it is their business and that “we have no business interfering with their affairs”.
Is that good enough for you?
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 6:17amDr. Paul defines: What is liberty?
Very eye-opening
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr2WGTVKCCE
Report Post »Dismayed Veteran
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 11:47amJACKET
Iran and Iraq fought a bloody war in the 90′s.
Report Post »OperationNorthwoods
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:12pmHey there chuck. American conservatism didn’t start after ww2. It started after the Constitution was ratified and idiotic progressives started to try to weaken it and misinterpret it. Those who wished to conserve its principals became conservatives. And those on the other side such as yourself became progressives. Simple enough for you.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:51pmYour post didn’t reply to mine. No problem. I will reply to yours. First of all, I’m not really sure where you get the idea that i am any sort of “Progressive”, but if it gives you a comfy feeling, then by all means enjoy it.
The point I present is that Ron Paul is the biggest NEOCON in the race.
The Rationale:
Ever since the end of WWII, American political “Conservatism” has had three aspects:
(1) On the economy — pro growth as opposed to redistribution of wealth
(2) On defense/foreign policy — strong military and face off against our enemies abroad
(3) On morality — support laws and policies that are “pro family” and “pro morality” such as restrictions on abortion and dangerous drugs.
A few years ago, Ron Paul would have been described as a “libertarian” (not such a bad label — the first time I voted for president was for Ed Clark in 1980). Now (as I read the posts on the Blaze), Ron Paul is described as a “conservative”. Since Ron Paul is a new (“neo” in Greek) sort of “conservative” (i.e., and old sort of Libertarian), then he is a “neo conservative’ — or, for short, a “Neocon.“ If Pualistas can usurp the term ”conservative” to apply to a libertarian, I chose to play the same game and use “neocon’ to apply to a libertarian.
Now, as far as your attempt to go back to the 18th century American political definitions: those in favor of the Constitution were not called “conservatives” they were
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 10:54pmActually, Paul is more of an old Conservative. As most have said here, they agree with about 95% of what Paul said, but disagree on his foreign policy. Our so called Conservative foreign policy today is in fact a leftist policy. Read this article http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/25/was-bill-buckley-a-foreign-policy-leftist/ Paul’s position on issues concerning foreign policy are based on constitutional principles. For example, he believe we should adhere to the federal Constitution and pass in Congress a Declaration of War, if we want to go to war. He believes immediate war is permissible but only according to the Constitution’s limit of going to war, wherein we are actually invaded, or are in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. In fact, George Bush‘s foreign policy was exactly the same as Paul’s today, he was running on a Conservative platform, and got elected for this reason. Please see this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc
Report Post »nationalcalvin
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 11:21pm@operationnorthwoods
I like Ron Paul, but I do have a few questions concerning his interpertation of the Constitution?
1. Where does he get that non citizens on foregin lands have constitutional rights?
2. Where does he get that it’s not constitutional for the Federal Government to force you to buy something, but it is constitutional for the State government to force you to buy something?
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 11:56pm@nationalcalvin When did he say State’s can force you to buy something? I’m pretty sure he said that was unconstitutional in a previous debate. He did not say non-citizens have constitutional rights, but that we have an obligation to follow the Rule of Law and to respect the rights of others. In other words, treat others as you would like to be treated. He’s very dedicated to following the Constitution and its principles. He actually believes all men are created equally free and independent, and must stand before a competent court of Justice, before convicted of crimes. We’re not tyrants or uncivilized men. As regards to terrorists and prisoners of war, we have military tribunals to deal with them. They are still, irregardless of how we might personally feel towards them, afforded a fair trial. Not because we feel sorry for them or hold some favor or compassion towards them, but because we want to protect our rights and those rights of the innocent. It was not too long ago that Big Sister and the DHS labeled returning American veterans as “domestic terrorists”. And it was not too long ago that Obama ordered the assignation of a US citizen. Jeesh, here’s a politician who actually believes all men are created equal, and that they should be allowed to stand trial before loosing life and liberty. Unbelievable.
Report Post »nationalcalvin
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 12:13am@COLT1860
In the debate when he was asked if the State mandate was constitutional he said it was, Bachman said it wasn’t.
While I agree with you that prisoners of war do have the protection of military tribunals, terrorists do not. If you are not wearing a uniform on the battlefield you do not get any protections of the Geneva convention.
I may be wrong, but I think Paul feels that anyone captured by the Military has their Miranda rights.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 1:26amWell, if you’re captured in the battlefield, your a prisoner. It is in our modern liberal world, in which, we have created new terminologies and procedures for “terrorists”. Paul is sympathizing with real terrorists but is trying to protect American citizens who would be called terrorists. That’s the whole point. His stance has been distorted to mean he supports terrorist rights, or something like that. Not true. Like Paul has pointed out before, who decides who’s a terrorists. To prove my point. See this very recent article by the Blaze http://www.theblaze.com/stories/georgia-birther-convicted-in-plot-to-take-over-tenn-courthouse/ It exactly outlines what Paul is concerned about. To quote the article a bit,
“AP writes that Huff tearfully told the jury Friday that he was humiliated because “my government has called me a potential domestic terrorist.”
As far as I know, Paul is the only candidate right now who is actually for protecting US Citizens and concerned about the abuse of Government towards American patriots.
