Gunboards Forums banner

Gun Owners of America candidate ratings

15K views 294 replies 25 participants last post by  MauserboyM48 
#1 ·
Just in. Republican candidate ratings:

Ron Paul A+
Rick Perry A
Michelle Bauchmann A
Rick Santorum B-
Newt Gingrich C
Mitt Romney D-
 
#63 ·
Look at the info I already provided. He has an A+ rateing from the NRA now, Higher than Ron Paul.

I also listed his Federal voteing record which is outstanding.

Maybe you would care to share what I left out???
 
#4 ·
The A+ is pretty disengenuous, since Paul thinks it is perefctly fine for the State, whether a city, county or state, to use their tax funded largesse to sue manufacturers in whast is essentially an attempt of restraint of trade.

OPerry I think got the easy A just because he is from Texas. Romney, no surprise.

Would be really cool if we actually had a halfway decent candidate to chose from.
 
#6 ·
Wonder how Ron Paul got an A+???

After all he was one of the very few Republicans to vote against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Oct. 2005 Pres. George W. Bush signs the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which shields Firearm manufacturers from Lawsuits. Republicans control both Senate and House. Major victory for the National Rifle Association and gun manufacturers, who have been pushing for the legislation for years. It also marked a tremendous defeat for New York City and the many other cities that have pending lawsuits against the gun industry.

NRA reduced Paul to a lowly "B" then, and supported the Democrat who ran against him in the next election. I think the NRA still only gives Paul an "A" which is the same rateing John McCain has now.

Guessing the Paulettes have some pull in the GOA (LOL). Paul definitely does not deserve such a rateing!!

Maybe Ron Paul attached some Pork to that Bill, and thus had to vote against it????
 
#7 ·
Ho humm blundering tum doesn't like the ratings. Still a Santorum man huh? How about his "less than paul" record? Last I recall you were going to write the NRA and GOA with your news. Perhaps you can start your own RKBA organization where you can rate the candidates in your little fantasy land.
 
#10 · (Edited)
Last I recall you were going to write the NRA and GOA with your news.
So I see you have fallen to Mouseboy's level and started making up things.

Exactly where did I say that? Hint at that? Imply that?

Never happened, but you Paulettes really dont care about facts.

I noticed you did not argue with my facts. Because they are facts. The truth and the whole truth.

Makes you uncomfortible I guess discussing REAL facts.
 
#17 ·
So I see you have fallen to Mouseboy's level and started making up things.

Exactly where did I say that? Hint at that? Imply that?

Never happened, but you Paulettes really dont care about facts.

I noticed you did not argue with my facts. Because they are facts. The truth and the whole truth.

Makes you uncomfortible I guess discussing REAL facts.
Actually a continuation of our discussion on the same subject from a while ago. You got flustered and I suggested you write the RKBA organizations with your breaking news or start your own. I see your memory isn't what it used to be (heck maybe it never was any good). See page 1 of the Romney thread.


Your so called facts have been discussed and rehashed countless times (memory thing again?). Let me just put it easy to you Tom, I believe I will trust the GOA on ratings before I trust you. Sorry.

Heck I will trust the GOA before I trust the NRA, especially after their support of Ried the last go around.
 
#11 ·
All of this hatred for Dr. Paul; the media, the Republican establishment, the pundits, the people on this forum.

"He's unelectable!"

"He's crazy!"

"He's a kook!"

"He's nuts!"

"He's a racist!"

"He's a homophobe!"

"He's incompetent!"

Truly these statements and the people who say them are disingenuous at best. His detractors really don't know anything about him. Rather than present their argument as "I don't agree with Paul on..." they just launch personal, bitter attacks against him.

Here is one testament to Dr. Paul's character:



(And this type of thing happened often; Dr Paul would not charge patients or would only asking for a nominal fee)
 
#16 · (Edited)
Well lets take one point at a time. I think this will be fun. Lets start with Ron Paul on illegal immigrants.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...n-illegal-immigration-is-th/question-1768557/

"NumbersUSA re-AFFIRMS reasons for giving Ron Paul an "F" failing grade on illegal immigration. Is there any doubt in your mind now that Ron Paul is a RINO?"

or this:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...4EC3CEB604C79BADC72B4E&view=detail&FORM=VIRE5

Ron Paul position never changes - huh???? Love the below extract.

"In 1988, while running as the Presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, Ron Paul said, “there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” He was asked about this quote on Meet the Press during his second presidential run."

http://www.truthistreason.net/ron-pauls-solutions-to-illegal-immigration

As to Ron Paul's statement that States be given right to grant citizenship to illegals - it was stated it in one of the recent debates. After stating we cant kick out 11 million illegals. Kinda goes with his give more rights to the states philosophy - huh?
 
#20 ·
The Gun Owners of America has a pretty miserable record in politics. Its stock in trade seems to be taking credit for everything done by the NRA-ILA, collecting money from the gullible who mistake screeching and preaching to the choir, and spending it on Larry Pratt's direct mail company in Springfield, VA (my home town for 25 years).

The GOA has an institutional fondness for the most miserable and extreme characters on the right, like Ron Paul. Apparently this is due to the bumbling ignorance of Larry Pratt, its executive director for many years. Pratt's finest moment came when he was bounced as co-chairman of pat Buchanan's 1996 campaign when he gave speeches to neo-nazi meetings, standing in front of a swastika flag.
 
#23 ·
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-pauls-personal-pork-projects.html

"Ron Paul's personal pork projects

Guaranteed 100% pork. The media has noted, though many libertarians have ignored, that the allegedly “libertarian” Republican, Ron Paul, has been bringing home the bacon to his district, just like every other vote-seeking politician. The PR hype is that Paul is different. Judge for yourself.

Paul says he only votes for spending authorized by the US Constitution. But when it comes to using his Congressional position, to request pork for projects in his own district, apparently anything goes. Whether the spending is Constitutionally legitimate, or no,t Paul brings home the bacon.

