Tim Pawlenty: ‘The Last Person to Cut a Back Room Deal in American Politics Would Be Ron Paul’
- Posted on February 24, 2012 at 6:41pm by
Tiffany Gabbay
- Print »
- Email »
On Friday, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe where he discussed a variety of topics including the alleged “back room deal” between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Pawlenty defended the Texas congressman, however, stating that Paul would be the last person in politics to to cut such a deal:
I know Mitt and I know Ron Paul, I really don’t believe there’s any deal … Think about Ron Paul cutting a deal as an insider to get some political favors … Probably the last person to ‘cut a back room deal’ in American politics would be Ron Paul.
He added:
Can you imagine in today’s world where everything is in the public, if more than one person knows about it, everyone knows about it, 24-hour intense media scrutiny. Then you drag Ron Paul into a back room and say, ‘hey, Ron, you do this and I’ll give you a favor.’ … It’d be all over the news.
Watch the segment below via Mediaite:
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 588 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 378 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 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 414 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 378 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? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 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 (192)
TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:58pm@JUST..
Yes, you are a listener; as I, and I appreciate that. If you pull up Levin’s show (first hour) from yesterday, it is all there. Definitely, stuff I had not known about Paul, Rothbard or that Rockwell fellow.
Report Post »TeaPartyForRomney
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:17pmProblem with Mark Levin is he makes assumptions more than any other talk show host I have ever seen. Though I have been saying for a long time the Romney would be smart to put a Paul in his administration, that way it would cut out a third party run and most of the libertarians would vote for the Republican candidate.
Mark on the other hand is saying, “see see I was right” since he said it two days ago. Yet there is no proof their is any organization what so ever. Mark plays it out as proven and that is what is wrong with him and his rhetoric.
Report Post »EndTheFedNOW
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:18pmI dont beleive Levin when he says rockwell and others didnt think the civil war was unnecessary. But I wish Ron Paul would come out swinging at Mittens the ken doll. Paul is kinda making me mad.
Report Post »TeaPartyForRomney
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:20pmLevin make the same assumptions about Romney and they aren’t true. Romney is one of the most conservatives running, much more than Gingrich, right there with Santorum, none of them are Libertarian.
Much like Levin, ‘you where assumptions get you”
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:25pm@TEA,
One thing I can say that most Paul folks won’t; I will vote for Romney if he’s on the ticket. In fact, I will use my radio show to promote him over Obama each morning show. I don’t like the guy, I think he’s a back-bencher; I also know that he is far from a true conservative; but I will not be one of the idiots that sits this one out cuz my crazy uncle couldn’t get it done. GOP ALL THE WAY!
Report Post »soybomb315
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:26pmMark Levin has a Ron Paul complex. He spends 30 minutes a day focusing on his interpretation of Ron Paul. Notice this is time he COULD be talking about his candidate or obama. Levin pretends to be a strict constitutionalist but he is against 90% of what Ron Paul says. Maybe Levin just hates competition
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:35pm@EndTheFedNOW,
“I dont beleive Levin when he says rockwell and others didnt think the civil war was unnecessary.”
Not only was the Civil War unnecessary, Abraham Lincoln was a racist tyrant.
See here.
The Real Significance of the ‘Civil War’
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods31.html
“There can be no minimizing the abolition of slavery, and that it was an enormously significant result of the war. But one may certainly ask whether the abolition of slavery had to be brought about in a manner that resulted in 1.5 million people dead, wounded, or missing; overwhelming material devastation; the undermining of the concept of civilized warfare; and the destruction of the American constitutional order in a way that forever strengthened the federal government at the expense of the self-governing rights of the states. Every other country in the Western hemisphere that abolished slavery in the nineteenth century did so peacefully. It is rather unflattering to assume that Americans were so savage that they were the only people for whom a negotiated settlement of the slave issue was simply impossible.”
And here.
Another Big Lincoln Lie Exposed
http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo211.html
And here.
Thomas Jefferson on Secession (1803)
Report Post »http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/8508.html
A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:49pm@EndTheFedNOW,
“I dont beleive Levin when he says rockwell and others didnt think the civil war was unnecessary.”
Not only was the Civil War unnecessary, Abraham Lincoln was a racist tyrant.
See here.
The Real Significance of the ‘Civil War’
http ://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods31.html
“There can be no minimizing the abolition of slavery, and that it was an enormously significant result of the war. But one may certainly ask whether the abolition of slavery had to be brought about in a manner that resulted in 1.5 million people dead, wounded, or missing; overwhelming material devastation; the undermining of the concept of civilized warfare; and the destruction of the American constitutional order in a way that forever strengthened the federal government at the expense of the self-governing rights of the states. Every other country in the Western hemisphere that abolished slavery in the nineteenth century did so peacefully. It is rather unflattering to assume that Americans were so savage that they were the only people for whom a negotiated settlement of the slave issue was simply impossible.”
And here.
Another Big Lincoln Lie Exposed
http ://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo211.html
And here.
Thomas Jefferson on Secession (1803)
Report Post »http ://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/8508.html
Jefferson
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:57pm@TRANNYINTHEMORNNG
Here is a translation of your post:
One thing I can say that most Paul folks wont. I will sacrifice any principles I might have had, and vote for the establishment candidate because the TEEVEE told me too. The nice bimbo in a mini skirt at Fox News told me that Romney is a winner, and I’m too stupid and cowardly to think for myself, so I just let the TEEVEE do my thinking for me. It’s not easy going along with the herd, supporting a known flip flopper that changes his opinions which ever way the wind blows, so I will try to denigrate Paul supporters for voting principle over party. It makes me feel much better about being a spineless lemming. I’m so blinded by the “anyone but Ohmamma” BS, that any critical thinking skills have gone completely out the window. YAY corrupt GOP establishment!!! YAY Rush, Shammity, Levin, and Beck!!
Report Post »—–
If and when Rombo gets the nomination, and he gets beaten like drum for being another Ohmamma lite, the the blame will be on your shoulders, not ours. He’ll get beaten just like liberal McStain did.
MS Patriot
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 9:00pmWhy is it Paul has no problem calling the Catholic a fake. But has not once called Romney a socialist for his healthcare policy in Massachusetts.
Paul is nothing more than an old school liberal, who thinks Romney is more like him than the other candidates.
His failure to attack Romney as the progressive that he is, means he doesn’t really know what is going on in our country today. Maybe he is becoming a little out of touch in his later years.
Plus I can’t support someone who wishes to allow drugs to become legal in a country where my teenagers are living. We can‘t allow the temptations of drugs to be so overwhelming that our children don’t have a fighting chance at living a life free of addiction and abuse.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 9:17pm@JEFFERSON
What are you 9 years old? Wise up and get some maturity. LOL!
