Palin: GOP better not marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters

Sarah Palin gave her analysis of the Iowa caucuses tonight, refusing to give any single candidate anything close to an endorsement. She also noted rather passionately though, that the GOP had better not marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters after tonight because their fiscal concerns are very legitimate and the GOP had better work with them.

She also noted her expectation that Bachmann will probably drop out in coming weeks, but also made sure to tell people to quit taking shots as this isn’t something personal against Bachmann, but simply her opinion.

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • There is Zero chance Paul will support and endorse GOP nominee.

    • And he will ldivide the Republicans, just like he did last time and Obama will be reelected. Game over.

      • How do you figure? Subjective reasoning IS subjective reasoning.

        • Anonymous

          He endorsed the likes of Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader last go-around, y’know.

          • No he didn’t. He endorsed Chuck Baldwin, twit.

            • Anonymous
              • From your own link. It was an “open endorsement”.

                Paul will offer this open endorsement to the four candidates because each has signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve,” the Paul aide said.

                • Anonymous

                  irrelevant. any endorsement of any level of a person like cynthia mckinney means you’re completely unqualified to even consider yourself a republican, let alone run for the party’s presidential nomination. take it from someone who lived in her congressional district for years.

                  she wasn’t known as “the cutest little commie in congress” for nothing.

                • Anonymous

                  for the record, i’m not rabidly anti-paul. i do like many of his fiscal ideas. it’s everything else that worries me, including the willful manipulation of facts by his internet-trolling supporters.

                • willful manipulation of facts by his supporters? name one please. and have evidence that it was in any way willful or incorrect. So fat Ive read like 100 comments and everything anti-paul has no subsistence.

                • Anonymous

                  Every comment that Ron Paul makes on foreign policy, history of Islam and the role US policy plays in promoting terrorism is a combination of fact manipulation and down right lies. There isn’t enough space here to untangle the web of lies, half-truths and misrepresented facts he/they used to manufacture the alternate reality upon which their policies are built. The reason he went from leading in the Iowa polls to finishing third in a matter of days is the result of the coinciding events in the Persian Gulf and the realization that his views on Iran’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons are so shockingly dangerous and irresponsible they represent a threat to the west’s survival.

                  Paul’s made his points on fiscal and individual liberty issues and in many ways has charted the course of the debate going forward. But his non-domestic views and the impact they had on him in Iowa in light of recent events are proof positive that a) he has no chance what so ever of winning any major party nomination b) should such a nomination ever occur in a fictional world he would only succeed in handing Barack Obama and his party a victory on the order of 25-75 percent and effectively push the nation in a one party totalitarian state he so desperately fears.

                • Wyrdless

                  Ever heard of Mosadeq? Ever heard of Kermit Roosevelt? Did you know that the Shah of Iran tortured people?

                  You don’t need to go any farther than that to figure out why the leaders of Iran hate us, the USA tried to install a brutal dictatorship in Iran

                  Try picking up a history book and reading it, they are good for more than just as a door stop

                • Anonymous

                  A typical example of the manipulation of facts by a Ron Paul sycophant that was originally referenced. Yes let’s pretend that the history of the region and the brutality of its occupant began in the 1950’s… let us pretend that Iran isn’t in fact a nation that was created by Islamists who invaded Persia and mass exterminated tens of millions who refused to submit to forced conversion 1,100+ years before the US and any of its policy were ever conceived. Let’s close our eyes and imagine “the history of Iran” where Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians or any other person who refused to submit to an Iranian leader waving a sword in pursuit of his religious beliefs wasn’t beheaded … a history were nations like Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Turkey Lybia and others all the way up to Spain (until someone finally decided to fight back) weren’t carved out of the existing nations or cultures and built upon the brutalized remains of their former occupants that had the misfortune to encounter a certain theo-political system with an army behind it. Yes people Iran was a peaceful, hopeful, welcoming and tolerant nation before the nasty Americans came on the scene and victimized them … “from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli” you see in RonPaulland Thomas Jefferson (a founder of the US Ron Paul supporters claim to hold in high regard) didn’t send military forces to confront marauding bands of Muslims who were attacking US interests in what year? Well let’s just say many years before the existence of the CIA…

                  Sorry friend, it’s not me that is so woefully ignorant of history and desperately needs to pick up some books and start reading.

                  History doesn’t begin in 1950, or 1776 or whatever convenient starting point you decide to cherry pick to explain away and excuse the 1,400 year history of certain group of folk in the region.

                • larryburke

                  You correctly point out that the middle east has been a cesspool for the majority of recorded history. You are 100% wrong to think that gives the US the right to overthrow leaders of sovereign nations. The Iranians will never forget that the US overthrew their govt. and installed a heartless dictator. They don’t care about the reasons/excuses.
                  If the situation was reverse, would you care why Iran overthrew our govt?

                  The US policy of intervention produces a never ending cycle of conflict. Where it ends is what is important, not which century it started in.

                  P.S. Smart people rarely feel the need to tell others how brilliant they are.

                • Anonymous

                  Absurd. It wasn’t “marauding bands of Muslims”. Jefferson reacted on attacks of US shipping by Barbary Pirates. The Sultanate was extorting cash and Jefferson refused to knuckle under. This is a far cry from attacking a country that had not threatened the USA, not threatening US commence and not attempting to extort bribes. Your “logic” in linking these two events is fallacious.

                  Go ahead though….. Do a little jingoist dance to “support” your viewpoint. It will impress only those of limited knowledge and weak minds.

                • Anonymous

                  Why do you think the Sultanate was “extorting” the US? Since, you’re so damn smart you might be able to figure out what book it is that commands him to do that.

                • mfeathers

                  paulinpittsburgh: I believe you just proved the point of the Ron Paul supporters ( myself included ). The middle east has been in turmoil/war for over a thousand years with no true peace/end in site. This being the case, if we, the American people, believe we can bring stability to the region it will be in the form of military might/imperialism.
                  If this is the sentiment of the majority of the American people, then let’s take it to congress, declare war, win, put a flag on it and call it ours. To make things sound better at the end, we can tell those that are conquered that they can pray to anybody they want too, but we are taking the oil.
                  If, in fact, the American people are not ready for this, let’s start the process of bringing our troops home and enhancing our domestic agenda ( thus projecting our pwer and influence from our own shores ). Who knows, with a little American ingenuity and grit, we could invent things like bio-diesel thru algea that has a growth maturity rate of 2-3 days ( oh wait, already invented ) and start to alleviate our need for foreign oil.

                • Anonymous

                  The problem with your argument is that while you’re correct is your assertion that the region has been in turmoil for a long time you continue to gloss over several of the reasons why that is and remains so. One of which is for a great deal of the time the victims of Islamic aggression didn’t have the ability or means to fight back… we do. Another is that those who do not understand the nature of the battle they’re fighting continue to allow them wear the cloak of victim when things go badly for them in the battle…

                  The Israeli so called Palestinian claim which Paul supporters parrot right along side anti-semitics that the establishment of the state of Israel is responsible for the violence direct at Jews which is demonstrably false as evidenced by the documented fact that the violence predated an any UN action by centuries.

                  You make think that allowing those who started the war they ultimately lost to hide their treachery and shame under a lie to falsely claim to be victims and that by withdrawing and allowing them to continue that war is a solution. And you might HOPE that once finished with the Jews in Israel they won’t turn their sights on on us, but there are mosques built onto religious sites from Cordova Spain to Kashmir that offer testimony that it will not work out that way.

                  So long as the world continues to make excuses for the aggressors and the PC police and anti-Semites perpetrate lies about the origins of the conflict and allow those responsible to not be held accountable it never ends and nobody is safe.

                • We sure have the ability if the NWO would let us finish a war!
                  WE never finished Korea!
                  We lost Vietnam,
                  were told to leave Iraq,
                  are loosing in Afghanistan!

                • Don Bosch

                  I would like to know if you have read any of Ron Paul’s books? Liberty Defined, perhaps? Just thought I would ask………because anytime I have to form an opinion about a candidate, I usually take a lot of time to study his positions as well as read any books that he has published. Was wondering whether you actually read anything he has published lately?

                • zedoc

                  Good discussion, but the instability for the last 1400 years is why they shouldn’t be allowed to get atomic weapons.

                • mfeathers

                  Yet, there is already countries in the region that have access to nuclear grade weapons…What is our message to them at this point? Give them up? Or should we allow them to learn the exact same lessons that the US & the USSR learned from the 1940’s thru 1989?

                • Mfeathers I like your Idea!!
                  Now some one is making some sense!!!!
                  If you are not willing to settle the whole mess shut up!

                • You understand your history of the Middle East region but, what you fail to understand is the FACT we are entering fruitless, pointless wars all in the name of “HOMELAND SECURITY.” The region will NEVER be a totally safe region as history has proven. Yes FREEDOM comes with danger. However, freedom and liberty are in fact MUCH safer than any form of tyranny all in the name of more security. You know what else history has proven??? Every empire who has tried to tame the Middle East has collapsed and gone bankrupt. America is already bankrupt and living on borrowed time. Our dollar is finished and its all happening for the same reasons all other big empires fail. To many wars, over extension of military resources, ever increasing social programs, corp bailouts, drastically increasing police state all financed through a corrupt central back(Federal Reserve) who prints fiat currency out of thin air with the blessing of corrupt politicians, and finally bankrupts the nation. America WILL NOT be able to defend itself from anyone when we totally collapse. NOW, PLEASE TELL ME ONE THING I HAVE WRITTEN THAT IS FALSE!

                • Don’t you understand that the world is tied of US help they did not ask for?
                  …Or to put it differently: US please go home and take care of your own domestic injustice. (i.e. largest prison population per capita in the world, black and latino overwhelmingly). If this isn’t clear enough for you, and you still doubt that US foreign policy is dangerously flawed, take a moment and google following and you will understand: Imagine Chinese or Russian Military Base in Texas

                • Don’t you understand that the world is tied of US help they did not ask for?
                  …Or to put it differently: US please go home and take care of your own domestic injustice. (i.e. largest prison population per capita in the world, black and latino overwhelmingly). If this isn’t clear enough for you, and you still doubt that US foreign policy is dangerously flawed, take a moment and google following and you will understand: Imagine Chinese or Russian Military Base in Texas

                • Don’t you understand that the world is tied of US help they did not ask for?
                  …Or to put it differently: US please go home and take care of your own domestic injustice. (i.e. largest prison population per capita in the world, black and latino overwhelmingly). If this isn’t clear enough, and you still doubt that US foreign policy is dangerously flawed, take a moment and google following and you will understand: Imagine Chinese or Russian Military Base in Texas

                • Anonymous

                  Don’t you understand that the world is tied of US help they did not ask for?
                  …Or to put it differently: US please go home and take care of your own domestic injustice. (i.e. largest prison population per capita in the world, black and latino overwhelmingly). If this isn’t clear enough for you, and you still doubt that US foreign policy is dangerously flawed, take a moment and google following and you will understand: Imagine Chinese or Russian Military Base in Texas

                • But we didn’t go after them until after WWII Why? Those people have been killing each other ever since Abraham didn’t keep his privates in his own house OR PANTS! Guess what, they are going to go on fighting each other no matter what the US does WE ARE NOT THE POLICEMAN OF THE WORLD!!!!! One more point America has killed more Innocent people in the last 30 years than all the Muslim countries put together, so why should we even act like we are better then them!