Paul sees all these issues first, considering, how can this effect Americans.
Report Post »nationalcalvin
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 1:37am@Colt
You’re talking about two different things I agree that any American citizen has constitutional rights, I’m talking about terrorist on the battlefield, they do not have Geneva rights nor constitutional rights.
I do agree that it was unconstitutional for Obama to assissinate Al Alawaqui or whatever his name was because he was an American citizen, but I’m not talking about American citizens.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 1:56am@NATIONALCALVIN I meant to say, “Paul is NOT sympathizing with real terrorists but is trying to protect American citizens who would be called terrorists.” It seems both of us agree to that.
As for real foreign terrorists. Which is your question. I repeat, its within our new modern liberal world, wherein we have created new terms and procedures for “terrorists”. In the past, in most cases, anyone captured in war was considered a prisoner, and afforded the right of being rightfully judged, convicted, and punished. The treatment today of so called “terrorists” is new. We may now hold captured persons or terrorists indefinitely without trial. This sets a whole new precedence and argument, for which the US never did nor dealt with before. I mean, if you were at war, you either killed your enemy in self defense, or captured and brought him before the Authorities. We’re not a Marxist government either, wherein we just line them up and shoot them in the head, without any sort of legal proceeding or fair judgement. The best way to deal with terrorists is by the constitutional Letters of Marque and Reprisal, wherein we basically put a bounty on their head, and may capture them dead or live. Fair judgment has been made beforehand in determining they are an imminent threat or danger to our security. Jefferson did this in dealing with the Barbary pirates. Our Constitution has everything we need in dealing with problems concerning Government involvement and foreign threats.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 3:12am@@NATIONALCALVIN We don’t have constitutional rights. We only have rights secured or guaranteed by the Constitution. The constitution does not grant, at its mercy, rights to anyone. It only confers certain Powers Government may have, and further restrains the Government, not the people. Another thing to consider, once you’re labeled a terrorist, it does not matter much to our Government whether you’re foreign or domestic. The Patriot Act was made for that purpose, to target everyone, irregardless of nationality or residence, even if you are an American. Which, may I remind anyone reading this, Obama did not let expire, and everyone on stage, even Bachman and Cain supported.
I can’t find the debate wherein he said that a State can force you to buy something. Do you have the source? He’s absolutely against any Government involvement in the private sector of insurance or healthcare, and basically against any sort of mandate by the Government.
Report Post »nationalcalvin
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 6:53pm@colt1860
If you‘re on the battlefield shooting at our troops and you don’t have on a uniform then you would be a terrorist. Actually though I think we both agree. These men should be given Military Tribunals, but that is not what Paul has said. He thinks they should be brought into the mainland and have a jury trial. The same rights that we as American citizens have and I don’t agree with that.
I don’t remembrt exactly which debate it was, but I remember the comment. First Bachman was asked if it was Constitutional and she said it wasn’t. The moderator then, said lets ask the constitutional expert Ron Paul and see what he thinks and he said it was. I remember this because I don’t like Romney at all, and I thought Paul would really go after him about his health plan.
Maybe he just misspoke.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 7:26pm@NATIONALCALVIN Yes, you’re right. I think though, that he was referring to Guantanamo Bay. Wherein we do have, legally speaking, suspects (meaning not convicted yet) that are there indefinitely waiting trial. His concern is the rights of the innocent being abused or diminished on account of the guilty and evil. He holds no sympathy or favor for terrorists, as he has previously stated that they deserve punishment or what they have coming. As I see, lots of Conservatives want the US to go all out in Rambo mode and serve justice quickly, damn anyone that gets in the way. Paul is more of the let’s work within the Rule of Law and our Constitution and not get ahead of ourselves. While some may see this as a weakness, it’s actually a strength in that there is actually a candidate willing to be restrained in his official Power through the limits of Law and the Constitution. He does show a humble and peaceful nature. Which many would rather he have a ruthless or warrior mentality. Here’s the thing. Paul bases all his positions on facts and law. For example, he takes into consideration actual intelligence from the FBI, CIA and Israeli agencies to evaluate the situation we’re in. While, we, who know that Islamo Fascism is a threat and evil, we must also realize that there are rules and Governments in place, so that we do not act arbitrarily or without regard to Law and Order. We’re accustomed to Presidents who act on Executive Orders, and a Congress that disregards its limits.
Report Post »Mr. Oshawott
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:11pmRon Paul is the only presidential candidate that’s willing to challenge the two-party status quo. As of right now, he is the only politician that’s serious on following through the ideas of auditing the PRIVATE Federal Reserve bank, dismantling the TSA, and ending the decade-long wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. Ron has even made a bold declaration to cut $1 trillion in spending! The neo-conservative candidates running against him will never get to doing any one of those tasks, as they are only interested in preserving the establishment. Ron Paul 2012.