Report Post »soybomb315
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 9:20pmMS Patriot
No president can make drugs legal – a president can only remove the federal ban on drugs. Only the states have the power to make drugs legal or illegal. Since drugs are NOWHERE mentioned in the constitution, the decision should be left to the states… That is the same principle we apply to obamacare (remember?).
Conservatives cannot pick and choose which issues to apply the constitution – we have to be consistent. If you do not like that – then realize that it is not the constitution you want, but a dictator
Report Post »mudbitedlite
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 9:53pmHey tron since you have a radio show would you take up a debate on said radio show with me on Ron Paul and you can pick the topics. And I will pick topics on the republican candidates that were the nomination in years past???
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 11:10pm@MS PATRIOT
Replace your statement with alcohol rather than drugs and you end up with the same argument. Why is it ok to allow alcohol in our society but not drugs? Both are used for the same purpose, to escape reality even if just for a few hours. I drank to much in high school. All the time. Now, I barely touch the stuff. You grow up. Some don‘t and that’s their life and their choice to make. Did you know, even back when I was in high school, drugs like weed and ex were easier for me to get then alcohol? You know why?
I had to buy alcohol from a store. A store that required me to show ID to purchase. Drugs, on the other hand, is bought from a someone you label a criminal who has no problems selling to anyone with cash. Remove the black market effect of drugs and you actually remove the easy access to our children. If they do get it, they’ll get it regardless of how many laws you make, just like I was able to get alcohol anytime i put my brain and energy towards that goal.
I’d hope you put enough trust in the way your raised your kids as to not do drugs. But the fact that you think it‘s necessary for government to be your children’s nanny when it comes to drug use is very disturbing and may actually answer my question to your quality of child raising. I know the way my dad raised me and he didn’t have a prohibition attitude. He had a personal responsibility attitude. It makes a world of difference, especially once they leave the nest and are actually on thei
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 11:10pmVanguardNewsNetwork (govnn.com and vnnforum.com) has learned that it was Lew Rockwell himself who wrote the racist words in Ron Paul’s newsletter from which the candidate and his top backers now flee.
A source who wishes to remain anonymous told VNN:
Those Ron Paul Newsletters were authored by Lew Rockwell, and Ron Paul acts like he did know of the contents
At the time Lew Rockwell was Paul’s ghost writer, along with Jeff Tucker, and Murray Rothbard, cheering from the sideline, and contributing occasionally.
Ron Paul tolerated the ‘racist rhetoric’ because it was providing a large share of the reported $940,000 annual income of Ron Paul & Associates, at that time, and because his hispanic adviser convinced him that it would work as an “outreach to the Rednecks,” and gain the grassroots support being enjoyed by people such as David Duke at the time.
The idea was to appeal to many, but to serve few, by telling people what they wanted to hear, or rather NOT telling them what they didn’t want to hear.
Report Post »http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/PoliticalReportOctober1992.pdf
TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 1:09am@MUD
Ron is welcome on my show; Santorum will be on next week; let me know his contact info.
Report Post »Callie369
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 1:48amIf you watched the Feb 22 debate, you should have noticed how Paul kept leaning up looking around Santorum and grinning at Slick Mitt everytime he told another lie about Rick Santorum.
That debate was won by Gingrich, not Frick and Frack!!!!
Report Post »Shane74
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 2:04amMS PATRIOT- Here is where your theory about Ron Paul and Mitt Romney gets blown out of the proverbial water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hvuru-Slls
Meet fake Mitt Romney!
Report Post »KTsayz
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 7:21amRon Paul answered this rumor himself now on the Kudlow Report.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMmwce5GC1Y&feature=youtu.be
So now you can forget what Santorum, Rush and that horrid Levin have been saying cuz they have all been LYING!
Report Post »justangry
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 10:18am@Tron
OK I checked it out. I know your brother’s a lawyer, so talk to him about this. The issue I have with Levin’s nationalist views on federalism is it relies on precedence that the lefties also use to push their agenda. Removing the federal jurisdiction from all the vice laws is not anarchy. The arguments social conservatives use to justify vice laws are the same justifications the lefties use to push their crazy agenda and it all started in the Progressive Era. Check out my posts at…
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/thomas-paine-vs-george-washington-santorum-and-glenn-part-ways-on-libertarianism/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/santorum-uses-romneys-own-words-against-him-in-michigan-tv-ad/
Levin’s arguments regarding the friendship between Paul and Rothbard are presuming too much. We know Paul is an Austrian Economist, but to assume that Paul would applaud Kruschev because Rothbard did… well that’s a bit of a stretch. And for the record, I too, love Thoreau and SOME of Rothbard’s ideas sound appealing to me as well. That doesn’t make me a bad guy, and I love America as much as anyone, probably more so than a lot of people.
Report Post »MS-GlenNBC
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 10:28amTeaPartyForRomney….. you assume that Romney has had something to do with the Tea Party..
Ron Paul and Romney have an alliance going…..
Romney…..
RomneyCare
Progressive Tax System
Gingrich….
no care
Flat tax
yep! Romney is more conservative than Gingrich….. I guess you made that assumption from listening to Beck Pat and Stupid ripping on Gingrich for 3 months… You are like a parrot…. Anything Glenn says about Gingrich you repeat… anything Beck says about Romney you repeat..
Look at the F___ing Facts you Tea Party Smoking crack idiot….
RomneyCare Progressive Tax Plan …… Romney
____________ FLAT TAX ………………. Gingrich
Romney is not conservative at all…. NOT AT ALL
He Bailed out the Olympics with our tax money….. Sounds very OBAMA if you ask me.
Squzzzz Me… Can I have some of that tax money…. seems we spent too much in UTAH for the Olympics….
If you listen to this caller from the Mark Levin show you will see how you are perceived…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2IJorK7-v8 This is your arguments…
This is what Romney sounds like without a teleprompter…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHaMqHh5NZ4
Report Post »academica2020
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 11:48am@A Doctors:
Report Post »You are kidding, right?
A little information for you:
1) Historians create theses based upon their personal interpretation of primary sources that they research. It does not mean that they are right.
2) Historians write papers and books for other historians to critique. They spend most of their time debating each other.
3) Be careful when you pick and choose sources off of the internet.
4) I am happy that you have concluded that Lincoln was a racist and a tyrant. Their are quite a few Southerners, to this day, who call the civil war “the war of northern aggression,” perhaps you are one of them?
5) You do yourself no service by your evaluations of history.