                • Anonymous

                  Your stats are complete lies. Prove them with numbers. You can’t, I know, but try. Also, it’s not “police work” to attack someone who is trying to attack you. That’s called SELF DEFENSE. If you have to leave a giant club there to remind them to back off, so be it. The Japanese surrendered and the US still bases out of there. The Islamists haven’t even surrendered yet, are spread across over a hundred nations (actively fighting in more than half that) and number in far greater numbers than the Japanese. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

                • lol

                • Anonymous

                  So Iraq was trying to attack the US?

                • Anonymous

                  So Iraq tried to attack the USA before we invaded?

                  And where exactly is this country or organization called ‘Islamists’ would be able to issue a statement of surrender? Surely this isn’t just an intentionally overboard term used to justify a never-ending military campaign in the region?

                • Anonymous

                  Muslims have been trying to conquer the rest of the world since hundreds of years before there was a Kermit Roosevelt or a Mosadeq. Read history yourself.

                • Anonymous

                  And Christian European nations didn’t try the same thing and build empires all over the globe, right?

                • Anonymous

                  My point – one more time – is that Muslims are not attacking America because of anything we have done. The proof of this is that they have been attacking all other nations, religions, cultures, and governments anytime they thought they had the strength to succeed, for hundreds of years. They are attacking us because they are attempting to annihilate all other religions and governments around the world. We did not cause their hatred of us. They are following the instructions of their holy scriptures, as they have been for hundreds of years. Are you new to this Muslim / non-Muslim discussion?

                  Did Christian European nations try the same thing and build empires all over the globe?

                  First point: that depends on how you define Christian. Second point: the empire-building always had limits (though only practical limits sometimes). Also, in reality, the West’s empire-building was always economically motivated, which is self-limiting: if a venture is unprofitable, it will be abandoned. Contrast this with a “holy war”, which is characterized by maniacal efforts to convert or kill the world. Third point: Western civilizations’ empire-building became less aggressive as time went on and genuine Christian doctrine became more widely known. In America, empire-building always was insignificant, and that’s according to Marx or Lenin, I forget which one.

                  I also don’t remember any Christian or pseudo-Christian nation which approved and practiced having sex with little girls, or performing genital mutilation on those little girls, or murdering a woman who was a rape victim to “restore honor” to her family. Sure, there will always be perverts in any organization, religious or secular. I mean any in which pedophilia and murderous abuse of women was a component of the religion or national culture itself.

                  You may remember that it was England and America that outlawed slavery. The English outlawed cannibalism in Africa.

                  Some cultures have more value than others. Western civilization is very valuable. Maybe you can tell me what is valuable about Muslim culture. I am sorry for those who suffer under it, but I see no cause whatsoever for Americans or Westerners in general to feel any guilt in connection with Islam.

                • Anonymous

                  See, it took Paulinpittsburg 220 words to offer nothing of substance…

                  It only took Wyrdless 67 words of subsatnce to destroy them.

                  Good Job Wyrdless!

                  Ron Paul 2012

                • Anonymous

                  Have you actually (honestly) ever read the US Constitution? Do you know what purpose it serves???

                • Anonymous

                  Gee, I dunno, maybe I should ask Thomas Jefferson about it and while I’m at it ask him why he “violated it” by sending a military force we now know as the US Marines to Tripoli in 1801.

                  How dare that war mongering Amerikan President dare to claim more authority on the US Constitution than Ron Paul and his supporters!

                • Anonymous

                  Note that Jefferson went to Congress twice to get authorization and funding for the action against the Barbary pirates.

                • Anonymous

                  So, your only dispute is with the procedural methodology? You do realize that Iran declared war against the US when it invaded its embassy and held ransom its people? You do realize that Paul would vote no irrespective of the procedure done properly right? Of course, you do. Your only purpose here is to deceive. Iran is a very great threat to world peace. It is actively creating an atomic weapon that it has publicly declared it intends to use. They’re not doing it for “status.” They’re not doing it because they feel “threatened.” They’re doing it to destroy Israel and anyone who protects her. They’ll sacrifice the whole Iranian nation for this task as Israel is certain to retaliate. You do know what radiation is, right Paulbot? You do know how it travels, right? Surely, Ron Paul knows quite well (being a doctor) what radiation will do to a people. Surely, he also knows that this is the inevitable outcome of Iranian development efforts. The questions is.. does he care? Probably not. Do you care? … probably not.

                • Israel has a military and can defend themselves. We don’t need to put the lives of our own military on the line just because our ally MIGHT face a possible threat from Iran one day. Israeli PM Netanyahu has said this himself.

                • Anonymous

                  You do realize that Israel declared war on the United States when they attacked the U.S.S Liberty, killing 34 crew members?

                  The irony of Christian Zionists supporting Israel so the “Rapture” can happen is that the Bible states the jews will be destroyed along with all non-christians when it comes. I suspect these christians don’t actually care if the jews die and go to hell later, just so long as they are around long enough for the bible crowd to get their ticket to heaven. Jews are using Evangelicals to prop up their Jewish Supremacist state, and the Evangelicals are using the jews to get raptured.

                • paulinpittsburgh you’re analysis is masterful. Are you on Linked In?

                • Anonymous

                  Nope. Paul has been right on the failed foreign policy of the US in the Middle East and elsewhere. Because of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the region was destabilized. That resulted in al Qaeda (Sunni) going from zero influence in Iraq to being a important factor. It also empowered Iran via Sayyid Muqtadā al-Ṣadr. In the wings is General Qassem Suleimani. A powerful Iranian general with huge influence in Iraq.

                  So, as a result of this intervention:
                  1. al Qaeda is now active in Iraq
                  2. Iran has increased it’s influence in Iraq and the region
                  3. More than a hundred thousand Iraqi’s have perished in the civil war 2004-2008.
                  4. The USA has spent or has incurred future liabilities of $1.8 trillion dollars
                  5. 4,486 US Soldiers have been Killed, 32,226 Seriously Wounded.

                  Civil war looms again in Iraq. And al-Sadr has called for new elections.

                • Anonymous

                  Yet another example of a Paul supporter cherry picking a time frame and event and engaging in the most basic failure of reasoned arguing: correlation = causation.

                  Sorry friend but before there was an Iraq invasion, Bin Laden and Al Quada, there was Abu Nidal, Yasser Arafat, Fatah and the PLO, before them and the UN establishing the state of Israel there were several organized groups of militant Arab Muslims regularly killing Jews in the land occupied by Britain and all well documented by the historical record…

                  You can go back to the Hashhashin, an Islamic sect that existed in from the 11th to the 13th centuries in Iran from which we derive the word assassin lead first by Hassan Sabbah, who carried out the same atrocities using different weapons and tactics but always with the same goals. And even that’s not the beginning.

                  Sorry but Ron Paul is simply wrong and any thorough reading history proves it. This has been going on for nearly 1,400 years now, in virtually every part of the world and it always the same story, one particular group who initiates the violence with whom ever they come into contact with and attempt to subdue claiming to be the victim when their victims fight back.

                • Anonymous

                  As a decided Ron Paul supporter I agree with you in that he doesnt appear to truly understand the nature of Islam’s role in the ongoing and never-ending conflicts in the middle-east which has now spread throughout the world in various forms. HOWEVER, having flown missions in every single theater of operation over there for the last 10 years, including participating in an exercise with the Israeli Defense Force, I am 100% certain that our current and past governments do not understand it either, and the results we have to show for what we put into that region support that indisputably.

                  All things being equal, I would much rather put the clueless man in charge who isnt going to squander unimaginable amounts of money, and wreck the lives of thousands of families, as well as entangle the country in a utterly pointless propaganda war and political mess that can only have a further negative effect on the country’s stature…..than continue electing clueless, or worse, deceptive, people who will continue the aforementioned insanity.

                  Let that part of the world tear itself apart, get what we can out of them via trade. It should surprise no one why the chinese look at us as being stupid. Based on our strategies and how we claim to be “protecting our interests” we certainly are being stupid.

                • Anonymous

                  But that’s the flaw in the Paul argument; we will most certainly spend unimaginable amounts of money as a result of the events in the middle east no matter what, the only question is what we will spend it on.

                  This country is a minimum of 7 to 10 years out from achieving any sort of level of energy independence that would enable the use to minimally survive a nuclear exchange or major escalation of violence in the middle east, let alone thrive, and that’s if we start working towards that goal TODAY which we aren’t close to doing.

                  You think spending a trillion or two on wars trying to keep Islamic extremists is unsustainable? Wait until you see the cost of trying to keep the lights on and food on 300 million tables while we wait for that first nuke power plant to come on line or that pipeline to get built from Canada.

                  I don’t know about you, but I’ve spent the last three years putting in some serious stocks to survive an emergency or second Obama term, but I’m pretty sure I can’t survive 5 or more northeast winters once oil stops flowing out of the middle east.

                  And if you think your liberties are threatened now by the federal government, wait see what it’s like when they’re rationing food and energy for 350 million people.

                • Anonymous

                  If it’s just the elements you’re concerned about, you can survive as many northeast winters as you have to. There was no Mideast oil when the northeast was colonized, or when it was settled. You won’t be as comfortable as you are now, but you can deal with the weather.

                • Anonymous

                  Well at least now we’re starting to get to the truth of the matter now aren’t we? I wasn’t speaking so much for myself as I was for the general populace of the US. In addition to the supplies I have I hunt, fish, garden, can etc and I will SURVIVE …

                  The 80 to 90% of residents in high density urban centers who think a cell phone, cable and Ipads are necessities and food is something served by people with masters degrees in film and political science in bistros … not so sure about them.

                  I mean if that’s what you Ron Paul supporters are talking about, returning to life something more like what existed in the 1700’s and watching mass starvation and death in our cities to achieve your agenda well fine, but a least lets be honest about it stop pretending we can do what you say internationally and still retain anything remotely similar to what we’ve become accustomed to in our standard of living.