According to the Houston Chronicle, Paul:

...leads the Houston-area delegation in the number of earmarks, or special funding requests, that he is seeking for his district. He is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 — neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function.

Paul’s arguments for using pork barrel projects in his own district is that, “if they take it, we should ask for it back.” Of course, on that basis, there is little spending which is not justified.

Paul also argued that these special earmarks, used by Congressman to increase their own popularity at home, don’t add anything to the budget. The funding is already in the budget he says and the budget is not increased to compensate for them. But spending $400 million on pork, as Paul requested, still means the $400 million is spent. And, under the current budget, if it is spent, it contributes to the deficit that will, no doubt, mean higher future taxes. While agencies try to spend their full budget so they can request more the next year. There is some slim chance that funding allocated will not be spent. Earmarking makes sure the funds are spent.

Even if one were to buy Paul’s argument, shouldn’t the earmarks, at the very least, correspond with Constitutionally permitted spending? Does Paul's dubious claim that the “people” are really spending the money, as opposed to politicians, mean the spending need not be constitutionally justified?

Certainly, the special interest groups that put in requests for such spending are not “the people”. And the idea that this removes spending authority from politicians is absurd. It means that the special interests have to go to a Congressman, with begging bowl in hand, asking for the handouts. Since the individual politicians is the gateway for such funding it expands his ability to buy votes with taxpayer funds.

Here is a list of some of the pork that Paul has applied for. It is apparent that much of this has nothing to do with programs permitted, or mandated, by the Constitution. You figure out what clause of the Constitution enumerates the spending in question. I’m not an expert on the workings of Congress but reading through the funding requests I am under the impression that Paul was seeking multiple funding for some of these projects. I don’t know if this is cumulative, but that is the impression I got. Either way asking for it once is bad enough.

1. $25,000 for the Brazoria County Sheriff to establish a “Children’s Identification and Location Database.”

2. $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp.

3. $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research.

4. $3 million to “secure the acquisition of the McGinnes tract, protecting its critical natural resources and helping consolidate refuge inholdings.”

5. $5 million to expand the cancer center at Brazosport Hospital.

6. $200,000 for the Matagorda Episcopal Health Outreach Program to fund a “National Health Service Corp Scholar.”

7. $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium.

8. $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. (Does anyone think there is a big shrimp industry in Paul’s district?)

9. $10 million to repair the Galveston railways causeway bridge."



http://chip91.wordpress.com/2007/08/19/ron-pauls-personal-pork-projects/


"Ron Paul’s personal pork projects


Here is a list of some of the pork that Paul has applied for.

1. $25,000 for the Brazoria County Sheriff to establish a “Children’s Identification and Location Database.”

2. $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp.

3. $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research.

4. $3 million to “secure the acquisition of the McGinnes tract, protecting its critical natural resources and helping consolidate refuge inholdings.”

5. $5 million to expand the cancer center at Brazosport Hospital.

6. $200,000 for the Matagorda Episcopal Health Outreach Program to fund a “National Health Service Corp Scholar.”

7. $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium.

8. $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. (Does anyone think there is a big shrimp industry in Paul’s district?)

9. $10 million to repair the Galveston railways causeway bridge.

10. $1.18 million for “Personalized Medicine in Asthma”

11. $100,000 for a “data-driven automated system for nursing students on the Texas Gulf Coast.”

12. $257,000 to “prepare graduates from the doctoral program at the University of Texas Medical Branch School of Nursing to assume faculty roles in schools for nursing with a deficient number of doctoral level faculty.”

13. $1.4 million to buy buses for the Golden Crescent Regional Commission.

14. $2 million to buy buses for Galveston.

15. $5 million for highway spending.

16. $2 million to replace facilities for Galveston bus service.

17. $3 million to replace facilities for the Golden Crescent Regional bus facility.

18. $2 million to repair the Galveston trolley.

19. $2.14 million to renovate the Edna Theater.

20. $13 million for I-69 highway project.

21. $30 million the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship.

22. $4.5 million to maintain Cedar Bayou. Plus another $9 million

23. $15 million for “construction at GIWW Matagorda Bay.” Plus another $5.8 million

24. $100,000 to maintain Chocolate Bayou.

25. $2.5 million to maintain Double Bayou."


Or lets listen to Ron Paul, in his own words, on his Pork Spending

http://www.breitbart.tv/paul-confronted-on-his-pork-spending/
 
#24 ·
http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/12/06/ron-pauls-latest-ad-on-fiscal-sanity-is-a-total-lie/


"It’s a total lie.

Ron Paul has been one of the major leaders in pork spending and waste for years. His critics on this come from all across the political spectrum.

Let’s start with criticism from The Club For Growth.

Ron Paul supporters aren’t going to like today’s editorial ($) in the Wall Street Journal. For that matter, neither will the PorkBusters.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul — libertarian gadfly and current Republican Presidential hopeful — has made a name for himself as a critic of overspending. But it seems even he can’t resist the political allure of earmarks.

After reporters started asking questions, the Congressman disclosed his requests this year for about $400 million worth of federal funding for no fewer than 65 earmarks. They include such urgent national wartime priorities as an $8 million request for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to fund shrimp-fishing research.

When we called Mr. Paul’s office for an explanation, his spokesperson offered up something worthy of pork legends Tom DeLay or Senator Robert C. Byrd: “Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked,” the spokesman said. “What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it’s not by accident.”

Link

Despite this impressive record, Ron Paul’s history contains some curious indiscretions, including a vote for $232 million for federally mandated election reform (only one of 21 Republicans to vote for it) and a vote against the line-item veto —even after it was modified to pass constitutional muster. Paul’s record on pork was outstanding in 2006, voting for all 19 of Jeff Flake’s anti-pork amendments in 2006, but his record took a stark turn for the worse in 2007, in which Paul received an embarrassing 29% on the Club for Growth’s RePORK Card, voting for only 12 of the 50 anti-pork amendments. A year later, he voted against an amendment that would strip out all earmarks from a spending bill.