Leave historical analysis to historians and expend your horizons to include all historical data so that you have a balanced, rather than focused, interpretation of history.
academica2020
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 11:57am@MS:
Report Post »Your mastery of the insult continues to be astounding! Is there a list of insults that you pick from or are you so well versed in the art of the insult that the sarcasm just flows from your brain to your keyboard?
academica2020
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 12:23pm@A DOCTOR:
Report Post »Since you believe the civil war was unnecessary, you may want to read these books (unless, of course, you get all of your information off of the internet):
The Missouri Compromise and Its Aftermath – Robert Forbes
The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856 – William Gienapp
Battle Cry of Freedom – James McPherson
Slavery and Politics in the Early American Republic – Matthew Mason
Apostles of Disunion, Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War – Charles Dew
Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men – Eric Foner
I know this may be way over you level of comprehension, but you may want to do some further research before you make the kind of statements that you made.
Of course, you may believe that the world would be a better place if there were two countries today, the Confederate States and the United States. If so, good luck with that argument. It may make some question who is the real racist.
justangry
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 2:03pm@Academica
“I know this may be way over you level of comprehension, but you may want to do some further research before you make the kind of statements that you made.”
Uncalled for dude.
Report Post »Boycott the Media Let the People Decide
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:08pm@ TRON…you are correct many of us would not like your radio show. Many of us vote for principals not party and therefore you would have no appeal to us. As far as your support for Mark Levin, maybe you should check into his argument with Tom Woods regarding constitutional issues, to where Levin’s only response to his points is to use tactics of the Left and attack Tom Woods character rather that arguing about the issue. In regards to your radio show many of us would agree as Levin says “Get off the radio you” stupid neocon!
Report Post »justangry
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 7:06pm@Boycott, Thanks for tipping me off on Tom Woods. That guy is great. I’m on your side, but Tron‘s show isn’t what you might think it is. It’s your typical morning show with good tunes with a right slant. It’s not overtly neoconservative. Most of the political stuff is directing at Barry and funny. We can all agree that Barry sux. I turn it on while reading in the morning news sometimes when GB is ticking me off (which has been a lot lately) Anyway, thanks again.
Report Post »Hobbs57
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 11:57pmMS Glenn – You have to be the biggest loud mouth moron on this sight, blind as bigot can be … You ever shut up with your bashing of Romney while supporting the biggest progressive PIG in the race. I have first hand knowledge of Newt’s healthcare plans, pilot programs that fell flat as he was banking on an eventual national healthcare plan. I
So Funny how you missed Newt saying he supported Romneycare 100% as soon as it came out. The first supporter I do believe.
I know I posted a million reasons Newt is a progressive on here for you to read, but it is clear you refuse to get past your bigotry and look at the truth.
The worst part about it is, is by some freakin miracle, Newt did get nominated, he would get so smashed it will make Rick Santorums Senate seat beat down here in Pennsylvania look insignificant.
Lastly, did your Mommy have you color that picture in your coloring book before you put it up by your name ?
Report Post »Hossua
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 3:48amPaul has to come out as the conservative alternative to Romney. Everyone knows that Romney is a moderate, no sense wasting money to point that out. Paul has to attack Santorum and Gingrich to keep them from lying to everyone about their records and running away with the conservative alternative to Romney title.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 10:08am@Hosua, Ron Paul came out as who he is and has been for the past 30 years.
Report Post »academica2020
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 1:37pm@JUSTANGRY
Report Post »Sorry pal, I played nice in this sandbox for a long time and took the “do unto others path.” When I see stuff that is blatantly wrong, I’m going to say something, especially if it is REALLY wrong. If I offended you by my comments, sorry. I am tired of reading crap and being told it’s Beef Wellington. Time for folks to do some real research, not typing stuff into Google and copying the results. I’m a historian and when I read the stuff that folks think passes as historical interpretation and quoting it as fact, I get a little riled up.
techengineer11
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 2:25pmMark Levin hates Dr. Paul because Dr. Paul puts the interests of the USA ahead of those of foreign states in particularly Levin’s Israel.
It’s really that simple people.
Is Levin Conservative and is he a hoot to listen to? YES! But his loyalties lie with Israel. Don’t ever forget it.
Report Post »academica2020
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 2:31pm@JUSTANGRY:
Report Post »Considering how a lot of Ron Paul supporters treat others here, I am surprised you found my comment uncalled for. I was criticizing the remarks “A DOCTORS” made about Lincoln and the necessity and/or causes of the American Civil War (and the source information used to back them up).
academica2020
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 2:38pm@TECH:
Report Post »Hmmm, me thinks you may have some issues with folks who support Israel.
If they do get attacked and, worst case scenario, get wiped off of the map, what will your reaction be?
Just desserts? Had it coming? Not our problem?
Any or all of the above?
Don’t worry, most Jews in the USA are Democrats and don’t support Israel.
Mark Levin is an exception. He has a platform and uses it.
Since he doesn’t support your guy, you have a right to disagree with him.
The beauty of being an American, you can disagree without violence.
techengineer11
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 3:06pmacademica2020
I have a problem when people that support Israel put their interests before the interests of the USA. That‘s my problem and it’s a big one. I really don‘t give a rats ass about what happens to Israel and I really don’t give a rats ass about what happens to Iran. They have a disagreement. A rather large one and as an American I say “I hope that you can sort it out peacefully… otherwise I hate for your two countries..”
Indeed most Jews are Democrats and I wouldn’t go as far to say as they did not supporty Israel they just simply believe that they can rule the world from NYC much more easily than they could Jerusalem.. I tend to think that they are probably correct. That being said don’t underestimate the amount of influence which Jewish money holds over the Republican Party either.. It’s collosal.
Finally you are correct that at this time we can still disagree without resorting to violence but I’m not sure how much longer that may remain the case under this very oppressive Jewish Apartheid America finds itself under today.
Report Post »tzion
Posted on February 26, 2012 at 4:06pm@Tech
Report Post »When you talk about “the interests of the USA” instead of, say, the interests of the American people, I can’t help but find it ironic. You claim to hate those who don‘t treat people as individuals yet you clearly don’t see people that way yourself. For you, if people aren‘t Americans they’re somehow less important. And if Americans support non-Americans they are acting to the detriment of true Americans. I’m sorry, but those views are right out of Russia’s book Tech. You hate collectivism? Look in the mirror.
TSUNAMI-22
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:57pmTim Pawlenty: ‘The Last Person to Cut a Back Room Deal in American Politics Would Be Ron Paul’
Report Post »~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notice he said “last person”.
Itsjusttim
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:07pmThat’s right, the last one, meaning if Ron Paul cut a back room deal, and his enemies found out they would smear him all up and down, and it would cause Paul’s supporters to not even support Romney.
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:11pmIt‘s too bad America won’t select Paul.
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:18pmPersonally, I think this whole thing (the election process) is a scam. It’s a joke, a roos…..a distraction.