                • Anonymous

                  so… you wait tables. I was wondering where a person with so much ‘knowledge’ of middle east history spends his days…

                • He waits tables? Where did he say that? If your reading comprehension is this bad, you should keep quiet, before confirming you’re a fool.

                • Anonymous

                  I’m not a Paul supporter. I don’t have an agenda to return to some mythical yesteryear. Whether the catastrophe comes in the form of nukes or economic utter collapse, the first six months or so will reduce the headcount radically. And I certainly don’t pretend we can do that and retain our current standard of living. But you spoke about surviving, not about living in ease and comfort.

                • You are wrong, remember the first Iraq war, all the oil wells burning and the price of our gas went down! Why because we released some of our reserves! We have enough well capped to supply our need until new resources are developed!

                • Very well said!!

                • zedoc

                  Wow! Paulinpittsburg is smart. Those gun totting, AK47 shoot-‘m-up stone age tribesmen that you see on the news videos from the ’80’s and 90’s are nothing new. Lebanon was arguably the most beautiful city in the world until the war in the late ’60’s. But it was Christian built and the Moslems couldn’t stand it, so they destroyed it. They’re comng after us, too. You wait. THey’ll be doing the same to New York, Paris and London.

                • So all those AK-47 toting middle-easterns are gonna hop on planes and come tear down New York? Think about that. How the hell will these people from basically 3rd-world countries get here? And if they do, how the hell do we plan on protecting the homeland if our military is spread throughout the world and dying in the middle east? If our troops were here at home, they’d be here ready to protect our country. Instead we’re just over there stirring up more shit.

                • The wests survival? Lets say Iran has a nuke right now. How would they get it to the US? And as far as Israel is concerned…They fire their 1 or 2 nukes at Israel…when 300 nukes come over the horizon toward Iran thats it. Iran is not that stupid. But I can see you are that afraid of a 3rd world country. Your points are ridiculous on their face. You don’t need to look anything up to see that would be the out come of Iran using a nuke weapon on the US or Israel.

                  Do you think about your posts or do you just kinda pour it out there?

                • Anonymous

                  Who says they have to get it to the US to inflict permanent damage? Have you seen the oil markets the last few days resulting from just some sabre rattling and the POTENTIAL for a confrontation in the Persian Gulf?

                  What do you think will happen in those markets the morning AFTER Iran tests its first nuclear weapon? $200 a barrel oil, $250, $300 … what do you think happens to the global markets for EVERYTHING when they start digesting the reality that at any moment they could attack Israel, or a neighbor like Saudi Arabia at any moment with nuke?

                  You Ron Paul supporters can not be so naive as to believe if we isolate ourselves we can remain undamaged by at best the beginning of a nuclear arms race between Arab nations already fearful of Iran’s aggression or at worst a nuclear exchange in the middle east between Iran and Israeli.

                  There is no rational person who could see a positive outcome of Iran having nuclear weapon, unless WW III is something you desire.

                • mfeathers

                  So by reading your reply, I am assuming it is your belief that we invade Iran now and be done with it. Even though history has told us both that this region of the world has been in conflict for centuries? Are we to be dragged into this mire of war now because we have the ability to do so? What is your political means-to-an-end to resolve the overall scenario? What will be your message be to our troops that have seen that our interference in the region brings out more fantatilalism? What kind of retention policy should we have in place to keep our seasoned troops in the fighting ranks? What will our ability be to pay for this additional conflict? Is part of your plan for this that we continue to run-up the national debt and if so, who funds it ( China will definatley not be in favor of supplying us with more cash to fund a war with Iran )? What are we to do with mis-placed civilians in the region? And last, what are we to do with the spoils of war after we claim victory?

                • Iran will not start WWIII but America will if they go after Iran! Here come the Chinese and the Russians and probable India.

                • Anonymous

                  I guess that depends what you mean by “starting” the war. To most people building a nation destroying bomb and then threatening to destroy a nation with it is considered an act of war. I guess not in your rule book; nor that of the other Paulbots.

                • Anonymous

                  dare, what you have just described is what the USA and Russia did for 50 years.

                • Anonymous

                  Jim, Iran *IS* that stupid. Have you ever heard of a suicide bomber? Imagine a suicide bomber taking control of a nation? Think about it. They believe they will go to heaven and all of the good innocent Muslims caught in the blast will too. It’s a win-win situation for them. You *DO NOT* understand the enemy and you *DO NOT* understand how to fight them. Your ideas are a cancer on the west and will hasten its downfall.

                • WrongdIRectionInd

                  You are such an uninformed conservative paulinpittsburgh. “One-party totalitarian state”?! OBAMA?!?! You kill me. A totalitarian state has no private sector that works independent of the state and its party. Congress has no opposition in a totalitarian state. Oh yeah, and the states and citizens within the nation-state have no individual rights in a totalitarian state. How do you figure that Obama or even the Democratic party could pull that off in 8 years? The fact that the Republicans took control of majority in Congress less than two years ago is proof that your post is full of the jargon and half-truths that you spout against. Learn the difference between social democracy and totalitarianism/authoritarianism before you rail against one of your own. Yes, Ron Paul is a conservative AND libertarian. His foreign policy is NOT isolationist, it is a policy of non-intervention. There is a difference and you should inform yourself on that difference. Also, after reading your extensive jabbering thread it is clear that you need to learn a little more about history as well. The Crusaders were just as bloody as the Persians. And the Crusades did not allow for freedom of religious practice other than Catholicism. In fact, they just assumed kill all dissenters than deal with the potential of losing their gained influence. You ever hear of the Spanish Inquisition? Yeah, that was a peaceful and justly act of conversion from Muslim and other dissenting faiths to Catholicism (I am being sarcastic in case you believe that statement). The United States is a nation of overprivileged, uninformed, and increasingly uneducated individuals who think that everything the media reports is indisputable truth because the media reports it as such. C’mon….wake up!!!

                • dontpraisemebro

                  Oh no, the Crusades! For as many times the Crusades have been incorrectly brought up by some tunnel-visioned brainwashed drone, I’m surprised the whole truth hasn’t yet gained enough traction where clowns like you are immediately put down just for using that line.

                  If you were in any way informed or educated as you pretend to be, you would know what caused the Crusades and who the real aggressors were. Was it the Muslim Fatimids who torched the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and executed Christians in Jerusalem? Could it have been the Muslim Invasions of Christian Mesopotamia (Iraq), Phoenicia, Egypt, SPAIN, Byzantine, or the attempted invasion of France? When you have Christian Crusaders and even the Mongols forming an agreement to sack Baghdad, it’s pretty obvious the Crusader mission wasn’t to “exterminate anyone who wasn’t Catholic,” a talking point that “overprivileged, uninformed, and increasingly uneducated individuals” believe is indisputable truth because the media, state-run “education (indoctrination)” system, or left-wing outlet reports it as such.”

                  paulinpittsburgh is right about people like you always picking convenient starting points to cherrypick the story with your head in the sand.

                  As for Obama’s authoritarianism, you are obtuse if you don’t see what he’s trying to do. Obama does what he can with what he has. Most of his policies do not appear fully totalitarian but resemble a sort of prelude. He’s sure planted enough seeds and displayed his Chicago Mob Mentality of punishing anyone who dares speak ill of him. I also can’t believe that “most people” actually like him “personally.” I mean just look at how he conducts himself. He’s easily angered when interviewers aren’t kissing his ass, and decide to ask him a tough question. A Ford ad was condemned and banned because Obama had a problem with its anti-bailout rhetoric? Bombing Libya without congressional approval? NDAA? You Ron Paul nuts should know all about that one. What about AttaaaackWaaaatch?

                  I just don’t understand some Ron Paul supporters. They reveal their cognitively dissonant sensibilities by disagreeing with everyone for the sake of disagreeing, just to appear like knowitalls who believe they are somehow more enlightened then the rest of us. They are truly the wishy washy kind of “conservative” who are ashamed to be apart of anything they consider mainstream so they’ve found refuge in an underdog, and an ideology they think is untapped.

                • Anonymous

                  virtually every Representative/Senator voted in favor of NDAA. I will not get into #’s arguments. what that means is that the MAJORITY of our elected representatives voted to violate the Constitution and give ANY president authority to DETAIN ANY US CITIZEN INDEFINATELY!
                  In order to board an airplane, I must subject myself to radiation and a body pat down like a common criminal. My phone conversations are being listened to regardless of what I am told by my Government. Internet control is next.
                  Our monetary system is on the verge of collapse and the same people that voted the above are unwilling/unable to stop their spending. BTW, for the slow in the house, the Federal Reserve is not a government agency. It is a private Bank. It’s head is appointed by the president. When the FED makes money, the banks make money. When the banks lose money, the Taxpayers foot the bill.
                  That would be Fannie/Freddie, and that TARP bailout of $800 Billion. The FED(you and me) now has $Billions of Toxic Wall Street mortgage Bundles on their books that are worthless. They bought them from the banks at top dollar.
                  We will pay for those as well. BTW there is not one major bank in the US that is solvent now. They are all cooking their books with the approval of Congress and this administration. Don’t believe it? Research the difference between “marked to market”, and “marked to model”. The banks have been allowed to mark to any model they like. Fantasy!
                  As well the FED is supplying bonds at low rates, and the banks buy those bonds and then sell them back to the FED at higher rates days later, and WE pay the %interest!
                  Look at what happened at MF Global. More facts are coming to light daily, but the main point is that JP Morgan STOLE the money from segregated accounts. MF used something called “hypothecation”, in the new Frank/Dodd banking rules to move funds from customers accounts and gamble with them.
                  And the mentally challenged are worried about Foreign policy!
                  Russia got Nuclear Weapons, and did not destroy anyone.
                  North Korea got Nuclear Weapons, and did not destroy anyone.
                  China got Nuclear Weapons, and did not destroy anyone.
                  Israel got Nuclear Weapons, and did not destroy anyone.
                  The US is the only one with Nuclear Weapons that destroyed another nation.

                  If you are scared, run and hide under your mothers skirt. IF you are worried about terrorism, do the same, and buy a gun to protect yourself.
                  Right now I am much more worried about the intrusions of an overarching government on EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN’S LIBERTIES.
                  Any thinking citizen should be!
                  Get your head out of reality TV and pay attention. This country is falling.