Some of the outrageous pork projects Paul voted to keep include $231,000 for the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association’s Urban Center; $129,000 for the “perfect Christmas tree project;” $300,000 for the On Location Entertainment Industry Craft Technician Training Project in California; $150,000 for the South Carolina Aquarium; and $500,000 for the National Mule and Packers Museum in California. In 2007, Ron Paul requested more than sixty earmarks “worth tens of millions of dollars for causes as diverse as rebuilding a Texas theater, funding a local trolley, and helping his state’s shrimp industry.” Paul’s affection for earmarks was also on display when he voted against a proposal that would “require the Education secretary to submit an explanation to Congress if grants authorized by the bill are not awarded competitively.”

In defense of his support for earmarks, Rep. Paul took the “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” position, arguing that “I don’t think they should take our money in the first place. But if they take it, I think we should ask for it back.” This is a contradiction of Paul’s self-proclaimed “opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution.”

Paul also voted to bail out the Highway Trust Fund to the tune of $8 billion in 2008.

Link

Ron Paul may be a fiscal deficit hawk on some issues, but let’s get one thing clear, his latest ad is a lie. He’ll bring home anything that brings home the votes and for this Texas congressman, that includes the pork.

Ron Paul flies in the face of his own party on this issue. The GOP issued an earmark moratorium, yet Ron Paul was one of four Republicans to request earmarks for the 2011 budget.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was one of only four House Republicans to break rank from the party and request earmarks despite a Republican Conference earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year. His largest single request was $19,500,000 for a naval training ship at the Texas Maritime Academy in Galveston, followed by a $18,126,000 to provide maintenance on the Matagorda Ship Channel.

For Fiscal Year 2010, Paul requested 54 total earmarks, adding up to $398,460,640 in pork that the former presidential candidate sought to bring home to his district. These requests were made prior to the House Republican Conference’s voluntary ban on filing earmarks.

Link

Ron Paul justifies his pork spending by saying he puts it in the bills but votes against it. What? Yes, he is for it, before he’s against it.

Also he gives justification for it by saying that the money for his district would get spent elsewhere if it wasn’t claimed. This is simply untrue. I came across this explanation of the process.

At the beginning of the budget cycle, Congress votes on how much to appropriate to the departments in the Executive Branch (In fact, Constitutionally, this is the ONLY way to do so). These voting members include Ron Paul. Now, when you say it does not increase spending, that only means in the CURRENT budget cycle. What happens, in actuality, is when they reappropriate money originally requested for that department in the Executive Branch, it creates a budget shortfall in said department of the money they have requested legitatately. This causes the requesting department to ask for even more in the next budget cycle, which means it DOES increase spending. So, in other words, specific project money appropriated legitimately to a departmental budget is now reappropriated on a whim for a Congress members wet dream of a project. The Legislative branch is the only branch tasked with spending taxpayer money, and that holds true whether Ron Paul tells you that’s the case or that the Executive Branch is “stealing it”.

I’ll close this with a video of Ron Paul explaining himself to Tim Russert."
 
#25 · (Edited)
An important part, from above, on whether Pork increase spending and the deficit:

"Also he gives justification for it by saying that the money for his district would get spent elsewhere if it wasn’t claimed. This is simply untrue. I came across this explanation of the process.

At the beginning of the budget cycle, Congress votes on how much to appropriate to the departments in the Executive Branch (In fact, Constitutionally, this is the ONLY way to do so). These voting members include Ron Paul. Now, when you say it does not increase spending, that only means in the CURRENT budget cycle. What happens, in actuality, is when they reappropriate money originally requested for that department in the Executive Branch, it creates a budget shortfall in said department of the money they have requested legitatately. This causes the requesting department to ask for even more in the next budget cycle, which means it DOES increase spending. So, in other words, specific project money appropriated legitimately to a departmental budget is now reappropriated on a whim for a Congress members wet dream of a project. The Legislative branch is the only branch tasked with spending taxpayer money, and that holds true whether Ron Paul tells you that’s the case or that the Executive Branch is “stealing it”."


And this little gem:

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was one of only four House Republicans to break rank from the party and request earmarks despite a Republican Conference earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year. His largest single request was $19,500,000 for a naval training ship at the Texas Maritime Academy in Galveston, followed by a $18,126,000 to provide maintenance on the Matagorda Ship Channel.


Want more? How about this link to an article called:"The true cost of pork spending"


http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/06/30/the-cost-of-pork-spending/
 
#26 ·
Paolettes claim Ron Paul is never wavering in his stances. He is always consistent in his voteing, and positions.

How do you explain Ron Paul's voteing on Pork spending?? From above.


"Paul’s record on pork was outstanding in 2006, voting for all 19 of Jeff Flake’s anti-pork amendments in 2006, but his record took a stark turn for the worse in 2007, in which Paul received an embarrassing 29% on the Club for Growth’s RePORK Card, voting for only 12 of the 50 anti-pork amendments. A year later, he voted against an amendment that would strip out all earmarks from a spending bill. "
 
#29 ·
How do you explain Ron Paul's voteing on Pork spending??
"
Pork spending is good and OK......as long as it comes back to the people who vote for me
 
#36 ·
that's a lot of millions. maybe the money for the cancer center is good, the rest, waste. looks like old ronnie is much like obamma, thinks money grows on trees. he's fixing to fizzle out, people are digging and finding out what is under the surface. a loon.
 