Report Post »Susie Liberty
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 10:22pmRon Paul’s Meet the Press Interview was very enlightening. I appreciate his standing by his principles and speaking the truth; and he doesn’t vary to “please” the particular group. As for Flash and Splash, No Thank You. I’ll take a Commitment to restoring our Country to Our Constitutional form AND the Freedoms and Liberty guaranteed all American Citizens. And that means I feel compelled to vote my conscience for that good man…Statesman. Ron Paul 2012
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 11:06pmHere’s the interviews. It briefly answers some of the questions proposed about him by Blaze users.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJxnZkMk6o
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 7:15amTim Russert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s66bTshO1jM
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 5:18pmEarmarks used at the local level are transparent. Anyone can see what the money was used for and how much. Any money not used in earmarks by local officials or representatives stays at the federal level wherein the President or federal departments may use the money without oversight or transparency. That means our tax dollars will go to the federal government to fund federal Government projects and their agenda, and we won’t know how much they spent or what they used it for. Paul has advocated for the federal Government to earmark its spending so we know where the money is going.
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:59pmThe national debt and those who allow spending to collapse the system are more dangerous to the republic than some terrorist with a bomb belt.Rep.Paul wants to return to sound money and get our fiscal house in order,the RINOS won‘t cut spending and they’ll raise taxes to support the plethora of unconstitutional social programs until they collapse,which they will very soon.
Report Post »louise
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:09pmI love his plan to restore America.
Report Post »I love that he only want $39,000 in wages as President (about the same amount as the average worker).
I love him and he has my vote and my husband’s.
colt1860
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 11:09pmSome highlights of Paul’s plan:
Cuts $902 billion in spending during the first year of a Paul presidency compared to current spending levels, or $981 billion compared to President Obama’s budget request
Eliminates five federal departments: Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior, and Education
Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15 percent
Makes a 10 percent reduction in the federal workforce
Eliminates all U.S. foreign aid
Allows younger citizens to opt out of Social Security
Converts the federal Medicaid program into block-grants distributed to states
Over its first four years, Paul’s plan would cut over $4.1 trillion in spending while bringing in $2.9 trillion less revenue, reducing the projected deficit by $783 billion according to the Paul campaign‘s own comparison to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline projections of current spending levels
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/ron-pauls-plan-to-cut-the-deficit-end-parts-of-the-government/246862/
Report Post »Susie Liberty
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 12:14amI SO wish I could respond to MANY of the good comments on here; regret that is NOT an option. Regardless, yours is one to which I CAN give a “thumbs-up”!
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 7:34amCOLT1860 on this I 100% agree (economy) with paul……… but that is were it ends. Ron Paul has been an isolationist for most of his career. It will cost him his last campaign, despite his good ideas about the economy.The problem with isolationism that cruel empire builders, like Napoleon and Hitler, can spring up at any time. They inevitably will attack even the most fortified of countries, to seize their resources (human and mineral) or even their land. No country can stand forever when someone keeps attacking it, unless it makes a counterattack. Trying to stand behind fortified borders is like trying to withstand an old-fashioned siege. Any general knows that the only way to break a siege is to attack the besiegers from behind. The Romans knew this. They laid siege to the Samnite city of Nola during the Social Wars, and patiently waited for ten years until the city gave up. No one should doubt that other empire builders can be just as patient when they need to be.
Report Post »Dismayed Veteran
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 12:09pmLOUISE
I think it is noble of Mr. Paul to take a salary at the average income level. However, I believe that government jobs should be made competitive to the private labor market wages and salaries. This would reduce many government salaries. I like the idea of all the reductions he proposes.
REPUBLICORM
I agree with you in principle. But, our standing military is no longer at cold war levels. We have stretched them to slim to fight our current 2 front wars. As a veteran of the Cold War era and an Army brat who live overseas with large standing military, Americans knew we were able to take preemptive actions. One of the things no one talks about the cold war military strength is that US troops in Germany had a combat effective life of 5 days before being overrun by the Soviets.
I believe we should cut the number of military bases and posts to the most strategic realizing that we will probably lose those sites in the case of conventional war.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 5:22pm@RepubliCorp Militarism and National Defense are two different things. Bringing our troops home to secure our borders, is National Defense. Sending our troops to Uganda, to protect and fight for other Rulers and Citizens, on our dime, is Militarism. Get the facts straight. Defense spending vs. Militarism spending. Isolationism vs. Non-interventionism. Federalism vs. Nationalism. Individualism vs. Collectivism. Fiat Money or Hard Money? Constitutionalism or Progressivism? Bureaucrats or Free Citizens? Paul is for trade and friendship with any Nations willing. Isolationists want to pass embargos, start fights and wars with other Nations, stop talks and diplomatic agreements, tell other Nations what they can and can’t do within their own borders, force Nations to do things agaisnt their own will, deny trade or travel to other Nations, actually build a real fence on our border (fences should be put up on private property by land owners and for strategic reasons in certain critical areas), start dangerous conflicts with far away Nations soley due to their heritage, faith or form of Government, disregard the early church’s doctrine of fighting in only just wars especially for defense, and telling other Nations to shut up because we are the Policemen of the world.
Report Post »heyjim55
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:56pmHe’s a good and decent man who is not in the pockets of the elite and special interests, I don’t agree with everything he says but I would vote for him if given the chance the rest are already bought off by the very people who have damaged this country.
Report Post »Founding Father2
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:59pmI am tired of hearing about the so-called Media Black-Out Hoax. The Press is always complaining that Ron Paul ignores them or denies them an interview, even on Fox News. He whines and complains about it and then denies press coverage. This is a campaign strategy to rile his base.