                • I think you really better do better research before you call Ron Paul a liar. you are believing the liars and the MSM CFR Media that are feeding you lies. If China had a base in Texas and started killing would you let them attack or fight back. What do you think we are doing in the mid east exactly that. We have killed millions in the mid east for what? Can you answer that logically? Has any country in the mid east attacked US. No!!!! Who gave Bin Laden the power to run a terrorist operation. The US gov’t did he was a CIA operative before he went rogue. Even Israel’s own (CIA) says Iran is not a problem. So wake up and quit spreading disinformation.

                • Anonymous

                  Go sign up for the Army so we can paratroop ya into Iran to get their bomb. Don’t be surprised you find nothing just like the WMD in Iraq. You’ll probably find a peaceful people wondering why the US which is 10,000 miles away has battleships in it’s gulf (imagine if China had a battleship in the Gulf of Mexico and troops in Mexico to get their oil), invading it’s air space, etc. I am no fan of a theocracy but I really don’t care if the Iranians have one. I bet if we dropped all sanctions and gave Iran first nation trading privileges the resulting middle class would throw of the mullahs in a heart beat. Sanctions lead to war and misery. Just think of Vietnam – what the French and Americans couldn’t accomplish in 20 years of war was accomplished in peace and trade. Instead we got 50,000+ dead US soldiers plus millions of dead Vietnamese. The founders where right, Ron Paul is right, Neocons are always wrong. Also, remember Newt and Mitt got deferments during Vietnam. When it was their time to serve they chickened out but have no problem sending other parents kids into danger.

                  Lastly remember Ron Paul gets twice as many donations from active military then all the other neocon chicken hawks. Say that 100 times real fast and never forget that “Ron Paul gets more active military donations then twice all the other Republicans combined”

                • Anonymous

                  Ron gets twice as many because the others divide the money of the sane folk. They’re only the one loon for the dupes to go for; so naturally Ron gets all of that.

                • Twice of all COMBINED. In other words, since you don’t know what that means, if you ADDED UP the amount of donations given to Romney, Perry, Newt, and Santorum then multiplied that total by two, it would still not equal the amount that Ron Paul receives. The military does NOT want to go to war with Iran. If you’re so hell bent on doing so, grab a gun and get your ass on a plane and do it your damn self, but stop sending our men out there to die for no reason.

                • FYI……..

                  Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: “Ron Paul’s Policy/Perspective on Iran Most Accurate”

                • Ron Paul uses the CIA’s own reports when he presents “blowback”. He’s reading from these reports. I encourage Ron Paul to run 3rd party if the GOP isn’t wise enough to nominate him.

                • Anonymous

                  They cant bring substance because 2+2=4

                  They are just using emotional buzz words to try and scare new RP supporters…knowing how shallow most people are in this country. We are going to keep on pushing the truth…because the truth always finds the light of day.

                  Ron Paul 2012

                • Anonymous

                  No, Paul endorsed the specific POLICY of ending the wars and bring US troops home. He endorsed Chuck Baldwin FOR POTUS in Sept 2008.


                • B-Funk

                  It is a difficult spot to be in, isn’t it? I, too, find myself allied with much of his position, but I simply cannot support someone who would abandon the planet to wolves like Iran. We’ll see what happens, but I’m not going to hold my breath. :-/

                • Anonymous

                  He would abandon the idea of going to war with Iran, who Russia and China say they will defend, and he knows that Israel will not allow Iran to get a nuke. Israel is not imminently concerned about Iran having a nuke. After reading the IAEA report, it appears that the US is the only one imminently concerned about it.

                • B-Funk

                  Maybe so, but I see a lot to be concerned about. That Ahmedinejad (sp?) guy is about as crazy as they come. There are serious- and legitimate- reasons to want to keep nukes out of their hands. To make it more squirrely from a foreign affairs standpoint, if China and Russia attack anyone, India attacks them… To be honest, I don’t know what the right answer is, but we can’t ignore Iran.

                • So instead of letting Israel fight their own battles, we should go level a country for something they MIGHT do and in turn piss off Russia & China who could quickly level us? Great strategy. Maybe in America we should arrest citizens for crimes they MIGHT commit, but never actually have. Oh wait, with NDAA passing, they just might start doing that.

                • B-Funk

                  Might? Good Lord man! Have you heard that creep talk? Besides, India has Russia and China over a barrel on that one.

                • Leslie

                  Manipulation of what facts I am curious? Do you think agenda 21 is conspiracy? it’s a verifiable fact and agenda 21 should have us screaming to get out of the NWO and UN (unless you don’t care about land/home ownership or private transportation options, or giving the GOV full control of all food, water, air & 80% of land that will be off limits).

                  911…I was diving in Cancun and my dive-master told me they heard before the planes even hit what was happening and it was inside job!

                  McVeigh was innocent, like you could cause that kind of explosion from a van full of manure?
                  Our Gov created Aids. my mother knew of a guy who was part of it and in hiding because everyone else involved was disappearing. (my mom worked in Aerospace, my Dad for city of LA architectural engineer) one of which is how she most likely knew the guy.
                  Let’s see, the hemp was first drug to become illegal and that was due to it being a threat to the Rockefeller monopoly of the oil and pharmaceutical industry. Now drug war is big $.
                  The Fed and income tax is illegal. Our founding fathers warned us about allowing private institutions to print $. Our labor was never supposed to be taxed.
                  Our government defends Monsanto like it is GOLD while allowing these products to flood our food supply w/o research or even requiring labels while most other countries want nothing to do with GMO’s in their food supply.

                  Cures for Cancer have been discovered, they are even ones that are good for you but they do anything it takes to keep them from being published.

                  Polio vaccines up until like 1998? Had a monkey virus that is cancer causing. (like that could be accidental).

                  The great depression was deliberate.

                  What else?

                • Who made you the arbiter of what a Republican is? Seems like your idea of it isn’t very popular anymore.

                  “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve”. Yeah, those sound real commie to me.

                • Anonymous

                  keep playing checkers while i play chess. allow me to expose the aforementioned manipulation and willful misrepresentation of facts.

                  “bring troops home” is a pretty easy position for a leftist to take. it’s certainly debatable within the republican party as to how deeply we should entangle ourselves in foreign affairs, but pure isolationism is not a mainstream conservative approach to the world — it’s george mcgovern 2.0 instead.

                  “balancing budgets” can be interpreted two ways. ron paul looks at it the correct way, that is, by slashing spending (even though he does apparently still like to vote for earmarks, but that’s another story entirely). the cynthia mckinneys of the world look to tax the ever-loving hell out of people and business in order to counterbalance the out of control spending.

                  “personal liberties” can also be interpreted two ways. there’s the constitutional approach — meaning that it’s not up to the federal government to get all up in my personal business unless i’m doing something to wrong others — and there’s the “lol i want to be able to do whatever the hell i want without repercussions” approach that many liberals take.

                  “investigating the Federal Reserve” sounds better than it really is. a person like ron paul could make a real difference if he was put IN CHARGE if the federal reserve, but investigations, as we’ve seen time and time again, are pretty pointless. the biggest problem is that the people in charge of setting these “rules and regulations” are UNELECTED, meaning we (and often times, our elected representatives) CANNOT TOUCH THEM, yet they’re still somehow able to circumvent the Constitution by legislating in a de facto manner.

                  again, as i stated earlier, i don’t dislike ron paul. i just think he’s running for the wrong position to most clearly bring out his strengths. the biggest problem with his supporters, however, is that while he speaks in well-thought-out paragraphs, his supporters like to run around quipping sound bytes and demonizing any republican who happens to disagree through insult and ridicule a la saul alinsky.

                • about the fed, its raping us, thats a fact and until our money is backed by gold the value will go up and down causing inflation, about bringing the troops home, we didn’t legally declare the wars, now if you say you support the constitution then how can you argue against that, also you need to google ”blowback” this is what the cia refers to when we attack and occupy other country’s it causes people to retaliate which is blowback, and how is being friendly to other country’s, promoting PEACE not war, trading with other countrys and leading by example isolationism, if you neo cons want to fight iran so bad then pick up your guns and go fight, if not then stop saying its ok to torture and terrorize people all over the world, i love my country but i hate my government, they have become the terrorists of the world! and its times like this that we need someone like ron paul to fix the mess were in, don’t get me wrong i am not liberal or conservative, i hate bush and obama just the same, they are both tyrannical since signing the patriot act and now the sb 1867 defense authorization act, this law enables the president to arrest anyone they want on us soil and hold them forever REFRENCE.SEC.1031 but thats why we need REAL change, yeah real change, these goons in office claim to cut the budget by simply cutting planned earmarks, thats not real cuts, but i respect your opinion and understand a lot of people don’t have the time to do all the research, but i have and its taken a lot of research to determine that ron paul is the best we got, he couldn’t make everyone happy no man can but hey its a great start
                  if you want to know where i get my information feel free to click my icon and add me to facebook, i will be happy to help my fellow Americans in the search for truth, even if you don’t change your mind about who your voting for its still good to know the truth

                • “keep playing checkers while i play chess.” Just a personal observation….I never beat my dad playing checkers, yet he never beat me at chess.

                • Anonymous

                  I love Ron Paul and think he is right about most things, however, I think his basic premise about radical Islam is wrong. He appears to believe that those in the middle east who hate us do so because we bomb them, but in reality they hate us because we are not Muslim. They want to destroy the “great Satan” and replace our system of law with Sharia law. That is their stated goal, and they have done it with many other countries. They use violent jihad and “stealth jihad” to accomplish it, and if this were to happen there would be no more Constitution left to defend. Ron Paul’s refusal to recognize this fact is dangerous if he were elected and is the only problem I have with him. If you care to defend him in this regard, I would welcome it.

                • Anonymous

                  “Radical Islam” is a redundancy.

                • Anonymous

                  I tend to agree with you. I was being too PC.

                • Anonymous

                  I’m voting for Ron Paul, but I agree with you. I think we have to keep in mind though that consider the alternative. Our current policy doesnt address the very point you make either. It pretends that just a few bad apples are the source behind all this conflict and not the institution & culture of Islam and the call for jihad. Islam is simply incompatible in any large scale with western civilization which is based on individualism (in some countries greater extents than others). The reality is the muslims, while there may be millions of them who wish for peace and to co-exist with other cultures, and can get along fine and not take their religion too seriously, are in the view of the majority, the bad apples, hence the phrase spoken from the rest of the world’s standpoint, “the only good muslim, is a bad muslim”.