I think the decision has already been made. I wish I could prove it.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:56pmWAPO put out a story today that talks about Ron Paul’s friendship with Romney and sheds light on the back room deal conspiracy theory. The message I got was they believe Ron Paul just doesn’t like Santorum, and Santorum’s campaign is hurting him by starting this rumor. Santorum immediate goes there because it’s what he would have done.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/no-conspiracy-ron-paul-just-dislikes-santorum/2012/02/23/gIQAMbLaXR_blog.html
Report Post »Scottsman
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:53pmTim Pawlenty and Chuck Norris agree!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGUcUuMEXVc
Report Post »johnpaulkuchtajr
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:53pmLet regular gas get to $6.00 / usg on average and Pee Wee Herman could beat Obammie, Messiah that he is.
I’m regarding payment of high gas prices as a substitute campaign donation to the anti-Obammie candidate.
Drill, baby, drill!
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:01pmI agree. I hope gas goes to $10 days before the election for the same reason.
By then, even a zombie could see the BS.
Report Post »MS Patriot
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 9:10pmHere’s the problem with that theory. You would think that $6 dollar gas would be enough to push those not to vote for King Hussein, but the problem is this. Those who vote for King Hussein will be less influenced by the price of fuel. Those who use mass transit and are on entitlements won’t feel the gas price rush. Those super wealthy that support the King Hussein rein have plenty of money to double up on what they spend for gas. So the only people who feel the pain are those of us left in the middle class who struggle to stay ahead of the price of fuel, food and retirement. We will be the ones who will invest less and have less in the future. Those who don’t have anything and those who already have their wealth will continue to vote for King Hussein. The control of fuel costs is nothing more than another progressive elitist tactic to shrink the wealth of the average American. You know that American, the one who enjoys making his own choices and doesn’t need a government to tell him what to do, when to do it or how to do it. Those who can’t, accept the entitlements and enjoy seeing those super wealthy pay for those entitlements.
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 2:06am@ MS Patriot
You make a valid point. However, we both might get to see this play out.
Report Post »american1st
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:48pmfinally a Ron Paul smear i can get behind, one that makes me willing to abandon the constitution in favor of some “questionably” lesser of two “progressive” evils candidate. ..NOT…
there is just no way that RP (who has already spent millions on mitt attack adds in the past) is just like any politician and right now is playing a strategic game, focusing limited resources on the parts of his campaign that give him the most benefit for the buck, it couldn’t possibly be that mitt is already going to the convention and attacking the candidate that may not make it there makes the most sense….
and they say Ron Paul supporters are conspiracy prone LOL ! back room deal … unlikely
Report Post »Go-rin-no-sho
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:57pm“And they say Ron Paul supporters are conspiracy prone”
Yeah, we’ve now got Santorum, Rush, Breitbart, Ingraham, O’reilly, Levin, and many many others into conspiracy theory. Paranoia?
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 10:50pmRon Raul meeting with backroom kooks
Report Post »http://www.myspace.com/video/peace-freedom-are-achieved-through-understanding/ron-paul-meets-the-student-scholars-for-9-11-truth/28483925
martinez012577
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 11:12pm@republic
You would do yourself a service by not putting up misleading statements. A guy came up to Ron Paul and introduced himself and his organization. If Ron Paul had known he was having a “Ron Raul meeting with backroom kooks” they wouldn’t have had to do that. That didnt look like a backroom deal or meeting in any way, it more looked like a fund raiser at a house. Good try, but failure as usual with your posts. With your type of reporting you could easily get a job at MSNBC or Mediamatters.
Report Post »slr4528
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:47pmIt really isn’t rocket science as to why Paul attacks Santorum and Gingrich. Paul spent literally decades with these two in the legislature and he knows their so called conservative big government record backwards and forwards. When Gingrich was speaker he actively campaigned against Paul by backing Paul’s opponent, when Paul ran for his House seat in Texas.
Since Romney never worked in Washington because he worked in the private sector and was a governor of a state; Romney really has had limited interaction with Paul. Paul and Romney got to know each other during the past GOP primaries and that is about it. In MN Paul placed anti-Romney ads and during the Maine caucuses things seemed to heat up between the Romney and Paul camps. I do recall Paul knocking Romney’s foreign policies at a few debates as well.
The other thing people seem to forget as how Santorum and Gingrich literally scoffed at Paul during the debates and Gingrich even went on the record that he could never vote for Paul. Romney on the other hand, has always been very respectful towards Paul and his views. I do think there is a strong bond of mutual respect between Paul and Romney. Both men have built successful careers outside of Washington and both men really don’t need Washington as a basis for a career. They really are the 2 outsiders left in this race.
Report Post »soybomb315
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:59pmYou make good points. I would sleep better if ron had anything bad to say about romney tho. Do you remember santorum in the debates before he became popular?? He used to attack ron paul out of nowhere in order to score cheap political points. I don’t think ron has forgotten and it showed in the last debate (Karma).
Report Post »Clutch
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:15pmRight on. How hard is it to draw this conclusion? For me it’s not hard at all, but if you’ve been prone to following what talking heads say, than of course it has to be some conspiracy.. Ron and Mitt couldn’t just have a mutual respect for one another.
I’m starting to really dislike the Rick Santorum- “conservatives”, almost more than liberals. They’re doing the very thing they complained about the left doing.. Also you can’t be for small government or a fiscally responsible government and still want the government to control so many aspects of our lives, as Santorum would like it to do.
Report Post »Morgan Hopson
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:40pmI agree with you about the lack of Ron’s knowledge in and out. But also it is good strategy for Ron Paul. If he can knock off Santorum and Gingrich, It will be very easy to convince America that Ron Paul is better for the country than Mitt Romney.
Report Post »Go-rin-no-sho
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:40pmTwo words. Prove it.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 1:15amAnyone can listen to my show mon-fri; 6a-11a mountain time.
http://www.1530kcmn.com
Love to burn some time with you all.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 6:43amGood job O.J., nice defense. Face it, your man sold out to the biggest progressive of all to get his son a new job.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:40pm@SEPARATED
I’m pretty sure you will deserve the poser for another 4 years since you insist on writing in an unelectable libertarian anarchist. What colossal ignorance.
Report Post »Scottsman
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:47pmYour comments against Ron Paul have become worthless. Go find your self Tron.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:48pmWell we’ll have have him, so we’ll all reap what we sow. Difference is, I know that either way, we would have been screwed. Romney/Newt/Santorum will at least buy us dinner first. Either way, we would have been just as screwed.
And I find it funny that a bunch of freedom loving, small government conservatives are still so use to government control that when someone actually advocates for TRUE limited government, they call it anarchy. That‘s what you know we’re got too much government involvement in our lives. How is a politician running for President be an Anarchist?
Tron, grow up.
Report Post »Go-rin-no-sho
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:49pmI love how you label him an anarchist when he has distinguished himself from fellow libertarian philosophers like Lew Rockwell in that he believes they are too anarchistic. That’s why Paul considers himself a conservative, not a libertarian. He did his soul searching in the 70s and 80s.