Here is Sean Hannity confronting him on it after Sean had to ask Rand Paul to talk his dad into an interview: http://www.thedailycandidate.com/video/2011/oct/paul_hannity_blackout.html
Report Post »RighteousTyrant
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:48pmIf I were Ron Paul, I probably wouldn‘t be too eager to go on Hannity’s show, either. Hannity’s a hack for the establishment.
Report Post »S_Malc13
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 9:10pmFounding F
A pew center research found Ron Paul garners the LEAST amount of coverage. He’s not making it up and Hannity has shown his disdain for him in the past.
http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-media-blackout-confirmed-133943628.html
Report Post »Founding Father2
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:52pmQuestion came up on Fox today… Will Ron Paul become the spoiler of the 2012 election: http://www.thedailycandidate.com/video/2011/oct/ron_paul_spoiler.html
Report Post »Susie Liberty
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 3:00amI could NOT help but watch this – INSTEAD of going to my sheets! And Hannity! WE DO NOT WANT TO HEAR YOUR PLATFORM! I’d love to have a recording with timer to see how much he talked about HIS opinions/feelings/philosophies vs Dr. Paul’s time to ANSWER!
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 6:25amRon Paul is super smart and has his finger on the pulse of America. He warns of problems BEFORE they happen. He predicted the housing bubble. He also said “America is due another credit downgrade” Said it’s coming soon. We‘ll see if he’s right about that too.
Report Post »Stephan D. Markos
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:51pmThe American people are listening to Dr. Paul’s message. Even the neocons are starting to see the enevitabiliy of President Ron Paul.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:51pmAnd once you decide to leave the stage, Dr. Paul; please have your folks support Cain. He will be the nominee.
Btw, why are some sooooo obsessed with Paul? Nice guy, some good ideas–but absolutely not fit to be the next prez.
Report Post »Founding Father2
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:56pmFunny because Paul was very supportive of guess which candidate yesterday??? ROMNEY . Besides one wise crack he defended Romney. Could this be because he knows the truth about Romney: http://www.thedailycandidate.com/video/2011/oct/paul_defends_romney.html
Report Post »AlterReason
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:10pmslow and steady wins the race… Ron Paul has been constitutionally consistent throughout his career, continually voting for smaller government, trying to expose the fed and the insane practices therein. He has continually propped up the ideals of the founding fathers while articulating specific ways to go about restoring our founding principles, mainly personal responsibility, civil liberties, and the freedoms encapsuled in the Constitution… His foriegn policy ideals make more sense when he has more than 30 second rebuttals.
My problem with Cain is his being the head of the KC FED. He hasn’t addressed his positions on the Fed and its relevance or lack thereof…
Report Post »LIBS-ARE-DINGLEHEADS
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:22pmPaul appeals to Americans for many reasons, and the zeal of which is rooted IN BEING an American.
It might not explain the “devotion” that you are puzzled over, but it’s why.
Report Post »louise
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:33pmBecause RP knows and loves the Constitution, unlike the rest of candidates. They may know a little, but Dr. Paul knows it by heart. He just happens to believe that those we put into office should respect and honor and uphold the Constitution. RP rightly said that “if we had been following the Constitution all this time (meaning from the beginning), we would not be in this mess.”
I can tell you one thing for sure…if he does get elected, he will appoint Andrew Napolitano to the Supreme Court. I say heck yeah!!!
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:40pmThose not on the Cain Train are laying the tracks for a Romney nomination. Not saying that’s a bad thing, but . . . .
Report Post »Aww, spit! I’ll say it: “I don’t want Romney to get the nomination.”
Buck Shane
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:51pmI don’t believe that Ron Paul can be President.
Report Post »In order for that to occur, enough people would have to understand the philosophy.
Enough people would have to be intelligent enough and also be able to think logically.
In order to support Ron Paul, someone would need to consider the question, “What is Government for?”
It is to protect you from me, me from you, and us from everybody else.
What else do we need?
Why do we need government to do anything else?
Politicians tell us they want to serve. They say they are our leaders. They consider themselves not servants or leaders. They consider themselves rulers. Why do we need rulers?
After someone thinks though the answer to the question, “What is government for?” then someone might see Ron Paul’s point. If you can’t do it, you can’t understand his positions.
I do not believe there are enough people who can do it for him to be elected.
republitarian
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:42pm@ Buck Shane
I like your cynicism and fear you are correct. Not enough. But you have to admit that Libertarian thinking is gaining a strong hold in people who are new to politics and government. They know they’re not on the left, so now they are figuring out where where they are within the right. And they are asking, “What is government supposed to do?” Then they read the constitution. What an eye opener!
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 10:45pm@ republitarian
Report Post »Bear in mind, Ron Paul would be the second best choice. I would be the best choice.
The difference between he and I is that if there is going to be a war, I want it to be over there, not here. As right as he is, I would willingly do the wrong thing. I would kill every Muslim in the world to protect any one of my children.
colt1860
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 11:33pm@Founding Father2 I agree with Paul. The bickering back and forth with Perry and Romney is just pointless and childish. Those two candidates, with Santorum, make every question a personal attack against another candidate. Paul and Gingrich are the only two up on stage that directly answer the questions proposed and don’t go about arguing about insignificant he said she said nonsense. And guess who supported and endorsed Romney in 2008? Cain.
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 12:16am@ colt1860
Report Post »What is your answer to the question, ” What is government for?”