#39 ·
Actually Falm, in the news, your big government liberal is the one fizzling out, and it seems to me your man, ole Newt is more like Obama. Let us take a look:
Newt Gingrich Backs Funds For Abortionhttp://articles.sfgate.com/1995-04-10/news/17801484_1_poor-w…
Newt Gingrich filmed a commercial with liberal Democrat Nancy Pelosi advocating the feds impose regulations to cut back global warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154
02/15/2007 - Newt Gingrich supported a proposal for mandatory carbon cap and trade
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/intervie…
02/10/2011 - Newt Gingrich wants to replace the EPA instead of abolishing it
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20031365-503544.html
01/30/2011 - Newt Gingrich lobbied for ethanol subsidies
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870469800457610…
Newt Gingrich’s Environmental Problem
http://www.salon.com/2011/05/11/gingrich_environment_america…
Newt Gingrich co-sponsored the Global Warming Prevention Act which says that “the Earth’s atmosphere is being changed at an unprecedented rate by pollutants resulting from human activities, inefficient and wasteful fossil fuel use, and the effects of rapid population growth in many regions…global warming imperils human health and well-being…and [demands] to reduce world emissions of carbon dioxide by at least 20% from 1988 levels by 2000… major threat to political stability, international security, and economic prosperity.” - 1998
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:H.R.1078:

Newt Gingrich Supported the Bailouts/TARP
Newt Gingrich says he would’ve voted for TARP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJb2NfqwghY
Newt Gingrich gets back on the couch with Pelosi
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/28/gingrich-gets-back-on-t…
Newt Gingrich Supported Federal Health Insurance
Newt Gingrich supports Obama and Mitt Romney’s healthcare plan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYHSdRRLb7U
Newt Gingrich says the government must force people to buy health insurance
http://www.healthtransformation.net/cs/opeds_news?pressrelea…
Newt Gingrich Was More Supportive Of Individual Mandates Than Mitt Romney
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/newt-gingrich-indiv…
11/15/2010 - Newt Gingrich defended Romneycare
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1110/Gingrich_defends…
03/19/2011 - Newt Gingrich has no regrets about supporting Medicare drug coverage. (Now $7.2T unfunded liability)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/6…
Newt Gingrich said: “All of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870350910457632…
Newt Gingrich said: “I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay — help pay for health care.” MSNBC’s David Gregory: But that is the individual mandate, is it not? “It’s a variation on it.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267330/gingrich-i-oppos…
In 2008 Newt Gingrich suggested ‘insurance mandates for people who earn more than $75,000 a year.’ Two years later, he was telling Sean Hannity at Fox News that health insurance mandates were unconstitutional.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0327/New…
Newt Gingrich Supports Amnesty for Illegals Aliens
Watch the video of Newt Gingrich proposing amnesty in his own voice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-OKFOhCaDY
Conservatives are critical of Newt’s amnesty stance
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/283932/gingrich-amnesty…
More criticisms about Newt’s desire for illegals to receive amnesty
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/45873.html
Newt Gingrich voted to raise the debt ceiling 4 times:
1 - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-449
2 - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1980-936
3 - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1981-7
4 - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1984-754
Newt Gingrich voted for a $50 billion tax increase - (House Roll Call Vote 569 - 1984)
Newt Gingrich was paid by Freddie Mac to lobby Republicans for support
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-16/gingrich-said-to-be…
More on the Newt Gingrich Freddie Mac lobbyist scandal
http://www.cnbc.com/id/28108013/How_Freddie_Mac_Splashed_Cas…
Newt Gingrich’s Charity Paid Money to Gingrich’s Business
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/06/gingrich-cha…
Newt Gingrich voted to create the Department of Education
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-468
Newt Gingrich voted for the single largest increase on Federal education spending ($3.5 Billion)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll135.xml
Newt Gingrich flip-flops on Libya in less than 16 days
http://www.slate.com/content/slate/blogs/weigel/2011/03/23/n…
Newt Gingrich supported the World Trade Organization, voted for GATT/WTO
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1994/roll507.xml
Newt Gingrich supported GATT
http://www.cfaba.org/cf05006.htm
Newt Gingrich supported WTO
http://www.nolanchart.com/article368-bill-clinton-and-his-na…
03/15/2011 - Newt Gingrich says that NAFTA worked ‘because it created jobs in Mexico’
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/15/150658/gingrich…
Newt Gingrich helped push through federally-funded loan guarantees to communist China
http://www.lessgovisthebestgov.com/Newt-Gingrich-Candidate-P….
“Newt Gingrich was passionately in favor of helping Russia (with US foreign aid), saying it was a “great defining moment” for America and we had to do the right thing. Newt was trying to “out-Russia” me, which I was only too happy to have him do.” - Bill Clinton
http://www.issues2000.org/My_Life.htm
In one year (1994-1995) Newt Gingrich voted for nearly $45 billion in foreign aid
http://www.unelected.org/socialist-of-the-week-newt-gingrich.
Newt Gingrich was for the United Nations before he was against it
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/11/gingrich_…
09/16/1996 - Newt Gingrich voted for the anti-gun Brady Campaign’s Lautenberg Gun Ban, which took away gun rights
http://www.nationalgunrights.org/the-inconvenient-truth-abou…
Newt Gingrich has a bad firearms record
http://gunowners.org/gingrich-mixed-record.htm
Newt Gingrich worked for the Rockefeller campaign
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/interviews.html
10/16/2009 - Newt Gingrich endorsed super liberal Dede Scozzafava
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/16/an-acorn-friendly-big-l…
05/04/1979 - Newt Gingrich voted for a federal land grab that put tens of millions of acres of land in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-107
04/02/1987 - Newt Gingrich cosponsored the 1987 Fairness Doctrine (anti 1st Amendment legislation)
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/29/newt-gingrich-co-sponso…
Newt Gingrich voted to take land away from states and individuals. The “Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act,” which Newt Gingrich voted for in support of President Jimmy Carter, was a federal government power grab that put tens of millions of acres of land in the hands of the corrupt cronyism and bureaucracy in Washington.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-107
Fiscal conservative Steve Forbes’ magazine says that “Newt Gingrich Represents The Worst Qualities Of The GOP Primary Field”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/11/16/newt-gingric…
The Many Flip-Flops of Newt Gingrich
http://www.tnr.com/slideshow/politics/85743/newt-gingrich-li…
World Net Daily (WND) - Joe Farah says that “Gingrich is a Liberal”
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=299873
Democrats Think Newt Gingrich Will Be Easy To Beat
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68414.html
Jack Abramoff says ‘Newt Gingrich is corrupt’
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/jack-abramoff-n…
So what is so “conservative” about any of the above? Newt’s stances on these issues line up more with O’Bama’s Progressive Globalist agenda then those of a sovereign small-government conservative. I mean come on now…who is he trying to kid here? Maybe just you and me!
Wolf in sheep’s clothing…he’s the wolf…don’t be one of the sheep!
 