                  So as much as it is clear Ron Paul doesnt grasp the reality of the situation, or doesnt want to, to me his policy is far preferable to a one that perpetrates continuous war, the loss of massive amounts of resources and tax money, and has clearly become a vicious cycle. He is right when he notes that Reagan pointed out that there is zero point in getting involved in that part of the world because those people and those in positions of power are completely irrational. Immigration from muslim countries should be highly restricted, and our interaction with them should be strictly via trade. Israel does not need or want us sticking our nose in their business of self defense. Netanyahu said as much on our very own House floor just last year. The notion that we would be “abandoning” them is pure hogwash. I have been there, I have worked with their military side-by-side, and met many folks on my own time, and this opinion is almost exclusively held by all of them.

                • mfeathers

                  The jihad war is working then…If you have time, take a look at some of the laws being instituted to “protect” our citizens. Most recently the NDAA bill for 2012. Sections 1031 & 1032.

                  “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” – James Madison; President USA 1809 – 1817

                • Anonymous

                  You make a very good point, mfeathers. The NDAA bill is very dangerous indeed! However, Islamic jihad is a very dangerous ideology as well. There definitely has to be a “happy medium” between protecting our citizens from a very legitimate threat like Islamic jihad (and stealth jihad), and losing our freedoms in the process. I would just like RP to explain how he would handle this issue, and I will vote for him with no qualms whatsoever. Perhaps bombs and sanctions do not work in the Middle East, however, neither does merely “talking” to them. It is a very complicated issue. Islamists don’t just hate us because we bomb them, they hate us because we are not like them, a point that RP (as much as I like him and agree with him otherwise) hasn’t explained to my satisfaction! Their stated goal is to destroy the “Great Satan” (and the “little Satan” Israel), and create an Islamic Caliphate. Islam is just as tyrannical an ideology as communism ever was, because it is a PARASITIC political ideology disguised as a religion. You can’t separate Sharia Law from Islam, and the Constitution will not be able to help me if I am a “dhimmi.”

                • Anonymous

                  I does not understand? I thought they hated us for our freedoms? Well since the US Congress and POTUS is taking them there freedoms away from Americans one little law after another why do they still hate us? (sarcasm). Maybe we need to be even less free to protect the fatherland…I mean homeland. Them there bill of rights, magna carta, etc is sure stirring up a bunch of trouble with them freedom hating towel heads. (even more sarcasm).

                • If that’s the case (hating us just because we’re not Muslim), why aren’t they attacking non-Muslim countries like Switzerland, New Zealand, Sweden, or even China? Oh, yeah, because those countries aren’t posted up in the Muslim “holy land”, bombing their countries, and killing their people. Let them fight amongst themselves in the middle east, we have no reason to put our troops lives on the line in never-ending wars

                • Anonymous

                  I agree with you–I don’t think we should be there either!! I certainly don’t want my 21 year old son to have to fight in the Middle East. I am just saying that their stated goal is to establish a global Muslim caliphate, and I personally do not want to become a “dhimmi.” We need to be mindful of that! As far as Switzerland, New Zealand, Sweden, etc., you should look up “stealth jihad.” They might not be attacked in the conventional sense, but rather in a more slow, insidious fashion. If you don’t think that can happen, look at Britain to see how that works. Sharia Law is parasitic, and slowly insinuates itself into the fabric of another country’s law and culture until it takes over. It has already started here with Sharia compliant finance.

                • Anonymous

                  “ASHESTOASHES says,

                  Everything I have heard directly from the mouth of Ron Paul tells me that he is on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood … same view toward Israel … same view toward Jews … same view that American is the real problem in the world … disses America more than Obama … hates the military … he was even the one who started the conspiracy theory about the “vast military industrial complex” … and he will not recognize any enemy having declared war on us until all the proper forms have been filled out in triplicate and passed by a supermajority in both houses of congress … so to my mind Ron Paul and his supporters like You are just as bad if not worse than the National Socialist Party than currently runs this country !!!”

                • Ron Paul thinks there is nothing wrong with a nuclear Iran. as i understand it, his plan for national security is to bring all troops home. It is not too far fetched to imagine that if the U.S. armed forces is not deployed and actively seeking to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of mad men, eventually we would find ourselves surrounded by our enemies.

                • Anonymous

                  Nope. He thinks it a bad thing. He recognizes that attempting to do something about can have unintended consequences. The situation in Iran is changing. The old guard would lose power if it did not have the treat of the USA looming over the people in Iran. That allows Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to rally support on nationalistic sediments.

                  This is a waste of time. If some of you actually read the news that comes out of Iraq or Iran from all sources, including from the resistance and opposition, and unfiltered by those that have a bone to pick, you might begin to understand. Heck, even if you read the reports from the Western intelligence agencies you might begin get a clue.

                • mfeathers

                  So your assertion is to have a mass troop deployment world-wide in various troubled areas? How do you suggest we pay for this type of deployment? What are your plans for retention of the military personnel who are becoming war-weary? What is your definition of a political end to the fighting to be insued? What countries do we start with ( N.Korea?, Iran? )? What are your plans to counter-act the world-wide blowback that we will receive as Americans?

                • How could Iran get a nuke here? Surrounded by our enemies? I wonder why that scenario could even be postulated. Maybe because we have stirred up so much trouble, they would jump at the first chance for payback? And if that was the case, considering Paul has argued that this will/is happening, would you blame Paul for angry countries attacking us? Your glib interpretation of world affairs is shocking. But years of hearing ” If America does it, there MUST be a good and Godly reason for it” have given you a misplaced sense of right and wrong.
                  You can lead a horse to water…….

                • Anonymous

                  Oddly enough it is OK for a country in which the Taliban operate out of and carry a lot of power, in which Al Qaeda routinely operates out of and that Bin Laden himself had taken up a cozy residence (as opposed to the cave we were all made to believe he was living in and slowly dying from kidney failure), whose intelligence service is FAR shadier than the KGB ever was and has been directly linked to Taliban takeover of post-Russia Afghanistan, that is hostile towards one of our bigger allies in Asia (India), whose government is frighteningly unstable with no political figure safe from assassination, that has entire regions in which the military cannot control and the government does not control… is not only OK for such a country to have nukes, but then we send Pakistan mountains of cash to line God-knows-who’s coffers with.

                  From another standpoint, it would make WAY more sense to be allied with Iran and threatening Pakistan if you think about it rationally. The largest group of muslim immigrants in the US are Iranians, always have been. So we even have more ties at the individual citizen level to Iran than we do Pakistan, yet for some reason we should be ramping up the war drums for Iran, and be on the never -ending quest to convince Pakistan to be our pals.

                  Explain to me the sense in that?

                • Anonymous

                  We better invade Canada and Mexico now – good god for the sake of our children if we don’t start bombing Iran soon we’ll be surrounded!!! aaahhh!!

                • Anonymous

                  I live in Canada. One block away from me is a military surplus store with a Musalla in the back. They’re training with airsoft rifles in the woods. This is real, son, not a fucking video game.

                • KenInMontana

                  I suggest you read this before you spout anything more on the subject of the contents of the NDAA, specifically sections 1021 and 1022, these are the two sections that everyone are up in arms about.

                  You did say you are interested in the truth.

                • Anonymous

                  I am a Paul supporter, but I don’t believe the gold standard is the way to go. We probably don’t have any gold, and a gold standard could be manipulated by foreigners. The central banks most likely have our gold as collateral on the debt. So unless we disown the debt, due to fraudulent means of acquiring it, and get our gold back, we have nothing to work with. The entire financial system is garbage. It has been reported that gold and silver have been over sold. There is more gold investing than there is gold. The entire system would have to be reformed before a gold standard would have a chance of being successful.

                  The Fed is an enemy of the citizens, and the best friend of government. What does that tell you?

                • “keep playing checkers while i play chess.” Just a personal observation….I never beat my dad playing checkers, yet he never beat me at chess.

                • Hey Timothy – have you ever served our country in uniform? You sound like the typical chickenhawk. I have served and lost family in war and currently have family serving over in Kabul and Kandahar. They do not share your sentiments on “bringing our troops home”, and they are not leftists. Please do not ever disgrace military personell with that type of malplaced stereotyping.

                  I was reading some responses to Ron Paul’s foreign policy in a blog and here is what 2 intell officers had to say:

                  “As an 11 yr intell officer with 4 tours under my belt, I can tell you we need to bring the troops home now….all of them! For all the pe…ople who think they know what they are talking about from the comforts of their own couch in their warm houses, watching Fox and CNN for their “facts”, try this out! Call your military friends that have actually been to war, and ask them their stance on foreign policy! You might get a nice wakeup call! Everytime I come home and watch the way the media depics the war and our foreign policy, it really makes me sick to my stomach! People are being made into war zombies! Paul is dead on with his views, but the real powers that be try to paint a different picture. Stop listening to the Corp. Media, and start asking the troops…who actually know what’s going on! Or, I challenge those sooo in favor of war, death, murder, and orphaned kids to enlist yourself and your kids if you’re such a “patriot”!!! You will be singing a different tune about Paul after your first week really seeing what war is like! Who wants to show their patriotism now!!? Didn’t think so! Keep cheering from the sidelines like you have a clue! Give peace a chance people!”

                  The other posted right below him:

                  “As a 7 year intel officer, I agree. Nobody understands the situation better then we do & even the Chief of the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit agrees: anybody else besides Ron Paul will mean more wars, more dead veterans, and bankruptcy.”

                  Here is the link:

                  Here are some definitions you should know:

                  Isolationism: the policy or doctrine of isolating one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, foreign trade, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one’s country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

                  Two other terms often confused with Isolationism (not synonyms) are:

                  —Non-interventionism: Says that political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense). However, most non-interventionists are supporters of free trade, travel, and support certain international agreements, and therefore differ from isolationists.

                  —Protectionism: Relates more often to economics, there should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

                  Also Keep in mind Ron Paul’s endorsement yesterday:

                  You really need to reconsider this stance you hold.

                • Anonymous

                  nothing but love for people in the military. i didn’t serve myself, but i have a great handful of family and friends who either have served or are serving, and one of my most influential life mentors was a Lt. Col. whose wounds suffered ended up costing him his leg and eventually his life after complications from diabetes. i talk to these aforementioned servicepeople regularly, and i’d say their opinions on ron paul are fairly split — some are certainly huge supporters of his, while others are quite skeptical. i think it’s unfair to make a blanket statement of “the entire military exclusively supports ron pau and his policiesl” just as it’s unfair to make any statement about any large group of people.

                  i’m certainly not in favor of using war as a method to artificially boost the economy or fixing another country’s internal “problems” — the circumstances required to send men and women into harm’s way need to be much more dire than what got us into, say, libya. and the continued nonsense going on in afghanistan seems to be more the result of a lack of a clear directive than anything else, and i put that blame squarely on the shoulders of the shot-callers (read: politicians).

                  i hope that clarifies my positions a little bit for you, as i’m attempting to take small breaks in between being a good capitalist working a 14-hour day to answer both the civil critics (like yourself) and the not-so-civil critics (like a bunch of the other people on this comment thread who have come out calling me every monosyllabic slur in the dictionary).