Whose side are you on?
colt1860
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 2:04am@Buck Shane The purpose of Government, in a most brief statement, is to secure the rights of the people and to ensure the safety and happiness of the citizenry.
Report Post »420 Patriot
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 3:10amThe main function of the Fedral Gov is to defend our borders from outside attack, and through legislation, protect all our individual liberties, and through judiciaries, interperet the laws to ensure that they are Constitutional. All other powers not delegated to the Federal Gov are delegated to the states. If a state makes a law you do not agree with, you can move to another state that has laws you can live with. When the Fed Gov gets as big as it has, it does not matter which state you move to, it will ultimately be the same. Why is this so hard to understand? My next point is: Aren’t all of you tired of the same old campaign promises that never happen? If a candidate has to move left, right or to the center or changes their view just because their view becomes unpopular, they are lying to you. Why is that so hard to understand? Ron Paul is the most truthful candidate we have ever had run for President. I for one will vote for truth which will ultimately lead back to liberty.
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 10:22am@ colt1860
Report Post »You’re exactly right.
@ 420 patriot
Its not as easy as you say. The majority of the people voting have never even thought about the reason they are electing their own rulers. Its like they vote to give up their own freedom.
Once someone has thought it through, they can never unthink it.
YepImaConservative
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:50pmTake your pick….
A foole & his money,
be soone at debate:
which after with sorow,
repents him to late.
or
If they pay a penie or two pence more for the reddinesse of them… let them looke to that, a foole and his money is soone parted.
or
A fool and his money are soon parted.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 12:06amNice old poems.
Now, take your pick,
“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” — Mark Twain
“History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.” — Dwight D. Eisenhower
“The future doesn’t belong to the faint-hearted. It belongs to the brave.” — Ronald Reagan
“The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.” — Patrick Henry
“Liberty without learning is always in peril and learning without liberty is always in vain.” — John F. Kennedy
“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.” — John Adams
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free … it expects what never was and never will be.” — Thomas Jefferson
“A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both.” — James Madison
“The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.” — John F. Kennedy
“But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government.” — Andrew Jackson
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 12:07am“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Mohandas Gandhi
Report Post »Scooter123
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:48pmUS Air Force, US Army, US Navy the top three contributors to Dr. Paul. All other candidates top contributors are global banks and corporations. That should say it all.
Report Post »liberalsarealiens
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:42pmThe more Ron, Rick, Mitt talks the more Cain rises! Yeah baby!
Report Post »waluman353
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:36pmPaul – Napolitano 2012
Report Post »jcizarter
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 10:24pmThat’s The Ticket I like!
Report Post »Ron Paul has been makeing sense before any of this country went crazy, he saw it coming. I do not understand what is so hard about voting for Ron. He will only be in office 4 years and if he screws up he is out. It is not like he will be KING Paul. He believes like I do, small federal govt, very tiny, the fed would provide for a national system of roads, and for the military to defend the 57? states. The states could have the say on everything else, if you want abortion or you don’t want abortion, and on and on ad naseum…bring the power home to the states and the people. A lot of the candidates and talk show hosts will say we need to save the nation, we need freedom, we need to save jobs and all of this is great, but Ron will see to it that the cobwebs and red tape will be out of the way for “we” the People to be happy and feel safe once again…no Commies in the whitehouse ever again, please.
Norm D. Plume
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 12:49pmNo, no, no.
Paul/Johnson.
Then, Paul would be able to nominate Napolitano to the Supreme Court.
Report Post »endgamer
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:34pmI am giving to Ron AGAIN until I reach my limit. I also give to the non co-opted Tea Party Patriots as well. Paul – Napolitano 2012. Champions of freedom!
Report Post »louise
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:37pmSame here….lifting my tea cup in a toast to the restoration of the Republic
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 5:22amI’ve given even more than I could afford.
Everyone be sure to read the Blaze article about TSA and Ron Paul warning. It’s very important.
Also, Ron Paul warned what Obama (any president) can do to the gold you’re currently holding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbrsI8S4Tro
Also, Louisiana just passed a law that CASH can not be used to buy used goods! The people of LA are shocked and said it was “sneaked in overnight.” Our civil liberties are dissolving!
Here’s why! Occupiers call for global government (UN Agenda 21)
Report Post »United Nations Agenda 21 for dummies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM
Google ICELI to see how it’s being implemented in your community
holy ghostbuster
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:31pmKeep it up Ron!
Report Post »mmcdonald628
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:28pmOver 2 million was raised in one day; good reporting Blaze.
Report Post »PoliticiansRCrooks
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 12:35am2.6 million was raised in 2 days
Report Post »GoApple
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:27pmYou cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves. ~Abraham Lincoln~
Report Post »cdavis2009
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:34pmAmen.
Report Post »Seattleman
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:39pmSorry, that was not said by Lincoln…
The Ten Cannots
Report Post »William J. H. Boetcker, 1916
progressiveslayer
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:51pmFrom what I’ve found the quote is from William J. H. Boetcker
Report Post »LIBS-ARE-DINGLEHEADS
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:28pmBravo quote find! Excellent!
Report Post »GoApple
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 11:21pmThank you for the heads up. Apologies to all it seems I have the wrong author of this quote. It was a PDF I saved a long time ago from via an email I am sure. However it is pin point accurate describing todays problems no matter who penned the quote. Thank you for the heads up.