Report Post »Scottsman
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:52pmBy the way, where does Chuck Norris stand on Ron Paul now?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGUcUuMEXVc
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:53pmAnd yet the comments keep coming; good grief, you would absolutely hate my radio show. LOL!
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:54pmTronn You think Paul’s an anarchist? I haven’t laughed this hard in quite a while,please continue posting, your humor provides seconds of laughter.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:01pmOk, as I told JUSTANGRY, go pull up Mark Levin’s show from yesterday and listen to the first 20 minutes. It’s free; on the internet at http://www.marklevinshow.com He backs up everything he says. A little homework won’t hurt anyone.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:08pmI know for a fact I’d hate your radio show.
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:48pm@tron
You realize that Mark Levin didnt put any facts out, only speculation. It is clear Ron Paul is removing candidates from the race. When Ron Paul focuses his attack the candidate gets knocked out. His next target is Santorum. Remember Gingrich was was doing great and Ron ads destroyed him. Gingrich is almost done honestly, and I think he will cut a deal with one of them.
Why would Ron Paul not take out the middle guys to go head to head with Romney. Its clear the GOP really dont want Romney, its a smart move in my opinion. Once he gets rid of the other two clones he will hammer Mitt.
If Ron Paul gets the nomination are you voting for him, Obama, or staying home?
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:59pm@MARTINEZ
I vote GOP regardless the name. If you want to paint a blue house red, you have to put a brush in the red paint. It ain’t pretty at first, but with elbow grease, it will be red ultimately.
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 10:43pmtroninthemorning…Name your radio show….idiotinthemorning.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 11:18pmYou’d probably vote for Satan himself as long as he calls himself a Republican.
You prove my point as to why Ron Paul can and will be the only one to win the Presidency.
You will vote for anyone the GOP nominates. Just like every other rank and file Republican. Romney/Newt/Santorum supporters are all like this. Guarantee votes for whoever the nominee is. The only one who has the votes of Ron Paul supporters is Ron Paul himself. If he wins the nomination, he will get all the rank and file republicans like yourself to vote for him and he brings in all his republican supporters, his libertarian supporters, his independent supporters, his constitutionalist supporters and his disenfranchised democrats. Those people who will only vote for Ron Paul otherwise they’ll vote for Obama or 3rd Party.
Tron, you still haven’t answered my question regarding your charge of him doing nothing in Congress as being a bad thing when Congressional acts have causes so much loss of liberty and fortune. Explain to me how the fact that he was against all the corruptness of Congress and DC Insiders is your reason for not wanting to vote for him.
Report Post »Go-rin-no-sho
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 11:28pm@TRONINTHEMORNING I appreciate the link… actually provides something for you to go with, unlike the other talking heads out there. However, heresay from Steve Hayes, and connecting dots doesn‘t make what he’s saying 100% true.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:37pmHOLY CRAP!!! Ms. Gabbay posted a non-hit piece article. I’m speechless.
Report Post »7XGranddad
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:27pmPawlenty is full of it. Ron Paul cut a back room deal with a local congressman in Iowa the day
Report Post »before the Iowa caucus. He bought the congressman off to switch sides from Bachman’s
campaign to his.
martinez012577
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:34pmPROOF? I didnt think so.
Report Post »Go-rin-no-sho
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:36pmYou have no idea – before Kent Sorensen worked with Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul actually helped him in his state election. He felt obligated to return the favor.
Report Post »Scottsman
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:49pmI hope you are not repopulating your worthless drivel there, 7XGRANDAD.
Report Post »Cottoneyed77
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:23pmWell, i got news for ya’ little Timmy, the “crazy uncle” then must be the “last person in the world” because that‘s exactly what he’s done. It’s obvious to anyone who looks at it objectively. The “crazy uncle” and Romney-Hewitt have joined forces because of their mutual hatred of Conservatives. Uncle Ron is a libertarian anarchist and Romney-Hewitt is one of those “astute” moderates. This unholy alliance could birth the VP slot for the “crazy uncle’s” son, Rand. Goodness knows, Romney-Hewitt needs all the help he can get, after all he’s been running for president non-stop for 6 years and still can’t get north of 30%. Conservatives just don‘t believe he’s anything other than what he was as Governor of Massachusetts. We ain‘t buyin’ what he‘s peddlin’. Period….Ann Coulter not withstanding…..
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:37pmRight on, COTTON; a perfect, passionate post of logic. Of course, the Paul people would never look into the truth of Murray Rothbard. I honestly wonder what the attraction of Paul is to these folk? If you educate yourself about these individuals running for prez, and if you do it objectively, then you must conclude that Ron is not ‘all that.’ In fact, he has a very shady history.
Report Post »Go-rin-no-sho
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:47pmSorry Tron, but I actually did research on Murray Rothbard. While I don’t agree with “paleolibertarianism”, I understand that Rothbard contributed a ton to free-market economic theory. Murray Rothbard defended the idea of praxeology – the study of human action. He was Von Mises’ pupil, and you know what Von Mises was? He was the anti-Keynes.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:47pmTell us the truth about Rothbard. I did a quick search and didn’t see any red flags. You know I’ll listen. (well read)
Report Post »NoNannyState4me
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:48pmCrazy man, crazy. Makes me sad too, y’all are handing it to Odumbo on a silver platter.
Report Post »KidCharlemagne
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 10:53pmTRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:37pm
Right on, COTTON; a perfect, passionate post of logic. Of course, the Paul people would never look into the truth of Murray Rothbard.
=====================================
Likewise, Mark Levin will NEVER tell you the truth about Abraham Lincoln:
“You dislike the emancipation proclamation; and, perhaps, would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional–I think differently. I think the constitution invests its Commander-in-chief, with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there–has there ever been–any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it, helps us, or hurts the enemy? Armies, the world over, destroy enemie’s property when they can not use it; and even destroy their own to keep it from the enemy. Civilized belligerents do all in their power to help themselves, or hurt the enemy, except a few things regarded as barbarous or cruel. Among the exceptions are the massacre of vanquished foes, and non-combatants, male and female.”
Report Post »-Abraham Lincoln, August 26, 1863
TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:15pmI’m no fan of Paul or Romney for prez. Other gigs within the cabinet; fine, but neither are built for the job of POTUS. Romney is a flip-flopping flip-flopper who is just not in touch with the real world of today and Paul is a Murray Rothbard follower who hasn’t done anything in congress in 30 years; plus his horse-and-buggy foreign policy.
Gotta go with Santorum and I am aware of his imperfections as well.
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:22pmSo you are voting for Obama for four more years? Gotcha, thanks for the info.
Not only is Santorum got a crappy voting record, has talked bad about the tea party, and is for government control over the population but he has no shot at beating Obama. He will never get the Ron Paul supporters support.
