On January 7th, 2008 at 11:18 am, Barry F. said:

Besides, he makes for good comic relief for me, when he gets on one of his tears.

Interesting that your Ron Paul “comic relief” is my passion in life!

Fed Up

Paul tied Thompson at 9% in the Iowa Republican Caucus and beat Giuliani by 4 percentage points.

In all fairness, he should have had a spot at the table in the Fox News forum, as much or more so than some others.

Besides, he makes for good comic relief for me, when he gets on one of his tears.

Yeah…I see those posters and the first, last, and only thing I think is Conservative Right-Wing Republican!!!

Yup, I think I am going to change my vote. They have woooed me

Ron Paul sees everything in government the way a family would see budget and expenditures. He sees war mongers say ‘we have to fight a war on terror’, but he hears, this is going to cost a LOT of money and we are going to get it from borrowing money from our kids.

NOTE: While I disagree with Ron Paul’s ideas on foreign policy, I sympathize with his concept that WASHINGTON, with all their rhetoric, does very little to protect us even though they claim to. If Paul agreed that we need interventionist policies, he’d probably recognize that Washington and the Pentagon are least able to wage it competently. We have botched Pakistan, and Iraq (until we finally were able to get rid of Brownie – er I mean Rumsfeld).

Other than that, Paul sees the GOVERNMENT as the problem. He doesn’t ‘blame America first’, but he does see the government as the problem and not the solution. The only way to keep Washington from spending money is to keep them from getting it. Tax cuts are great, but cutting expenses is more important.

Ron Paul is totally dead on with the immigration debate – moreso than most of the other candidates in the R party. He sees the drain on the economy of the illegals and understands that every illegal costs the government and taxpayers money. So he’s more for ending illegal aliens than any of the other candidates.

To dismiss Paul as ‘fringe’ or ‘loon’ or ‘left’ or ‘Democrat’ because of his ONE position on the War on Terror (which none of the other candidates who have a foreign policy I agree with can guarantee that what they are doing will actually protect America from attack and harm), you miss the rest of his small government, individual liberty, traditional GOP values message. Missing this message is where the rest of the GOP candidates go wrong.

On a last note, NH has a lot of independents. Playing a hand in this debate against the war and being isolationist might help him win many more of those votes and actually carry the NH republican delegates.

Sorry for being long winded. I’m not a Paul supporter, but I think a lot of his ideas are needed in the GOP.

“They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.”

-Ayn Rand-

On January 5th, 2008 at 8:05 pm, Fed Up said:

I’m amazed at the ignorance of some on this forum

Don’t be.

And to “Fed Up” I’ve been a Republican for deacdes. You’re off your nut.

It’s easy to criticize the supporters of a candidate, but your ignorance shows when you can’t debate on the issues that Paul supports. Why?

Because you don’t know a thing about the difference between what the “Old Republican Party” stood for and what the “New Republican Party” platform espouses.

Ron Paul stands for the Old Republican Party. The Party that stood for less government and no entanglement with other nations. The Party that got us out of Vietnam and Korea.

Ron Paul left the Republican party to run as a Libertarian in 88 because he saw the Party changing. He went back to being a Republican because he realized that to get anything done, he had to fight for what the Old Republican party stood for.

In 2004, the New Republican party did him a favor that opened the door. The New Republican parties mantra of war mongering and Islamofacism has caused its demise. Ron Paul represents what was and he hopes, will be again.

America voted in 2006 and this was a sign that the New Republican party was losing its grip. If 70% of Americans don’t want war, does anyone on the right really believe this attitude will change come November?

The last thing I want is a socialist in office, but this is where we’re headed unless Ron Paul is elected…and this is just my humble opinion.

I also think that Ron Paul will run as a 3rd party candidate if he doesn’t win the nomination. This will give him 10 more months to get his message to the masses.

Either way, the New Republican Party is screwed. But there is hope in bringing back that what was.

Fed Up

The Ron Paulians must have whined and protested loudly! The Manchester Union Leader reports: UnionLeader.com has learned that the New Hampshire Republican Party has quit as a co-sponsor of tomorrow night’s nationally televised GOP forum on FOX News. …