Report Post »republitarian
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 12:10amSaved the quote with credit to author.
Thanks for posting it.
Report Post »waluman353
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:25pmthank god for Ron Paul,,he is the only true candidate running…i hope the blaze keeps up with the positive news on our future next president.
Report Post »gogogoff
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:27pmHe is a joke, goal was 3m in 24 hours, FIVE DAYS and he only gets 2.5m.
Report Post »LostInTheSpin
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:40pmhe is a joke? why? because he doesn’t flip-flop like cain? go rino vs. rino like perry and romney? show he is off his rocker like bachman? if he is a joke, you have a really strange sense of humor!
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:43pmRep.Paul is the only candidate who would adhere to the constitution,all the rest are RINOS and wouldn’t adhere to the constitution,none of them would cut spending either.
Report Post »Trestin Meacham
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:51pmgogogoff,
Report Post »Do you not understand the purpose of a goal? Falling short of such a lofty goal, does not make one a joke, that he came so close is impressive. It’s especially impressive for a guy that did not receive big donations like Perry and Romney. A campaign like this is not a sprint, it’s a marathon. He will certainly be one of the last three standing.
citizen_brain
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:51pmHe raised 2 million in one day, what is that the total amount Cain had last quarter?
Report Post »rckirby
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:48pmAgreed……….I am a recent Paul supporter…….NO ONE else is talking about this country via the founding intentions except him.
I’m encouraged that the young folks like him, as well as us oldies.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:22pmThose interested in Ron Paul:
You’ll only find Ron Paul on Fox BUSINESS News. The regular Fox News Channel (which most people watch has blocked-Paul-out)
O‘Reilly won’t acknowledge Dr. Paul. Switch to “Freedom Watch” on Fox BUSINESS News and Judge Napolitano covers the Constitution and often has Dr. Paul on the program.
Report Post »cdavis2009
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:36pmThey block him out because he is speaking practical, no-nonsense, constitutional fixes that WILL work. The left is afraid of him because he would destroy their destruction of the American way of life. God bless Ron Paul, his family and those around him.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:55pmVechorik lies! Vechorik lies! Vechorik lies!
Your crazy uncle and ‘prophet’ refused to face off with O’Reilly after he tried to get him on the show.
Report Post »If he is too whimpy to go on The Factor, how will he handle world leaders and the crazy left?
Too bad Paulistinians have to constantly make up excuses for their leader and tell lies.
resme
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:42pm@rationalman, oreily hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha.
Report Post »Jeff65
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 4:38amOf course he refused the interview. Did you see the one before the refusal. Bill O was extremely rude to Ron Paul. Dr. Paul isn’t afraid to answer hard questions. Why should he have an interview with someone that won’t let him answer? There is no reason that Bill O shouldn’t have given Dr. Paul proper respect that any human deserves.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 6:37amWhen Dr. Paul is interrupted, he stops talking. You know how O’Reilly is, he imagines he knows what a person is going to say, interrupts them and says what HE thinks without even letting the person talk. That is NOT journalism and Dr. Paul refuses to be demeaned like that. I don’t blame him. If you want to know what this world is coming to — turn off O’Reilly (who is pushing the Republicans who want Soros one world government).
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:19pmMy hero! Dr. Paul currently ranks 3rd in the polls. If you hate Agenda 21, Dr. Paul is the only choice.
United Nations Agenda 21 for dummies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM
Google ICELI to see if Agenda 21 is active in your state! It’s global government = new world order!
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:26pmWow! Democrats against Agenda 21!
Report Post »I’m floored, but VERY happy to see this!
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/index.html
Susie Liberty
Posted on October 26, 2011 at 12:00amWell, I would thoroughly enjoy telling O’Reilly that I have and SHALL continue to ignore him! And Hannity, as well… Although O’Reilly is far worse, my mother would say they both “love to hear their own heads rattle.“ SAW an ”interview” O‘Reilly ’conducted’ with Congressman Paul; he could NOT have been more rude to a ‘guest’; and I SAW Hannity after one of the Debates, and he was in full-on attack mode.
They may have believed they were “manly men”; they were not.
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:18pmMoms baking chicken………………..and I helped! Of course I also helped Herman Cain bake a cake at the same time!
To me, this is a 2 horse race entirely now. The others do not exist as even an afterthought, so I want to take an active role in supporting the ideals that I believe in. I give my tithes and free will offerings to Churches and Charities to hopefully ensure that their is meat in the Fathers house. I’ll support the candidates that I believe ensure that I have the liberty to do the first.
Report Post »libertarian8586
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:16pmRon Paul is the truth! A vote for big government neo-cons is a vote for the libs also! Wake up people. We have one party the big government party in charge with 2 “different” wings. Its like wrestling where they act like they hate each other in front of the public then behind closed doors they are laughing all the way to the bank as they continue to expand our empire! Return to fiscal sanity, stop the military industrial complex, restore peace bring the federal government back under consitutional control and down to the size it was intended to be! RON PAUL 2012!!!! The only candidate that can save this nation.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:15pmDoesn’t seem to be getting much bang for the buck…..
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:25pmGood pun on the “Money Bomb.”