                • Anonymous

                  Active duty USAF, now NATO here, 10+ years. Been on the ground & in the air in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya (no ground), on exercise with the IDF in southern Israel, and the othe rwaste of time everyone forgets about our “drug wars” in Ecuador, Colombia, & the western caribbean. I tell every civilian I get a chance, “If you had the slightest clue how things really were over there, you wouldnt be so quick to instantly vault everyone in uniform up onto a hero pedestal, and cheerlead our foreign policy”. My favorite was the “I support our troops, but I do not support Bush’s policies”….what a total load of crap that was. What goes on in all those theaters of operation I have been in rarely ever does anything to secure any American’s liberty, defend our national “interests”, much less support and defend the Constitution. There is zero chance I could vote for any of these candidates other than Ron Paul.

                • BTW Tim,

                  Those of us who want all of our personal liberties also accept our personal responsibility understanding that the govt nanny won’t be there to pick up after me or you, nor do we want them there.

                • Anonymous

                  Thanks Joe. Sounds like you have a similar background to me. And the chicken hawks disgust me also. Including cousins, a niece, nephews and a sister, 6 currently serving. 3 more retired in the last 15 years.

                • I gotta say, your argument is quite entertaining, but definitely not substantial. If you become familiar with the libertarianism, you wouldn’t be purposely making every platform Ron Paul stands for ambiguous. You’re right on one thing: Ron Paul is not your established neocon Republican. I like that. I used to be a GOP voter and supporter. Then I realized, Republicans and Democrats are all the same. Progressives. They run on a candidacy to “lower taxes, secure our borders, and SAVE AMERICA!!!” Yet, once they’re in office, it’s the same routine. Gun-boat diplomacy. Cut spending by <1%. Increase regulations that hinder business and pure capitalism, just to keep the corporations alive. I'm sorry, but I hope you wake up. You're GOP isn't here to save you pal. If you don't like Obama, Romney is the same man, with a different hairstyle and different color skin.

                  So sorry we "Paul-bots" or "Paultards" might actually love our country enough to see it restored. Because as much as you are bashing RP, I've realized you are too coward to display who you are supporting. Maybe it's because you know how shady and corrupt and progressive the GOP candidates are. And that applies to the rest of you war- mongering shmucks.

                • Anonymous

                  did you just willfully ignore the part where i said i support many of ron paul’s fiscal philosophies, or are you just looking for another opportunity to lash at someone? i apparently make a pretty good punching bag.

                • Anonymous


                • I’m the arbiter, and Tim is right.

                • Tim is wrong. Sorry. Get the shit straight here guys. If Ron Paul isnt nominated, ww3 will begin shortly thereafter.. any attacks on Iran will ensue the entire world in devastation military actions from every country. China will wipe us off the face of the planet. and they could. because it is illegal to own fire arms for most americans. which is unconstitutional. go hug your tv and kiss your ass good bye.

                • Anonymous

                  the sky is falling!

                • Anonymous

                  ” the sky is falling!”

                  ..Actually, that’s your rap. A country (Iran) that spends less than $10 Billion/year and a smaller % of it’s GDP on it’s military is an imminent threat to the USA. Who would have guessed?

                • Don Bosch


                  You are pretty well right on when you say China will get involved if the U.S. hits IRAN. It is clear that they have the power and money to take on the U.S. Russia would assist who again? I think the U.S. should rethink its foreign policy going forward. It is time the U.S. stopped policing the world. You want strong defense, then build a strong economy again. Get rid of the excessive gov’t and fraud and corruption in Washington.

                  China will not allow the U.S. to “protect itself” in too many other places anymore. At some point their laughter will turn into a frown, and then from there a push back. Be careful what you wish for if you are one of those who think the U.S. should carry a big gun anywhere and everywhere. Sometimes it is good to step back and look at the big picture.

                • Anonymous

                  I prefer to listen to those that have served rather than the computer commando bunch.

                • Anonymous

                  ugghhh…how did she keep getting re-elected?? She is a waste of space in Congress. But shows that anyone can get into government.

                • The Burren

                  Who are you and these other clowns like O’Reilly, etc to determine what a Republican is? You and your immature, pre-pubescent, ‘my guy beat your guy’ school yard ignorance is exactly what led us to this pathetic, disgusting, and (probable) terminal state of affairs. I disagree with nearly every position Cynthia McKinney has politically, but Ron Paul supporters want more than Ron Paul the person… they want honesty and intelligence (in that order). So in that regard at least the woman has self-respect. How can you not be ashamed at how you allow the MSM to openly lie and manipulate you? They don’t even try and hide it anymore. Its sad, like watching a bunch of mentally retarded grown-ups watching TV. You’re idiots. You decide nothing. You don’t know who Rick Santorum or Herman Cain or Mitt Romney are– You only know what FOX and CNN tell you, and to be perfectly honest you’re embarrassing. and probably cannot be rescued from your own self absorbed, bloated, mind-numbing stupor at this point. So by all means, believe that Romney, or Santorum, or Gingrich, or Cain will beat Omamba.. but it ain’t happening. Zip, zero, nadda. No chance whatsoever ANY of us Ron Paul REPUBLICANS will give one hoot for your cause. You’re no different than the zombie Omamba hordes to us. We will write our candidate in in a general election, as is our right and our duty to the country we love, while you sit in front of your idiot boxes and wait for Sean Hannity to tell you how to think.

                • Anonymous

                  please allow me to translate your post for you


                  you’re incapable of an independent thought. all you’ve hit me with is a bunch of sound bytes and childish insults that every other ron paul supporter has attacked me with. when you’re done with this little charade, go back to voting for democrats, you fit their mentality perfectly.

                • Anonymous

                  Allow me to restate all your intelligent comments:

                • TomotheusATL, this idiotic post just shows complete and utter desperation on your part. Go back to your history book and keep trying to find ways to demonize the best candidate on the stage. We both know when he gets the nomination, your sorry ass will be voting for him… drink the koolaide now while you still have a shred of integrity left.

                • “You only know what FOX and CNN tell you, and to be perfectly honest you’re embarrassing. and probably cannot be rescued from your own self absorbed, bloated, mind-numbing stupor at this point.”

                  Sorry Tim but he has you there. I have heard most of your rants on the T.V.
                  Your capitulations as a means to run down Paul is very transparent. So please spare us your over used rhetoric and just go vote for Gingrich or whatever.

                • Anonymous

                  Then we are not Republicans, you want it that way you get it that way. Welcome Obama his 2nd term. We hold the cards not you. Our 15% makes or breaks you. You have no power you have nothing, you win if we say you win and you lose if we say you lose, you owe us, this is our game we are masters and you are nothing.

                • because Mckinney was so much worse than a nobody like Obama?! Or Mccain? please. poor excuses for americans. just like any of you that dont support my right to choose how to live my life. I support your rights. to utter complete bull about a decent person. Luckily it is all bull. which is why he got as many votes as he did. the non brainwashed americans know that he is our only hope. he is the only one that understands what we need. freedom.

                • Anonymous

                  i don’t support your right to “choose how you live your life”, eh? you’ll need to elaborate on that one.

                  for instance, if you choose to live the life of an axe murderer, then you’re probably right in that i would not support your lifestyle choice.

                  but if you’re talking about smoking (anything), drinking, sexual orientation, religion, or anything like that, then i really don’t care how you live your life. doesn’t affect me one bit.

                • Wyrdless

                  She was also anti-corruption.

                  Ever heard of DynCorp and their child sex ring?

                • her endorsement is all anyone needs to know about Ron Paul. Half idiot half crazy. Thank God he is almost 80. both years and pounds. HA HA

                • Anonymous

                  Endorse a policy is not the same as endorse a candidate. Are you really that thick?

                • these vulgar and inappropriate comments do not cease to amaze me. Is that the only thing you have to say? Hes old, crazy and LIGHT? at least we know what Ron Paul is. What is Romney? What is Santorum? They have not outlined anything they want to do. All I know about Santorum is that one of his 12 kids is fucked up and he loves his wife. Romney instituted government healthcare in Massachusetts… wow, spoiled for choice much. By neo-con standards, I’m pretty sure Ron Paul is more conservative than Romney.

                  If foreign policy > domestic policy is how Conservatives operate than I’m no longer a conservative.

                  Who do you support?
                  enlighten us.

                • lol your name says it all for me. No reply required.

                • Anonymous

                  he’s far from an idiot. never accused him of stupidity in the slightest.

                • Of course, Bailout Bush isn’t commie at all…or how about health care mandate Romney. Haha. Poor little Republicans, thinking commies who wave American flags are better than commies who don’t. You look awful lonely in the losing stands…oh wait, McCain just endorsed Romney…hahaha. I’ve never heard of a political party in history that imploded faster….Maybe the People’s Front of Judea…Hang on, I’ve got Duke Cunningham on the line…

              • Anonymous

                Good info. McKinney is, at least, a Marxist-leaning politician. Paul needs to either distance himself from that (if anyone is willing to ask), or risk being seen as just a “rabble rouser”.

          • LIES!

          • WRONG, it was ralph nader who endorsed ron paul, and it was on cnn with wolf blitzer, ron paul said specifically he would not endorse anybody.
            check your facts youtube ralph nader ron paul cnn for the video

            • Ron Paul, If I don’t win I don’t want anyone else to win either.

          • you lie

          • Anonymous

            You just kind of make it up as you go along don’t you? Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin from the Constitution party. They are REAL Conservatives, not like the big government fakes that run the Republican party. But then you probably think that you are a conservative because you favor a different big government that the other “side”.

            • Anonymous

              amusing. you have no clue who i support. and you also fail to cite your statements, unlike myself. but please continue with your glittering generalities and blanket assumptions, it makes you look pretty darn smart in my book!

              • SO WHO DO YOU SUPPORT.. GO ON

                • Anonymous

                  i was for cain until he got out of the race, having met him personally back in 2006 when i was attending cpac. got about an hour of one-on-one conversation with him on a variety of issues, and came away quite impressed.

                  as of now, i’m still doing my homework (as i live in georgia, i’ve got a ways to go before making a decision).

                  i do, however, firmly believe that any one of the candidates on that stage, including paul, would be a far better alternative to obama. i’m going to pick whoever i think is the most solid candidate at the time i cast my vote, but when it comes down to the final decision, i can assure you i’ll not be voting for obama.