Without Ron Paul, you get Obama for four more years.
Ron Paul 2012. I am voting for him even if I have to write his name in.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:22pmTron, so I take it you give Congress a 100% approval rating? You love everything that has come out of Congress, TARP, Patriot Act, NDAA, just to name a few? With a Congressional approval rating of what? 15%? I’d say the man that has stood up against Congress would have the approval of the American people.
You don‘t like him because he wasn’t willing to compromise and sell out the American people along with the rest of the crooks in Congress. This is your argument against Ron Paul? Really?
So had he been more corrupted, more slimy, on the side of removing our freedoms and spending ourselves into bankruptcy, he would have earned your vote? Do you ever think these things through?
And his foreign policy makes sense. What’s so wrong with saying if we go to war, we’ll have Congress declare it, get in, demolish the enemy and get out. That‘s Ron Paul’s foreign policy. Saves us money. You call yourself a conservative but LOVE nation building. Since when has that been the Conservative stance? GWB. And look where that got it?
Report Post »Santorum_is_a_douchebag
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:23pmYeah we know all about his imperfections.
Report Post »Cottoneyed77
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:24pmI concur……….
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:27pmYes, I know you ‘paul bearers’ will do your little ‘write-in dance.’…and YOU will be responsible for another 4 with Barry the buffoon. Wise up, paulies.
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:27pmYeah Paul should have authored thousands of new laws and regulations that would of increased our liberty and freedom from government,makes perfect sense.hahahahaha. And Paul supporters are accused of being ‘druggies’. Santorum is a big government progressive and hasn’t said a word about slashing spending.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:30pmRon Paul and no one else. I will write him in. If that means four more years of Obama, you deserve it.
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:37pmAMERICAN SOLDIER (SEPARATED) I hear these so called conservatives wanting Paul supporters to back their progressive with an R next to their name.Why don’t they just back Paul instead?
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:41pmActually Tron, it would be you who is responsible. You settled for the lesser of two evils all your life. You’ve sold yourself, and the rest of us, out to the progressives in our Government. You repeat the same argument against Ron Paul that has repeatedly been rebutted but you never actually acknowledge with a response.
Answer me this, how is the fact that Ron Paul hasn’t been a standard corrupt politician among a sea of corrupt politicians that have given us TARP, Bailouts, Patriot Act, NDAA and raising the debt ceiling over and over and over and over and over again an argument AGAINST voting for this man?
You blow me away with your logic. The fact that you ridicule Ron Paul supports the way you do makes it even more comical.
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:46pm@progressive
Because Glenn, Billy, Sean, and Rush havent told them to yet.
Report Post »Clutch
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:06pmNext this Tron moron is gonna say that Paul is anti Israel, even though Israel is pro Paul policy.
Anyone that claims to be against big government and turns around and tells me they are voting for Risk Santorum has to be a complete idiot. They are obviously far beyond seeing the light. Don’t tell me you actually studied all the candidates, I can almost bet you did nothing but listen to a few soundbites and then come here with your ignorance.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:17pmHey CLUTCH,
I don’t know if Paul is anti-Israel, but I’m sure he blames America for 911; that‘s enough for this ’moron’ to walk away from the guy.
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:54pm@tron
LOL, no the CIA and 911 commission said our policies caused 911(blowback). Do you get your radio show material from Sean, Billy, Glenn, Mark, and Rush also or just your forum talking points?
Report Post »THXll38
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 9:02pmTRONINTHEMORNING -
I think that the USA had something to do wit the WTC bombing. I mean how many times can you screw with someone before you get some blowback? How long would it take you Tron if someone screwed with you and your family until you did something? Blowback is a SOB.
Report Post »MS Patriot
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 9:20pmMartinez he has gotten his support from the TEA Party and after his 3 state sweep of Romney he flew to Texas and met with Evangelist. Where they prayed for him, in a layin on of hands ceremony.
The Christian Right is about to show you who runs this country, after all this country was designed to protect us and now it’s time for the Christian Right to stand up and save the Republic.
The founding fathers set up the separation of Church and state to keep government out of religion, not religion out of government. Not until the lawyers for the progressives interpret it incorrectly did we get this society of PC to protect the sinners and criminals from themselves.
Why do non Christians hate Christians, it’s called your conscience you retards. They blame us for feeling bad about themselves.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 11:21pmOur founding fathers escaped from a place where religion controlled the government, which in turn controlled the people. The point of separation of church and state is to insure against theocracy.
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:14pmLOL there is not proof he has cut any kind of deal. This is the GOP trying to hurt Ron Paul. Why does he not attack Mitt. Why would he, all Rick and Newt are going to do is attack Mitt. Let them take down Mitt, while you take them down. Its a smart plan.
Report Post »soybomb315
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:28pmits a terrible plan. Mitt Romney stands for everything Ron Paul is against. Romney is a corporatist and supporters the existing banking/federal reserve system. Look at Romneys biggest donors – they are all big banks. Romney is a living example of what is wrong with our financial system and Paul is missing a huge opportunity.
I love ron paul to pieces but you have to realize this is a bad bad deal. Ron Paul could be in the cabinet of any of the candidates – not just romney. If this ‘alliance’ is true – i may stop supporting ron paul money and going door-to-door for him…There is still gary johnson
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:37pmHe didnt make a deal. That is the point. He is just letting Newt and RIck bash Mitt while he cuts them to pieces.
Report Post »soybomb315
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:50pmnewt/rick are attacking mitt over the most pointless issues. Romney is the softest target for the reasons listed above plus romneycare. I would be happiest if ron paul didnt talk about the other candidates and just focused on government and obama. But if you are going to criticize the other candidates – you have to start with Mitt. He is still the frontrunner and has all the hallmarks of a corporatist.
I live in virginia and it is ron/mitt on the ballot. Does he want to win virginia or not?
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 10:18pm@ms
No he has people like Rush, Glenn, Mark, Sean, and Billy telling people who to vote for and currently its Santorum. These people have railed against the way our government has run for years and now they want another one from the same group to run it. How can these men say the policies of Obama, Bush, Clinton or any of the three clones is any different. Has anything changed policy wise? Are we hinging the race on Obamacare? Hell Mitt and Gingrich cannot even fight that fight.
Pro War – Clinton, Bush, Obama, the clones.
Pro Big Government – Clinton, Bush, Obama, the clones
Pro Big Spending – Clinton, Bush, Obama, the clones
Anti Freedom – Clinton, Bush, Obama, the clones
Thinks Government knows whats best for you – Clinton, Bush, Obama, the clones
Pro Federal Reserve – Clinton, Bush, Obama, the clones.
I am in the Christian right. I am 35 year old father of four that lives in the south. I have always voted Republican. I learned from my mistake from Mcain. Picking the lesser of two evils is cheating my family.