Interesting that many Ron Paul supporters do not understand that Ron Paul is the biggest NEOCON in the race.
The10thAmendment
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:28pmAccording to who? The talking heads of the main stream media……including Fox News? Paul and Cain are resonating with the people, and no amount of media distortion will change that.
Report Post »Fella
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:36pmYou can’t drop a comment like that without explaining or backing it up, Chuck. Prove it. We’re all waiting.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 6:52pmO.K., FELLA, here I go.
Ever since the end of WWII, American political “Conservatism” has had three aspects:
(1) On the economy — pro growth as opposed to redistribution of wealth
(2) On defense/foreign policy — strong military and face off against our enemies abroad
(3) On morality — support laws and policies that are “pro family” and “pro morality” such as restrictions on abortion and dangerous drugs.
A few years ago, Ron Paul would have been described as a “libertarian” (not such a bad label — the first time I voted for president was for Ed Clark in 1980). Now (as I read the posts on the Blaze), Ron Paul is described as a “conservative”. Since Ron Paul is a new (“neo” in Greek) sort of “conservative” (i.e., and old sort of Libertarian), then he is a “neo conservative’ — or, for short, a “Neocon.“ If Pualistas can usurp the term ”conservative” to apply to a libertarian, I chose to play the same game and use “neocon’ to apply to a libertarian.
Report Post »libertarian8586
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:05pm@Chuck: For the love of God do a web search for what a neo-con is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative You are simply wrong when it comes to the term Neo-con. I understand up front why you would assume it means new conservative but that is incorrect. Ron Paul is the anthesis of a neo-con when it comes to foreign policy, militarism and aggressive war around the world to “build democracy.”
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:27pm@ Libertarian8586
Report Post »I am as right about Ron Paul being a neocon asare homosexuals being right about being“gay” or about Ron Paul supporters describing Ron Paul as a “conservative.“ Your screen name is ”libertarian” — it is not a pejorative, is it? Why do Ron Paul supporters hide behind the term “conservative”? If Ron Paul’s supporters can redefine political terms, then I claim that same right.
The10thAmendment
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:37pmNo Chuck you are clearly wrong. Ron Paul is not a conservative at all. Every policy he presents is clearly with-in the Libertarian principles. I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I am a Constitutional Moderate. Pauls policies don’t resemble the first definition of what a neocon is.
————————————-
1. Neocon
Neoconservative. Criminally insane spenders that believe in killing brown people for the new world order. Huge Orwellian government, unfathomable amounts of spending, bomb tens of thousands of people to death to rearrange the globe. Take the worst aspects of the liberal and conservative positions and combine them into one and you would have a NeoCon.
Neocons are the greatest threat to life, liberty and property this country has ever known.
————————————–
That would describe every left leaning nut job, which you seem to align yourself with. But it also includes right wing progressives like Romney, Perry, Huntsman, Gingrich, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, Hannity, O’Reilly, Juan Williams, Olbermann, Michael Moore.
Ron Paul is a Patriot to the Founding doctrines. You sir are a communist sympathizer.
Report Post »Scooter123
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 7:38pmHey Chuck- How can anyone be considered conservative when they subscribe to the liberal economic theories of keynsian economics and fiat money. Just weights and measures is conservative as it cannot be manipulated by those in power to achieve the goals of large government whether those goals be domestic or foreign. That would make Ron Paul the only true conservative running for president. Your understanding of conservatism is a little off, but that is not surprising because you are not alone in misunderstanding what conservatism is.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:08pm@ The10thAmendment
Report Post »Well . . . I suppose that if Paul supporters can call him a “conservative” and if homosexuals are “gay”, then go ahead and call me a “communist sympathizer” — language clearly means nothing to Paulistas, anyway.
TheDavidKing
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:11pmChuck seems to be able to write but they can’t read maybe? How about or similar to a paleoconservative/conservative :) Ahhh the good stuff. I’m just so disappointed though, I really thought that the people at fox where really about saving America and pro constitution, but now I have trouble listening to Beck, Hannity, Kelly, O’Reilly, Loesch, and other so called conservatives(those were my favorites). They all are guilty of progressivism. The all give Paul the silent, dot not discuss, “well Paul is just Paul” treatment. Like he’s crazzzzzzzy! Hummm? Everything the man say‘s is a quote from our constitution and all these guy’s put him down. So now I’m worried everytime I listen to one of these guys that the dialog is bias. Or just straight up lies? You guy’s let me and millions of others down by giving in to progressive ideology. Save this Fluck’n country dang it and keep the rest of the world away from our precious way of life cause they all want to destroy it! And if they don‘t polygraph them to make sure b4 let’n them in to our way of life. Freedom to get rich and stay rich. On that note taxing the rich doesn‘t really spread the riches money’s around so much as it keeps poor people from becoming rich. The rich got money that they can hide and keep or whatever they want. But try to get rich with the liberals taking all your money on the way up and you end up still fluck’n poor. :( Tax the rich my arse.
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:31pm@ Chuck Stein
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:08pm
@ The10thAmendment
Well . . . I suppose that if Paul supporters can call him a “conservative” and if homosexuals are “gay”, then go ahead and call me a “communist sympathizer” — language clearly means nothing to Paulistas, anyway.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
I don’t call Ron Paul a conservative anything. He’s clearly a Libertarian. I’m also not a conservative, although my financial inclinations more resemble the conservative values. I am a Constitutional Moderate, and a card carrying member of the Constitution party.