#37 ·
Looks like the blunderer's man has gained a vote in Iowa, causing Su's man to attack him for wait......drum roll..... earmarks- gasp! Santorum not only votes for earmarks to his district but others as well, like the bridge to nowhere- oh my. Sounds like Tom is riding with him....

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...rmarker?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Then there is him wanting to outlaw the abortion procedure that he and his wife used...
http://www.politicalruminations.com/2011/06/rick-santorums-abortion-hypocrisy.html

But wait, Tom is going to explain away the bad RKBA ratings of santorum as soon as he can muster the courage to give a reply to post 15.

we are lined up Tom, come on dont leave us now....

yeah hes the blunderer, yeah the blunderer, he goes around around around.............................
 
#38 ·
Actually, the $10 million for the Railroad Causeway to Galveston is likely legit. It (the causeway) crosses Galveston By, and has a bascule bridge where the Intracoastal Waterway (a Federal operation, like most harbor and navigation projects - and been that way from the beginning) passes through it. It is too narrow and has some other navigational difficulties that makes it actually hazardous. That is being replaced with a 310 (instead of 127) foot lift bridge, and from what I have seen the $10 million for causeway bridge repair is related to that moveable bridge that only exists because of the Federal navigation project.
 
#43 ·
hhhmmmmm, you must have watched it last nite when morris stated that paul was a ultra ultra far left liberal. and i mean he looked disgusted. i about fell out of my chair. i think i'll stick to fox news over you to get my news, you are way too biased. or brainwashed, you choose.
 
#47 ·
actually, I just turned off fox news. The judge had glen beck on, and beck was telling the crowd that a vote for gingrich was just like voteing for a white obama. he said those that support gingrich and dislike obama are racist, because the only difference is their race
 
#45 · (Edited)
All right - lets look at Santorum votes. Much better than Ron Paul's voteing record by the way.)

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005)
n 2005, the US Senate voted on S 397 - The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The act sought to protect gun manufacturers, retailers, and suppliers from being sued for crimes or accidents involving the weapons they sold or manufactured. The legislation came to a vote in July of 2005 and passed the Senate with a vote of 65-31. Rick Santorum voted in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

The above is the Bill Ron Paul voted against!!!!!! (The reason Ron Paul was given a "B" rateing by the NRA, and the reason the NRA supported his Democratic opponent in the next election.)

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2004)
The Senate attempted to pass Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2004. The bill got very little support, failing in an 8-90 vote. Rick Santorum voted against the the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The Dems had placed a rider on the Bill extending the AWB, and its failure was a good thing.

Amendment - Cops carrying firearms
As an amendment to the Lawful Commerce Act, in March of 2004 the Senate voted on an amendment to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns. The amendment was agreed to 91-8. Rick Santorum voted in favor of the amendment to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns.

Amendment - Background Checks
In an amendment to the lawful commerce act, the Senate voted to require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at events that provide a venue for the sale, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange of firearms, and for other purposes. The amendment was agreed to 53-46 with most Democrats supporting the amemdment and most Republicans oppossed to it. Rick Santorum voted against the amendment to require background checks at all events.

Amendment - Assoult Weapons Ban
In an amendment to the lawful commerce act, the Senate voted on a 10 year extension to the assault weapons ban. The amendment was agreed to in a 52-47 vote. Rick Santorum voted against the 10 year extension of the assault weapons ban.

Amendment - Child Safety Devices
An amendment to the lawful commerce act was the to require the provision of a child safety device in connection with the transfer of a handgun and to provide safety standards for child safety devices. The amendment passed 70-27. Rick Santorum voted in favor of the amendment to require child safety devices.

A small negative for Santorum, but nothing compared to Ron Paul vote above.

Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act
The Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act was passed in response to an attack on President Reagan in which Secretary Brady was injured. The 1993 law required gun purchasers to pass a background check to ensure that they were not a felon or did not fall into a number of other prohibitive classes. The measure passed the house 238-189. Rick Santorum voted against the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act.
 
#46 ·
http://www.wibw.com/nationalnews/he...s_Birds_And_Serves_Up_Photo_Op_136274053.html

So lets see from above link.

Santorum is an NRA member. Wears an NRA hat for photo op. (Guess thats really why the GOA gave him a bad rateing).

Has an "A+" NRA rateing. Whats that Ron Paul has only an "A" now?

He hunts.

He admits he bought firearms for his children for Xmas this year,

Yeah - he sounds like a nightmare for the 2nd Admendment. (LOL).

Now that I've done that - I'll get back to showing what an absolute failure, hypocrite, liberal leaning moron - Ron Paiul is.
 
#48 · (Edited)
http://www.wibw.com/nationalnews/he...s_Birds_And_Serves_Up_Photo_Op_136274053.html

So lets see from above link.

Santorum is an NRA member. Wears an NRA hat for photo op. (Guess thats really why the GOA gave him a bad rateing).

Has an "A+" NRA rateing. Whats that Ron Paul has only an "A" now?

He hunts.

He admits he bought firearms for his children for Xmas this year,

Yeah - he sounds like a nightmare for the 2nd Admendment. (LOL).

Now that I've done that - I'll get back to showing what an absolute failure, hypocrite, liberal leaning moron - Ron Paiul is.
still running from MBs post I see. Probably the best judgement you have excercised here.

wears a NRA hat for a photo op, now that is a good one. I remember slick willy duck hunting

gun ban romney is a NRA member as well

Looter, I do not know what blundering tom is blundering about. I can tell you Tom attacked first, no one I know of was celebrating an obama victory, attacking service members, There are however quite a few threads still here that include this one that are open for others to look at who hijacks threads around here. In fact they usually get threads locked

When I came on board, I sort of just watched. I remember asking why everyone gave mauser a hard time, and got the same 4 years ago response you did. You can go back and read what is still here though.... see for yourself
 
#49 · (Edited)
Ohh - so you still dont say any of my facts are wrong?????