My oldest son is 9 and I dont want him to be drafted 9 years from now if we are still occupying the wasteland countries. You mentioned earlier you are a mother of teens, this should scare you the most. We are broke, over extended, and tired. Dont vote to send other parents kids to war unless you are willing to put your kids in the way of those bullets also!!!!
Report Post »momprayn
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:12pmAll I know is it did seem like something like that was going on…..and how about his son, Rand? After all these years of passionate work to get his (Ron) ideas out – I would think at his age now, some kind of powerful, authoritative position where he could actually start getting them done would be his goal – since he knows he won’t be the nominee. Maybe it’s just something he “knows” in the political realm – that if Romney wins, he knows he likes some of his ideas and would give him something powerful. I’d love to have him as head of the Fed. or something & getting them “fixed” or eradicated…not VP. I like Rand too. We’ll see……it’ll probably all work out.
Report Post »alabamaslammer
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:09pmJust once can we elect someone who even their political enemies say will not cut a back room deal? Even if you hate his foreign policy at least you can believe he isn’t full of it everytime he opens his mouth
Report Post »MonkeyBeagle
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:07pmPaul made no deal, its been totally shot down as false by Pauls campaign.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:34pmYea, sure. We know they always tell the truth.
Report Post »I cringed just typing that sarcastically………….
martinez012577
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:45pm@ rational
Prove it. We both know you cannot, you just want another four years with Obama. The three clones have no chance beating Obama. There is only one candidate that offers a different view from Obama outside of “blah blah blah Obamacare”.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:07pm@martinez012577
I’m tired of trying to prove anything to you idiots. I’ve posted links. Paul’s failed record. Santorum’s, Paul‘s and other’s voting record on the 2nd Amendment. Paul in his own words. If you moron trolls don’t get it by now and continue to lie about stuff and refuse to accept the truth, then tell me whats the use in repeating myself yet again so you can reject the truth, yet again. I’ve debunked so many lies that you people have told, that I wouldn’t believe you now if you said the sky is blue.
Report Post »Ignorant bottom feeder…………………
TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:11pmAmen, RATIONAL!
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 10:37pm@rational
The only thing I ever see linked about Paul is “look at these new letters, blah blah blah”, or ” he is a isolationist, blah blah blah”, or “he didnt get anything passed in 30 years”.
1. Newsletters is a old boring story that if it had anything real to it he would have been out of office long ago.
2. Non intervention is what our founding fathers had in mind. Since you are desperate for a war, have congress vote, that is all Ron Paul has asked for.
3. If anything with bills like No child left behind, Patriot act, NDAA, Obamacare, Nafta, and others why would that be a bad thing? Have you seen some of the bills he tried to get passed? I will tell you this, our country would be alot better off. Him not getting passed isnt a sign Ron Paul is bad, its a sign congress is too busy fattening their pockets, laying down with lobbyist, and pandering to other countries needs over our own.
Criticizing Ron Paul for not passing bills in Congress is like criticizing a nun in a whore house for not turning tricks. He was there to stop the “whoring,” not become one.
Report Post »MonkeyBeagle
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:06pmThis Romney/Paul thing is the establishment yet again trying to convince people it is over for Paul, when he is just now gaining ground.
Report Post »BlesstheJews
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:01pmSounds like a Romeny/Paul ticket is being lined up…
Report Post »soybomb315
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:15pmi thought all the romney supporters were set on rubio…uh ooooh
Report Post »ruffnex
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:23pmA REAL LOSER situation.Romney’s not dumb.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:26pmNot a chance. Ron Paul has too much integrity for that. As much of a Ron Paul supporter as I am, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THAT TICKET.
I will not settle for VP or Chairmen of the Fed. I’m in it for the win. If he compromises on his principles, which I doubt he will, he will lose my vote. I am not voting for him because his name is Ron Paul. I’m voting for him because of his integrity and his ideals. If he backs off from those ideals, then he as lost my vote and I will vote for the Libertarian or Constitution ticket.
Ron Paul as President or nothing else. I don’t care if that does mean four more years of Obama.
Report Post »soybomb315
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:37pmAmerican Soldier (Separated)
Report Post »you are spot-on. he would have almost no influence as a VP. I dont think he is being considered because RP folks do not worship ron paul – we worship the message. There may be something to the rand paul deal though…I would rather romney lose in 2012 than be stuck with him for EIGHT years. I am wondering who will carry the message in 2016
chips1
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:41pmAMERICAN:
Report Post »Why does each of your posts end with a threat? If we don’t vote your way then you want Obama? Whose military were you in?
martinez012577
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:53pm@chips
Its not a threat, its a fact. Ron Paul’s supporters will not support a fake. We did it with Mcain and will not do it again. Dr. Paul didnt make a deal on anything for political favors. Rand doesnt need any help getting elected.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:58pmI was in the American People’s Army. I served in the 101st Airborne Division as an Infantryman. Feel free to question me, my service and my patriotism all you wish. I threaten it because it’s the only thing that will get into most of your thick skulls. You want Obama gone, Ron Paul is your best chance. He is the only candidate that has supports, such as myself, who are dedicated to the true concept of freedom and liberty and wishes for those principles to be the front runner once again. I will not settle. I will not waiver in my resolve. It is not about Ron Paul the man. It’s about the message of freedom and liberty. He brought that concept out of me, woke me up from my apathy. I was not into politics until I heard this man speak.
You all know independents are the swing votes. You can have all your GOP vote for the nominee, only one candidate has the vast majority of independents on his side and that is Ron Paul. Sure, the other guys can definitely get the GOP/Conservative vote. Good luck winning us independents, constitutionals, libertarians and otherwise Ron Paul supporters. You won’t. End of story.
If you truly were concerned with just removing Obama out of office, you’d seriously consider Ron Paul. He is the only one that can truly beat Obama. Romney/Newt/Santorum supporters are fickle and will toe the party line in November, which means if Paul gets the nomination, they’ll vote for him. Ron Paul supports, however, will not do the same. Do the math.
Report Post »SnickersLover
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 6:56pmI think Ron Paul would totally make a back room deal. This is the man that loaded up bills with earmarks because he knew they would pass, and then he voted against them to make himself look good. That doesn’t seem very honorable to me…
Report Post »MonkeyBeagle
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:05pmYou dont know Paul, no man is perfect, but of all of the Politicains up there today.. Only Paul would be accepted by the founders.
Report Post »yeah I got an itch
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:06pmyou obviously do not understand congressional functions, like allocation. if you know the bill will pass, you vote against it….. the money can go any d#$n where they want. but as a congressman, your job is to allocate funds. why then, give the criminals a blank check? allocate some funds out with an earmark to at least exhert some control of the funds.