              • “please continue with your glittering generalities and blanket assumptions”

                But this is precisely where your arguments live Tim, I think you’ve found your soul mate champ.

                • Anonymous

                  no way man, i have higher standards for a soulmate than that

          • Something to Consider……
            Ralph Nader makes a lot of sense if you stop listening the Mass Media produced RightThink.
            Cynthia McKinney, bless her heart, stood up to the Israel lobby, and voted against continued waste of foreign aid money to Israel……she paid the ultimate cost and was defeated in re-election shortly thereafter, because of Huge outside district contributions to her opponent’s campaign.

          • What? You’re either ignorant or a liar. He endorsed Pastor Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.

        • Anonymous

          As a Libertarian who voted for Barr in 2008, believes in MUCH smaller government and returning power to the states, I can’t get behind Wrong Paul.

          Wrong Paul lives in the 1970’s:

          With plenty of government that needs eliminating , he wants to “eliminate the Federal Reserve”? Great idea in the 70’s when those morons were using interest rates to control money supply (before Regan) (no one under 40 remembers nightly business reports of M1, M2 & M3) Since then the FED has used interest rates to SUCCESSFULLY control inflation. 30 years of an average 2.91% inflation is the envy of the developed world. Uncontrolled costs, like college, have gone up 7% per year.

          “End the wars”? great idea in the 70’s, not so great with millions and millions of Muslims trying to kill us from all directions…and they will NEVER stop.

          Wrong Paul supporters want to make drugs legal and wars illegal. Get real.

          Igornant excitable youth gave us O’commie, and igornant excitable youth are trying to give us Wrong Paul.

          Lets take his smart ideas…small government, and work with a true conservative.

          • Anonymous

            Millions of Muslims trying to kill us? Why wouldn’t they just walk across the border and do it? Give me a break!!!

            • these neo-cons claim to be pro life when it comes to things like abortion but when it comes to the al Qaeda boogy man they are more then happy to send OUR brothers and sons to die along with all the innocent civilians we kill by ”accident” i say if they want to fight these wars so bad then they need to send their sons and brothers, hell why not pick up guns themselves and fight the fight, people would leave us alone if we minded our own business
              @ MoFreeMoney

              • Anonymous

                Neville Chamberlain thought the same thing in WWII….and he was as wrong as you are.

                • Anonymous

                  Uh huh. “Vast threat” argument again. Get your history straight. Germany had some parity in Europe and was expansionist. Every potentially “hostile” country in the ME offers no economic or military threat to the USA.

                  Unless, of course the idiot policies that DC comes up with wreck this countries economy there will be no threat.

                  And that brings us back to Ron Paul. His policies will reverse the decline of the US economy. The policies advocated by Obama and his Republican party clones will bring the American economy down.

              • we have fought..and so have our brothers and fathers. just as most are wrong on every point. “al qaeda boogey man??? give me a break…”people would leave us alone if we minded our own business”..there are so many examples of how rediculous that statement is all i can say is look at Israel.

              • Thats why they’re pro-life Luke. Can’t fight wars with out plenty of poor kids to go do the dying.

              • KenInMontana

                First of all, you need to get an encyclopedia and look up the term “NeoCon”, the term you are looking for is “Hawk” or “Hawkish”. All Neoconservatives are hawks, however not all hawks are NeoCons.

                Secondly, there are many here that have put on the uniform and presented that “blank check” to the people of this nation, there are many here that have family who have served, or are currently serving. As a veteran, I find your blanket possessive tense claim on those that serve, insulting. When I took the oath, I was speaking for myself while I freely volunteered to put my life at risk for ALL Americans, not just my family, not just those that I happened to agree with personally or politically, it was done for every citizen of this nation.

                Lastly, for the record, I am an Independent (politically), at this point an undecided one (with the exception of being anti-Obama) people like you (apparently mindless zealots) do your chosen candidate more harm than good with your chosen tactic of acerbic, vitriolic rhetoric of anyone who dares to question your chosen candidate.

            • Pardon me, but do you live in a culvert?

          • Wrong Paul supporters want to make drugs legal and wars illegal. Get real.

            Ya but it’s OK for the CIA to smuggle in drugs to the United States to prop our economy up with drug money that is laundered threw US Banks. It is a well documented fact that the CIA also uses drug money to finance it’s global covert operations. Perhaps you might want to read a little more before making such statements.

            • your exactly right about the cia bringing drugs in the us, too bad for you ron paul wants to eliminate the cia and has even mentioned on tv that the government was engaged in this before, wars are illegal unless declared by the congress, which we didn’t do since WW2,declaring wars is in the constitution, read it instead of spouting lies, @MoFreeMoney

              • Anonymous

                People said that Paul was crazy for saying that the government was involved in the drug trade. Well……. Not so crazy after all.

            • Anonymous

              Yeah. I like his idea of going back to our Constitution, but get real.

              • get real? do you have a problem with our Constitution? do you have a problem following it?

            • Anonymous

              Who made the most money is illegal drugs last year?

              The drug cartels were number 1
              The US government was number 2. A close second.

            • michael pak

              laundered “threw”? I can understand some misspelled words, or even getting your and you’re mixed.. but c’mon.. how can you expect peope to take you seriously?

              • michael pak

                can’t even spell people.. don’t take me seriously.. =)

          • It saddens me to know that so many, like you, lack a complete understanding of money and what it is. Ron Paul has written books on the topic. Austrian Economics. Read it. Even a primer on it would convince all but the retarded that we need sound money, not manipulated money.

            What’s a dollar worth today vs what it was worth when the federal reserve was created? Yep, they sure did a great job on inflation, eh?

            We closed the gold exchange window in what, 1971? You think it’s a coincidence that inflation took off in the 70s?

            What we got from the Fed was massive malinvestment caused by artificially low rates, endless budget deficits they help fund, and a global crisis of fiat money. Give it a couple of years and you can tell us how great the fed did on inflation as you’re spending $1500 for a week’s groceries. Yep, it’s working out great.

            • Anonymous

              OK, yes, good points about the economy and constitutional issues, but I can’t get past the definite anti-Semitism plus some times when he completely sided with left-wing whackos.

              • Ron Paul is anything but anti-Semetic he believes we should stop interfering in their business and let them do what they feel is right for them. He has never said we should abandon Israel, just get out of their way. As for our troops all over the world, during WWII the reason Hitler lost is because he over extended his troops. It is easier to defend a small front than one spread across the globe.

                • Anonymous

                  Read further. Listen to his older sound bites. It is all there in his own words. Not being exposed much by the press these days.

              • more slander. Mlcblog. do you even know who Paul is? he is pro israel. just not the way you might be. They have a right to be responsible for their actions. We do not need to send our brothers to protect them when they do just fine on their own. Geezzzzz… read up on Israels military history.. 0 chance of an attack on Israel that would wipe them off the planet. get real. if you are so pro israel then you know that GOD will miraculously save them from aggressors. or do you just hold a bible to look cool?

              • Anonymous

                Uh huh. That’s why when Gingrich and the entire Republican and Democrat party condemned Israel for bombing the Iraq fast breeder reactor (supplied by France) in 1981 Paul stood up for Israeli right to defend itself.

                The anti-Semitic claim is more BS.

              • 2 minute video dont be lazy ;P

          • Anonymous

            “…millions and millions of Muslims trying to kill us from all directions” except from the North, South, East, and West. I find it totally amazing that we cannot stop one mexican from crossing our souther border (or any South/Central American that braves crossing Mexico), but we can stop millions and millions of Muslims that want to kill us, from crossing our southern border.
            Please stop drinking the Neo-con propaganda. This is exactly why we need a non establishment President running our government. The Establishment has six ponies in this race. The only two they do not control are Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. I like them both, but I prefer Ron Paul.

          • funny how inflation didn’t even exist before the federal reserve act of 1913, when JP MORGAN and the Rockefellers hijacked this country, we need to go back to the gold standard, paper money will be toilet paper when china dumps our currency and they will use this crisis to push a one world currrency which we definitely don’t need, the founding fathers warned against private banks controlling our money supply “The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed. Abraham Lincoln

            • Wayne Wolf

              While I completely agree with you, you shouldn’t make a reference to the warnings our founding fathers gave (which were many and wise! those were some very intelligent men), following that up with a quote from Abe Lincoln. It makes it look like you think Lincoln was one of the founding fathers. At least, I hope you don’t think he was one.

            • KenInMontana

              You do realize that Lincoln, raised troops, declared war, and suspended habeas corpus imprisoning American citizens with out due process, all without the consent of Congress, don’t you? Lincoln came within a hair’s breath of destroying the republic all by his lonesome.

              On the subject of China and “dumping our debt”, well the Chinese aren’t stupid they realize full well, were they to do so it would destroy their own economy as well.

              BTW, there is only one branch of our government that has the authority to hamstring the Federal Reserve, Congress. The Founders instituted several different Central Banks, even Washington, he signed off on the very first.

          • gwmcklintock

            “As a libertarian who voted for Barr”, why make a bigger fool of yourself by this ridiculous qualification? Everyone who reads this knows you’re just a neocon shill, not a libertarian…

          • Anonymous

            Does your television tell you that Muslims around the world want to kill us? Most just want us to leave so they can get back to their status quo lifee in their own country and not have to worry about a midnight raid snatching up their father/brother/son because he said something controversial.

          • Tim Thomas

            Yes our inflation rate is the dream of socialized democracies I agree.

            Truth hurts. Lies Destroy.

            The benefits don’t need to be increased as rapidly when you make ipads, notebooks and flat screen TVs more important than food and fuel. This way the US GOVERNMENT is slowing down paying the piper for the insolvency which will force the empororos to reveal they are naked liars.

            o yeah food prices have gone up well over 100% but hedonics is the new way to lie about the inflation rate and you bought officialdoms statistical game. You can see how it really is by looking at shadowstats.

          • drtommy1

            Wow, I do not see one person on this board with any reasonable aguments for best case scenario positions. None of you don’t provide any solutions, just the same as the RINO party provides the americans with non-solutions.

            First, there is no true conservative in the RINO party, as all the “candidates'” voting records and usA political history will prove. Americans have the unenviable choice which is again, really no constitutionally sound, founding father-esque like choice at this time, just like in its last 100+ years of corrupt banster-controlling political history.