Lets see:


Ron Paul used to call for open border. Does'nt want a border fence. Does'nt want a person to have to prove citizenship for employment in the US. Stated in recent Presidential debate that States should have power to grant citizenship. In fact NumbersUSA gives Ron Paul an "F" when it comes to the illegal immigration issue.

Ron Paul used to vote against Pork as being wrong. Then became the king of Pork. Pork spending does increase the deficit by causing the agencies to request funds in the future to replace those taken from them.

Santorum has a current A+ NRA rateing which is better than what Ron Paul has. Ron Paul voted to allow anti-firearm States and organizations to sue firearm manufacturers and distributors into bankrupcy solely because their firearms were used during the commision of a crime.

Guess since you dont want to argue the proof I posted I'll move on to a new one.
 
#57 ·
First things first. MB has said when you address his coincise post point by point, he will address your other ramblings. You may want to keep running away though. It would be embarrassing for you.

Ohh - so you still dont say any of my facts are wrong?????

Lets see:


Ron Paul used to call for open border. Does'nt want a border fence. Does'nt want a person to have to prove citizenship for employment in the US. Stated in recent Presidential debate that States should have power to grant citizenship. In fact NumbersUSA gives Ron Paul an "F" when it comes to the illegal immigration issue.

Ron Paul used to vote against Pork as being wrong. Then became the king of Pork. Pork spending does increase the deficit by causing the agencies to request funds in the future to replace those taken from them.

Santorum has a current A+ NRA rateing which is better than what Ron Paul has. Ron Paul voted to allow anti-firearm States and organizations to sue firearm manufacturers and distributors into bGankrupcy solely because their firearms were used during the commision of a crime.

Guess since you dont want to argue the proof I posted I'll move on to a new one.
 
#58 ·
Here's the last reply I'll give to the Earmarks Canard.

James M. Inhofe is hardly a Paul supporter.

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


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253159/eliminating-earmarks-phony-issue-james-m-inhofe

Eliminating Earmarks is a Phony Issue
By James M. Inhofe

Americans — especially conservatives — are being taken with a fiscal sleight of hand. Rightly concerned about the future of our country and the out-of-control spending taking place in Washington, these concerned citizens are being duped by the earmark debate. Getting rid of earmarks does not save taxpayers any money, reduces transparency, and gives more power to the Obama administration.

A congressional earmark moratorium won’t save a single taxpayer dime. Proponents of the earmark ban like to say that a dollar cut is a dollar saved. Unfortunately, that’s just not true. For example, in 2009 the Senate performed the rare action of considering many appropriations bills individually rather than irresponsibly lumping them all into one large bill to consider at the end of the year. The value of considering these bills individually is that it gives senators the opportunity to exercise some oversight of government programs and to monitor how federal departments spend money. Senators could offer amendments to both cut spending and strike particular earmarks if they desired. From July to November that year, there were about 18 votes specifically targeting earmarks. All the amendments failed. But had they succeeded, they would not have reduced the overall amount of money being spent by the federal government. Instead of putting the money back into the pockets of the American people by reducing spending or shrinking the deficit, these efforts to eliminate earmarks would have put more money into the hand of President Obama by allowing his administration to spend the money as he saw fit. At the end of the day, none would have saved money.

In a couple of cases, senators offered amendments to strike funding for C-17 airplanes or other specific military spending and return the money to the Department of Defense’s operation-and-maintenance account. In another case, members offered amendments to strike funding out of a program called “Save America’s Treasures” for specific art centers throughout the United States, but the money was simply shifted to allow bureaucrats at the National Park Service to spend it. In another case, a member offered an amendment to strike a variety of transportation projects in many states, only to redirect the spending to bureaucrats in the Federal Aviation Administration. I could go on and on.

Banning earmarks has significant unintended consequences. Proponents of the ban like to say that earmarking is bad policy. To say this is to say that it is bad policy to provide improved armor for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan — which has saved lives — or that it is bad policy to have the Predator drone program that has been vital in the War on Terrorism. Both are examples of congressional earmarks that would have never been funded by any administration. An across-the-board ban has the unintended consequence of eliminating useful spending. To be clear, there are many spending proposals that should be defeated. But we should defeat them based on the substance, not simply because they are called earmarks. There are often bad ideas proposed that should not become law, but no one thinks we should ban all legislation.

Earmarks have been part of the congressional process since the founding of our country. As James Madison, the father of the Constitution viewed it, appropriating funds is the job of the legislature. Writing in the Federalist, he noted that Congress holds the power of the purse for the very reason that it is closer to the people. The words of Madison and Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution say that authorization and appropriations are exclusively the responsibility of the legislative branch. Congress should not cede this authority to the executive branch.

Banning earmarks will result in less accountability and transparency. The flawed Obama stimulus bill famously did not contain a single congressional earmarks, yet, as we found out long after the fact, those tax dollars were spent on hundreds of frivolous items such as a clown show in Pennsylvania, studying the mating decisions of the female cactus bug, and a helicopter able to detect radioactive rabbit droppings, to name a few. What all of these have in common is that they were spent by presidential earmarks, not congressional earmarks. Similarly, as faceless bureaucrats in the executive branch have continually taken greater responsibility over federal expenditures, lobbyists are increasingly turning to them, not Congress, for money. Unlike congressional earmarks, which are posted online prior to the expenditure and approved by representatives who must face the voters, executive spending is in the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats, and we often do not find out about these expenditures until years after the fact.