Report Post »yeah I got an itch
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:13pm… since your constituants paid some of it out of their taxes, responsibility to protect their funds as best you can. thanks
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:16pmI am also convinced. Is Ron Paul not a ‘lifer’ in politics? Yes he is. And he ain’t no fan of Reagan or Lincoln; and then there are the creepy ‘newsletters’….
Report Post »yeah I got an itch
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:17pmincidently, if not allocated…..it definitely goes to something abhorent and “dissappears” into the system. of course, ideally the bill failing is best.
sorry if I sounded rude, not intended.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:18pmSo the tax payers in his home district that pays taxes didn’t deserve something back?
If the money is going to be spent, at least allocate them! That’s their job, in Congress, to allocate the funds. Otherwise, had he not allocated funds back to his district to his constituents that pay their taxes regularly, that money would have been sent to Obama as a blank check.
He would have been more than happy had those bills been voted down completely and none of the money spent. Which is why he votes no on every single one of them. However, the money is going to be spent regardless. Earmarking did not add a penny to the overall spending bill. He made sure that if the money would be spent, that his constituents received something back for the federal tax dollars they’ve spent.
All one has to do is think about this rather than repeat the FOX News talking heads…..
Report Post »KidCharlemagne
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 11:03pmTRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:16pm
And he ain’t no fan of Reagan or Lincoln; and then there are the creepy ‘newsletters’….
=========================
Are YOU a fan of Lincoln?:
————–
Report Post »“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”
-Abraham Lincoln, September 18, 1858, Charleston, Illinois
soybomb315
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 6:55pmPawlenty has endorsed Mitt Romney. Therefore we cannot trust what he says. As a ron paul supporter, i am upset that ron paul would make an alliance with someone like mitt romney. yuk
Codex Alimentarius
Report Post »flatbroke
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 6:51pmI agree with Pon Paul on everything except his cccrrrraaaazzzyyy stance on Iran!
Report Post »soybomb315
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 6:55pmI bet you couldnt even describe his stance on iran
Report Post »soybomb315
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:20pmRon Paul stance on iran:
Report Post »Let israel take care of its business and have the US stop telling them what to do in the middle east. Iran isnt a national security threat to us. If we stop telling israel what to do – they would have already took care of it and you people could stop mongering. Oh but you go ahead and vote for the republicans who want an all out USA war with iran
progressiveslayer
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:20pmTSUNAMI-22 How many ICBM’s does Iran have?
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:31pmPaul’s stance on Iran is called the Ostrich Policy. It’s where we join Paul in sticking our head in the sand, don‘t take anything that Iran says seriously about killing millions of people and hope it doesn’t come back to hit us in the part of us that we left sticking up when we decided to stick our head in the sand. If Paul is so “heady” about America’s economy, then he should at least understand the ecomonic consequences if Iran attacks other countries, even if not America. But nooooo!
Report Post »Besides, RON PAUL IS A FAKE!
flatbroke
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:31pmRon Paul stated in the recent debates “ Iran does not have a nuclear weapon even the UN know this”
Report Post »and Ron Paul says America should just stay out of any potential conflict between Israel and Iran. I already knew this as i am not a Ron Paul supporter, i just agree with a lot of what he says, but i would never vote for him! anything else!
TSUNAMI-22
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:41pm@ progressiveslayer
TSUNAMI-22 How many ICBM’s does Iran have?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Iran doesn’t need an ICBM.
Try to think outside the box just a little bit. Try this for a start: Iran already has the nuclear capability. The pervasive wisdom coming from the media is that Iran doesn’t have this capability yet.
Sounds like most people are buying this deception. Another deception is that Israel will be the first to attack, or be attacked.
Watch the other hand.
Report Post »soybomb315
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:41pmflatbroke
Report Post »oh i see – so you just added that ‘crazy’ bit for dramatic effect? bravo
American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:08pm@TSUNAMI-22
Sooo….. you‘d rather have someone who’s 1% right and willing to go to war with Iran but 99% wrong everywhere else…..
Makes sense, I suppose…..
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:15pm@ American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:08pm
@TSUNAMI-22
Sooo….. you‘d rather have someone who’s 1% right and willing to go to war with Iran but 99% wrong everywhere else…..
Makes sense, I suppose…..
Report Post »~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s a conclusion that YOU jumped to.
THXll38
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 9:08pmHey, TSUNAMI-22 -
How many nukes does Israel have? How many nukes does Iran have? In the Middle East, who has the baddest, pimpin military? How often does the US train with Israel? If you answer these questions honestly, you understand why America does not need to lead the Iranian fight.
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 10:52pmYou people are afraid of Iran…I cant believe you are such p@ssies. They have no capabilities. they are all bark. Remember the republican Guard in Iraq? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Warmongering sissies!!!
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on February 25, 2012 at 2:03am@ THXll38
How many nukes does Israel have? How many nukes does Iran have? In the Middle East, who has the baddest, pimpin military? How often does the US train with Israel? If you answer these questions honestly, you understand why America does not need to lead the Iranian fight.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At which point in this thread did I say that America had to lead an Iranian fight?
The question was to explain Ron Paul’s policy regarding Iran. My answer was that Ron Paul doesn’t feel that they are a muslim threat. What I’m trying to make people see on their own is that with this kind of “head buried in the sand” attitude, he may not perceive Shariah law as a threat on our soil either if he became president.
Ron Paul isn’t a stupid man, he’s just not what I would call someone ready for the “worldly” task of commander in chief. He doesn’t have any “command presence”.
Alan West has command presence, as does Gingrich. Romney is like Mr. Rogers on a caffeine high.
I want a president who’s gonna fight back if need be, not try to determine what WE did wrong, apologize, or be considered a general ***** to the rest of the planet.
Report Post »heyjim55
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 6:50pmHe’s right Ron Paul would not cut a deal and sell out, how about the rest of them ???
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:12pmThe rest of them in a heart beat,Paul is a true patriot and would govern within the bounds of the constitution.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 7:20pmRemember, Ron is a politician. They cut deals daily. If anyone thinks he’s above it all, well; sweet dreams.
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:12pm@tron
You are missing the point. Ron Paul got his reputation by not doing what politicians do. That is why we want him.
As I understand it you have some radio show. Is your show as boring and uninformed as your post on here?
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 8:21pmYes, MARTINEZ; my show is snooze-boring to the ignorant. It’s a fire factory to the educated and self-motivated true conservatives and music lovers.
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 10:41pm@tron
I doubt it, but I am guessing you dont talk politics or at least dont allow callers. I could see from your posts on here, you would be destroyed daily.
Report Post »welovetheUSA
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 6:49pmWong………..it was Pelosi with Obama care…………!
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on February 24, 2012 at 6:46pmAwww, Tim! Everyone’s having fun in the conspiracy game. Leave us alone.
Report Post »