Words CLEARLY mean something, and they tend to mean specific things.
I’ve had Cain as my frontrunner for a while now, but Paul with every comment that he makes is proving himself to be a fellow friend of the Constitution more than any other candidate in politics. I do like Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal from the conservative ideals platform though.
Even some of my fellow right wing friends and I have crossed swords on the idea of words meaning something. Such as, America is a democracy. Something we clearly are not according to the Constitution. Nor does that term appear in any State Constitution. We are a Constitutionally Legislated Republic.
See how words mean something? Republic – The Law, Demoncracy – Mob rule.
You? Communist sympathizer.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:39pm@ The10thAmendment
Thanks for having the linguistic honesty that soooo many Paul supporters lack. Clealy, Paul is a libertarian and NOT a conservative. Now, since you and I are both Cain supporters, are we BOTH Communist Sympathizers? Or is that one just for me? If so, is it because I, and not you, sympathize with the victims of Communism?
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 9:02pm@ Chuck Stein
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 8:39pm
@ The10thAmendment
Thanks for having the linguistic honesty that soooo many Paul supporters lack. Clealy, Paul is a libertarian and NOT a conservative. Now, since you and I are both Cain supporters, are we BOTH Communist Sympathizers? Or is that one just for me? If so, is it because I, and not you, sympathize with the victims of Communism?
——————————————————————————————————————————-
I might have to shoot myself in the face!
I suppose it’s guilt by association in that case, which has forced me to grab my prayer beads and repent of. I went to confession earlier, and now I need to go back!
But since you say that Cain is your guy, I will apologize for my vitriol and communist sympathizer rhetoric. But I will stand firm on the truth that Ron Paul is no neocon, he is a Patriotic Constitutional Libertarian.
Report Post »C.Gallicchio
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 9:12pmChuck@ Just a little info for ya. Libertarianism is the only pure political Philosophy. As it only ask one question . When is violence justified? There is only one answer. Violence is only justified in response or reaction to a infringement on personal or private property rights. So just ask your self ,what happens if i refuse to cooperate. If it leads to violence then is it justified. Ronald Reagan “ The heart and soul of Conservatism is Libertarianism” enough said . Ron Paul is the only true conservative in the G.O.P . race. Liberty,Trade,Peace and Prosperity. Ron Paul 2012
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 9:16pm@ The10thamendment
Report Post »The whole “neocon” point was not directed at you — it was to get some realization on the part of all of the Paul supporters who absolutely INSIST that Paul is “conservative.” As you already realize — he is a libertarian. No bad thing, there — as I noted earlier the first time I voted for President, I voted for the Libertarian candidate. I know full well what “neocon” has come to mean, and according to that definition, Paul is clearly NOT a neocon. But I reached a tipping point — one too many Paul supporters had called him “the most conservative candidate” — so I demonstrated how (using my own alternate definition) — Paul could be called a “neocon.”
cor2879
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 9:29pmPhilosophically Convservatism and Libertarianism share the same roots, much as modern-day Liberalism, Socialism, and Communism do. In that context, it is not at all inaccurate to call Ron Paul a conservative, though he is definitely no neocon. If you look at the Reagan campaign, he was basically running on a very similar platform to Ron Paul, even advocating a return to the gold standard. By the standard of most Blaze readers, Reagan would be an unelectable nut as well.
Report Post »KTsayz
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 9:34pm@chuck He‘s what called a ’paleo-conservative’ because his conservatism is based on the principle of the founders. In the following link, the author asks the question “Is Ron Paul out of touch or are we?”
Report Post »He ends his article by writing:
“Ron Paul is out of touch in the view of many not because what he’s saying is wrong. Ron Paul is out of touch because we’re out of touch with the founders. We have been conditioned to accept dependency as the norm and have forgotten the principles of liberty our founders fought for. When someone like Ron Paul comes along and reminds us that liberty [is] an unalienable right we’re born with, we tremble in fear at the notion of being so free. It’s easier to ridicule him than face our fears.”
http://www.sentryjournal.com/2011/08/30/is-ron-paul-out-of-touch-or-are-we/
We are the ones who have forgotten our founding priciples while it’s Ron Paul who wants to help remember who we are, where we came from, and restore America. No other candidate is true to this cause.
The10thAmendment
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 11:33pm@ Chuck Stein
Posted on October 25, 2011 at 9:16pm
@ The10thamendment
Report Post »The whole “neocon” point was not directed at you —
————————————————————————————————–
Now that I know that you’re not a commie sympathizer I feel better. I just see some things worded in certain ways and alarm bells go off. Probably just a left over from when I was a kid and my dad proved he would take the Bible to heart, and not spare the rod!
Jefferson
Posted on October 27, 2011 at 2:13pmPoor Chuck. Reading comprehension is obviously not his strong suit. Paul is a PALEO-CONSERVATIVE in the spirit of Goldwater and Taft. He is what the GOP USED to be.
Leo Strauss is the father of NEO-Conservative movement. (before you go look that up chuck…hehe upchuck…anyway) Here is a little video to help educate you. It has lots of pictures, so you might be able to keep up.
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBQrn4Cwi3Y#t=810