Demagoguing earmarks provides cover for some of the biggest spenders in Congress. Congressional earmarks, for all their infamous notoriety, are not the cause of trillion-dollar federal deficits (of all the discretionary spending that took place in Washington last year, earmarks made up only 1.5 percent). Nor will an earmark moratorium solve the crisis of wasteful Washington spending run amuck. While anti-earmarkers bloviate about the billions spent through earmarks, many of them supported the trillions of dollars in extra spending for bailouts, stimulus, and foreign aid. Talk about specks versus planks! Over the course of the last several years, the overall number and dollar amount of earmarks has steadily decreased. During that same time, overall spending has ballooned by over $1.3 trillion. In reality, ballyhooing about earmarks has been used as a ruse by some to seem more fiscally responsible than they really are.

Let’s stop playing the earmark game, and, for the sake of our kids and grandkids, get serious about using real reforms to save this country from financial ruin.
Sen. James M. Inhofe (R. Okla.) is rated the most conservative senator in 2009 by National Journal and most outstanding senator by Human Events.

At the beginning of the budget cycle, Congress votes on how much to appropriate to the departments in the Executive Branch (In fact, Constitutionally, this is the ONLY way to do so). These voting members include Ron Paul. Now, when you say it does not increase spending, that only means in the CURRENT budget cycle. What happens, in actuality, is when they reappropriate money originally requested for that department in the Executive Branch, it creates a budget shortfall in said department of the money they have requested legitatately. This causes the requesting department to ask for even more in the next budget cycle, which means it DOES increase spending. So, in other words, specific project money appropriated legitimately to a departmental budget is now reappropriated on a whim for a Congress members wet dream of a project. The Legislative branch is the only branch tasked with spending taxpayer money, and that holds true whether Ron Paul tells you that’s the case or that the Executive Branch is “stealing it”.
I clicked on your link and this explanation of how congressional budgeting works is not sourced anywhere in your link. It seems this is the ramblings of some poor ignorant sap who doesn't understand the system.




As for fighting to save the world for democracy, that's a progressive idea. Woodrow Wilson, a progressive, was the first President to really advocate for that type of foreign policy. Conservatives back then and up until recently opposed needless intervention around the world. Senator Robert Taft, dubbed "Mr. Republican", opposed American intervention abroad and didn't want us to be in NATO.

That fact is that Saving the world for Democracy is a progressive idea that only gets American entangled in regional conflicts or civil wars. Neo-conservatives support this philosophy because they themselves are progressives and not real conservatives. They've co-opted the conservative movement. Krauthammer, Kristol, Podhoretz, Horowitz, Levin, Medved, etc, have all positioned themselves as the intellectuals of the conservative movement but they are not conservatives themselves. They thus influence those around them and people like Hannity and Limbaugh have succumbed to their ideology.

The role of America's military is to defend THIS country, not to fight other nation's wars or to police the world. Detractors call Paul's foreign policy crazy, yet in the 2008 election cycle and so far in 3 quarters of this election, he has received MORE money from ACTIVE DUTY military personnel than ANY OTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE COMBINED. Twice what all the other Republicans have taken in. More than Obama as well.

 
#59 ·
This article made me chuckle because its so true. It describes Tom-M and his comrades perfectly. I think it needs to be a sticky in this sub-forum.

The Many Contradictions of the Paulophobe

http://thenewamerican.com/opinion/jack-kerwick/10375-the-many-contradictions-of-the-paulophobe

A while ago, I wrote an article in which I spoke of “Paulophobia.” Paulophobia, I claimed, is a cognitive disorder. Like a parasite, it eats away at its victim’s intellect. Perhaps because of this, it also corrupts his moral character. To encounter a Paulophobe whose disorder has reached an advanced stage is to come face-to-face with Irrationality incarnate. At the mere mention of Ron Paul’s name, this sort of Paulophobe practically begins to foam at the mouth. Everything in which he previously claimed to believe — his ideals, his principles, his values — he abruptly throws to the wind as he frantically searches for every and any aspersion, no matter how incredible, that he can cast against Congressman Paul. The Paulophobe doesn’t just want to discredit Paul as a presidential candidate. He wants to discredit him as a human being.

Unfortunately, once Paulophobia has reached this stage, it is terminal, for it is now impervious to reason. There is no other conclusion to draw given the following facts.
Those suffering most acutely from Paulophobia are Republicans, self-styled “conservatives” (read: neoconservatives). Now, Republicans have always claimed to believe in smaller, more limited, decentralized government. In short, they pride their party on being the party of liberty, the party that is committed to preserving and protecting the United States Constitution.
Yet when they have the opportunity to nominate the only presidential candidate in their primary race who even they recognize is most committed to “limited government” and the Constitution, they call him a “kook” and “extremist.” Some Paulophobes like talk-radio hosts Michael Medved and Mark Levin go further to imply that he is evil. Medved continually insinuates that Paul is a “racist” and a “neo-Nazi.” Levin has explicitly said of Paul that he is “poison.” Both adamantly deny that Paul is authentic.
Republicans, especially since they have been ejected from power, inexhaustibly complain about “out of control” spending. Our country is on the precipice of ruin, they note, because of the profound profligacy of the Democrats. This next election promises to be the most important of our lifetime, for this may be our very last chance to save America.
But when one Republican presidential candidate comes along and proposes one trillion dollars in spending cuts within the first year of his term as President, they either pretend that he doesn’t exist or they spare no occasion to marginalize him. This is like a man lost at sea who, in spite of longing for salvation and knowing that the ship in the distance is his last chance at it, refuses to be rescued. Moreover, he attempts to chop off the arm of the ship’s captain who reaches out to him.

Republicans, like professional Paulophobe Rush Limbaugh, repeatedly claim their party alone embodies the spirit of the Founding Fathers. The Founders, mind you, although a philosophically heterogeneous group, never so much as contemplated a federal government that would demand of all Americans that they refrain from using any product, however potentially self-destructive it may be.
However, when Ron Paul contends that it is unconstitutional and immoral for the federal government to criminalize drug usage, such Paulophobes accuse him of wanting to “legalize” drugs. Ron Paul, they shout hysterically, is in favor of legalizing heroin and cocaine! If these Paulophobes were capable of it, just the slightest bit of rudimentary logic would make plain to them the implication of this line of thought. If Paul can be convicted of wanting to “legalize” drugs because of his opposition to the federal government’s criminalization of them, then inasmuch as the Founders didn’t seek to criminalize drugs, they too can be said to have favored the same. Far from being a radical, much less a radical “leftist” (as Paulophobe Dick Morris recently described him), Paul’s position on drugs is but another example of his desire to restore the vision of our Founders.

Republicans have often (and quite pathetically, actually) taken to accusing their Democratic rivals of being “racist.” It is Democrats, they claim, who seek to keep blacks “dependent” upon the government by way of welfare and a massive assortment of race-based preferential treatment policies. Thus, Democrats are “racist” against blacks.
Because of his belief that we should eliminate foreign aid to Israel, these same Paulophobic Republicans say of Ron Paul that he is “anti-Semitic.” Two observations are here in order.
First of all, Ron Paul does not single out Israel: He wants an end to all foreign aid. More importantly, though, these Paulophobes fail to recognize that if Democrats are “racist” because of their desire to keep blacks dependent upon the U.S. government, then inasmuch as these Republicans want to keep Israel dependent upon the U.S. government, it is they who are “anti-Semitic.”
To put the point another way, if it is the enemies of “racism” who oppose welfare dependency for blacks, then it is the enemies of “anti-Semitism” who should oppose welfare dependency — i.e. “foreign aid” — for Israel. This means that it is the Republican Paulophobe who is the real “anti-Semite,” while it is Paul who is “pro-Semitic.”
In accordance with the 9/11 Commission Report, as well as numerous reports that have been supplied by the Central Intelligence Agency, Ron Paul regularly observes that the attacks of September 11, 2001, specifically, and Islamic hostilities toward the United States, generally, are in large measure the function of an interventionist American foreign policy. That is, the federal government’s actions in the Islamic world are causally related to the terrorism that we are now combating.
For this, Republicans accuse of him of “blaming America.”
But if Paul can be said to be a member of “the blame America First” crowd because of his stance that the federal government has acted objectionably vis-à-vis the Islamic world, then his accusers who have made their careers railing against the federal government’s objectionable treatment of American citizens must be members of the same crowd. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and all self-avowed champions of “limited government” and “individual liberty,” it turns out, are in reality the most vociferous of American haters, for they are tirelessly criticizing the federal government for something or other.

Republican Paulophobes imply that Ron Paul is a “racist” because of some articles from decades ago that were published in his newsletter. As was just noted, Republicans accuse Democrats of being “racist” because of their support of welfare entitlements and affirmative action for blacks. They have also leveled this charge against Democrats when the latter opposed the enterprise of spreading Democracy to the Islamic world, a world, Democrats suggested, that wasn’t yet ready for this ideal. So, from the Republican’s perspective, a (white) “racist” is one who either promotes policies that deleteriously impact non-whites, or resists those policies that allegedly promise to benefit them.

Sadly for Republicans, by this standard they are among the biggest “racists” of all. Their “War on Drugs” has devastated the black poor. As such black thinkers as Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams have long noted, this “war” has transformed black communities throughout the country into virtual combat zones and economic wastelands. And if their “War on Drugs” has ruined the lives of many blacks, their “War on Terror” — alternately and more euphemistically characterized as “the Freedom Agenda” — has been even worse for Muslims.

But if Republicans are the biggest “racists” by their own standard, then Ron Paul is the biggest “anti-racist” by the same. Paul wants to end both “wars” and, thus, spare the lives of countless numbers of non-whites.
Republicans say that Ron Paul’s foreign policy is “isolationist,” “naïve,” and “dangerous.” One Paulophobe, Newt Gingrich, has even gone so far as to suggest that whoever supports it is “indecent.” At the same time, Republicans have established for themselves a reputation of being pro-military.
Yet if Ron Paul is “isolationist,” “naïve,” and “dangerous” when it comes to foreign policy, then all of those veterans and active duty military personnel who endorse him are “isolationist,” “naïve,” and “dangerous.” Ron Paul, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, receives more contributions from the members of our armed forces than all of the other candidates combined. He receives 10 times the amount that Mitt Romney receives and 100 times the amount received by Newt Gingrich!

Republicans know that they cannot win the presidential election of 2012 unless their candidate can get the independent vote and that of racial minorities. But polls show that Ron Paul beats Obama among independents and receives more of the non-white vote than every other Republican candidate.
Still, Republican Paulophobes can’t even bring themselves to conceive of the possibility that Paul could secure their party’s nomination. Like the very word “cancer” that those from earlier generations couldn’t bring themselves to utter, just the idea of a nominee Paul strikes terror into their hearts.
The Republican Paulophobe, I hoped to have shown, is a walking contradiction. There is, though, one final consideration that shouldn’t be lost upon us.
Republican Paulophobes know that should Ron Paul not get his party’s nomination and choose to run on a third party ticket, or should he encourage his devoted following to turn its back on the GOP, then President Obama is insured a second term. Hence, a little prudence dictates that Republicans refrain from treating him unjustly.
But they insist upon treating Paul to one injustice after the other.
The Paulophobe is impervious to reason. Maybe, though, another crushing loss, courtesy of Ron Paul and his followers, will cure him of his condition.


 
#60 ·
I like how neo-conservatives are referred by some as if they're a mythical beast. Some folks here don't even know what a dammed neocon is, but they're pretty sure they aren't one.

Asking "what would Paul have done?" about WWII is pointless. We're living in a different world and facing different problems than we were in that era. And we entered into a war with Iraq in a completely different way than we entered WWII.

One parallel we can draw between then and now is that of Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks. IMO, Afghanistan was a just undertaking in the same way WWII was, because we were attacked first. And Ron Paul voted with the majority for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in Afghanistan.

To me, "thinking for yourself" does not equate to "support an establishment candidate or you are scum".
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top