            Ron Paul is definately not the perfect candidate, I wish Paulites would at least agree with that argument. RP is so far the best candidate when considering most, not all, most important domestic issues facing the usA, such as sure and impending federal bankruptcy. The federal deficits are ludicrous. Funny, no one on this board even identifies that such topic is the most dooming issue of our generations. It is a fact that all the foreign so-called “wars” are the direct reason for the federal financial mess. So that in itself needs to be dissected in the court of public debates between the useless RINO candidates. RP’s foreign policy positions would likely have a hard time getting as much support in congress as Paulites think is certain as a stroke of the pen. However, as all the other candidates are Neocons, contnuous military spending at the current or worse levels is usA suicide, and not even by islamofascists. The shores of Tripoli comment is a good one for historical sake, yes, in a perfect world, RP’s non-interventionists stance may be best, but there is certainly never going to be a perfect world, and the founding fathers knew that fact. They also knew that to protect foreign trade they may need to get entagled in foreign military campaigns, so RP needs to distance himself from the “isolationists” labels and the “non-interventionist” lables and be a lot more clear as to what his “constitutional” philosophy is as to foreign policies.

            I agree that 225 years ago the founding fathers did not have the same international and domestic filed to play on, so RP needs to re-assess and more clearly explain his positions prallel to current events.

            No one on this board even speaks of the facts that non-foreign born muslim converts in the usA hate non-sharia usA, not because of the last 50+ years of american foreign policy, but just because it is fundmental in islam to brand every human as either an allah worshiper or an infidel. This is where RP has serious flaws in his foreign policy explanations. Is RP just using some of his current “official” positions and descriptions on the “poor” muslims to minimize true historical and current muslim philosophies which are not going to change if RP is prez and he pulls out of Afghanistan?

            My take is that neither RP’s current foreign policy positions, nor any of the RINO, Demican, Neocon, or Osama proven track records of foreign policies are constitutional in principle, based upon the founding fathers’ written opinions or official office histories. The american Constitution does promote foreign wars when domestic harm is being suffered, and from what I understand, foreign trade harms american domestically. I think RP knows the current usA economic prosperity is heavily based upon military contracts and weapon building, military support material production, and all its ancillary revenue streams, keeping a large usA workforce contingent at work. The problem all candidates face is what happens when so much emphasis on foreign interventions come screaming to a halt, how much pressure does the military-industry complex put on congress, the prez, and anyone else behind the scenes?

            The picture is just larger than the simplicity that RP and others portray. The usA cannot just take an “isolationist” policy, and RP better start clarifying such a stance that he is being shown to embrace, or those voters he needs to support him will not do so. I believe RP has a better way of explaining himself with foreign policy matters, he needs to do some reading and sudying and reconcile his ideals to the founding fathers’ constitutional realities and philosophies with the current world we live within.

          • Anonymous

            Wow. Millions and millions of Muslims are trying to kill us????? Really? Where are they? Outside of the atrocity of 9/11 there have been less than 80 Americans killed by Muslim “terrorist” attacks in the USA over the last 20 years. There were over 300 homicides in Detroit alone last year (2010). Over 50,000 Mexicans died in the narco wars over the last 4 years.

            In the 70’s the USA was confronted by a world wide communist movement that had 1/3 of the worlds population under it’s thumb. More resources that all the Western nations combined. More armor. More jet fighters. More troops. Geographical strategic positions. 32,000 nuclear weapons on sophisticated accurate delivery systems target at every major American city and military base.

            And you are afraid of Iran????? A country of barely 1944 US technology??? Or a few thousand fanatics living in caves and huddled around campfires? Are you kidding me????

            You are about as “Libertarian” as my neighbors dog. And less intelligent.

            You don’t understand what “conservative” is either. Try reading Russel Kirk. Or go back the Edmund Burke. Even Pat Buchanan.

            Please stop pretending you are a Libertarian. It embarrasses us.

            • michael pak

              Don’t want to be quoting movies but.. ” i’m not afraid aof a country trying to get their hnds on 100 nukes, but I’m terrified of the person who wants just one…” N. Korea and Iran.. what difference does it make? They are both crazy enough to fire one in any direction to cause havoc. Retaliation? Do you think they care?

            • Anonymous

              Iran has only 1944 US technology? Amazing! I had know idea that advanced guided rocketry was something the US had in 1944 nor anti-ship cruise missiles. I guess you’re bang on, though. Moreover, 32,000 nukes aren’t going to do much if your enemy doesn’t give a shit about you blowing them up. I guess you think everyone is like you; all about self preservation. If they pass a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group and get it to US soil and blow it up. Will you be happy then that Iran is expressing its sovereign rights? You can’t really trace it back to them so what do you do then? You don’t know where the bomb came from; you just know it blew up one of your cities. I guess you’d not put in place martial law because that violates peoples rights; even though the enemy is clearly on US soil. No foreign espionage, no foreign militarism against an ENEMY.. is what is defined as “suicidal” or what I’d term “stupid.” Your belief that you run away from challenges somehow makes you safer is foolish and when it comes to national security, it’s incredibly irresponsible. Ron Paul is irresponsible and oblivious. This makes him the most dangerous candidate aside from Obama.

          • You clearly didn’t read the veterans comments above and since you have not mentioned that you are a veteran, I take it you are just some sorry slob on their couch. In which case:
            1. Our government needs plenty of eliminating
            2. we do need to end the wars because wars cause wars. If you love them so much, then go enlist.
            3. drugs? We support the tenth amendment and believe it should be states rights.
            4. wars? congress should start them!!! not the executive branch
            5. the youth these days have something you clearly didnt have when you were a youngin: the internet. We have our research engines available. The youth gave you Obama because he said everything we wanted to hear. He had me when he said he was going to repeal NAFTA and get the manufacturing jobs back. Did he do that? NO! he has no record of consistency. This candidate has been echoing the same fundamentals for TWO DECADES. Theres no doubt in my mind that he will do everything he said he will. I think the only thing that stands in his way are ignoramuses like you and a CIA assassin.

            6. A true conservative?? LIKE WHO, MITT ROMNEY?? get real. Show some support for someone before you count off arguments using a blasphemous catchy new nickname. If hes wrong then I dont want to be right.

            7. Do i even NEED to mention the federal reserve?? because I’m pretty sure every other candidate has said at some point, “I looked into what Ron Paul said about the Fed and yanno, I think we need to audit it too.”

            Wrong Paul fan all the way to November, legooo

          • You sir are a liar. NO libertarian would have the views you expressed here. You are another basher pretending to be libertarian in order to try and change peoples minds about Paul. Pathetic.


        • LA

          Dr Paul is the reason Florida went Blue in 08. Some people get really weird if their candidate is not the nominee and some staffers get revenge and that is why mittens kittens need to be drowned.

      • Thats right, if Ron Paul loses and goes third party, he has my Republican vote, period.

        • Ron Paul said he “cannot conceive a situation where he would run thrid party”. Are you saying he IS NOT a man of principles?

          • Anonymous

            Ron Paul know how the “game is played”, which is NOT a game with principles. I would proceed exactly as he has done so far.

            If you want to talk about principles, let’s talk about the cooperation of NeoCons, Socialists and media to smear Ron Paul over the past two-three weeks. Daniel, how would YOU proceed given the fact our politicking rivals that of Putin’s Russia today?

            We have liars, thieves, slander and Pravda to televise the whole thing..

            Ron Paul 2012

            • Ron Paul’s Middle name is “ERNEST” I think that says it all there…

              Run! Ernest Run!

            • Anonymous

              That same cabal cooperated to hit Sarah Palin with a force that Ron Paul has never or will never feel. In that they have some common ground.

              They will not give up and they will go after Santorum next. They would rather throw the race to Obama than to see a true Constitutional Conservative in the White House.

              If we can avoid Romney and Gingrich, this is the very first step of a very long battle.

              • Santorum is most certainly NOT Constitutional conservative. He’s a chickenhawk and a big spender of other peoples’ money.

            • I would say you are more closely associated with Occupy than the Republican party.

              You have become as extreme as Obama and the result will be the same.

              • Anonymous

                Layla, if I thought the current “Republican Party” even slightly resembled the party of 40-50 years ago, I’d be singing a different tune. You are exactly right about the occupy part though. We need to occupy the Republican Party and reclaim it from the imposters who are afraid of wearing their true label.

                Please, Layla, explain to us how modern day NeoCons who operate a multinational corporate Oligarchy (supported by Beltway lobbyists) and a soft religious theocracy bent on Evangelical mandates regarding Israel have ANYTHING in common with the true Republican roots of real Capitalism, small government, freedom of religion and personal liberty.

                Take all the time you need Layla. Extreme is what we need now, since the public has been napping in a sense of false security and media anesthesia. If you don’t agree with any of this, that’s your perrogative, but your attitude reminds me of the way the British used to fight their wars in the Revolutionary War as they had their ass handed to them. March in a straight line, wear a bright red coat and keep a stiff upper lip ole chap(ette).

                You can’t be serious to tell me that the “new” Republican Party is what it always was. Of course, maybe you like what you see there today… Hmmm?

                Ron Paul… the extreme we need to offset the extreeeemely mediocre…

              • Labeling people with Tea party views as occupiers, guess it’s true the establishment republicans have turned on the true conservatives. Guess its ok for you to use liberal tactics?

                • He thinks you are a former lefty from 1970’s Berkley – a neocon. Or, then again, he may not know the meaning of the word he’s bastardizing coz it sounds cool. LOL LOL LOL.

            • THERE it is! “NeoCons,” the trendy, handy epithet of Paulistinian trash-talkers, the one they don’t know the etymology of or the meaning of. It just sounds so zingy when it’s fired from the hip, or in their case, from the lip. Neocon literally means New Conservative, which I suspect better describes most of them in today’s world. Neocon, NeoCon if you must, goes back into the 1960’s, more so into the 1970’s, and was used to describe former leftists (especially on UC Berkley campus) who saw the errors of their ways, at least in some respects. They were Neocons. Trendy it is, though, even for dumbasses who don’t know what they are saying. Trendy trumps all. I left out the other slanders vanyam seems to favor. One is enough to define him for what he is. Oops! I’m sorry. Have I marginalized you, neocon?

              • yeah we dont support new republicans dumbass. we support the constitution. and those whom also support it unequivocally. War is good, the new republican. wrong?! i think not.

              • Anonymous

                The only part of NeoCon that’s important is “Con”…as in connive, confuse, etc. Yes, Mr. Wizzard, we all know what Neo means, but it still doesn’t mean they are real Republican Conservatives.

                You guys who fear Ron Paul and the housecleaning he will do in DC are a real trip.. You sit there scratching your heads worrying and sweating about Ron Paul’s popularity, yet you don’t quite want to talk about the corruption in our political system. Status quo is ok with you? That puts you in the same category with all those other people, societies and civilizations which failed because they liked their comfort zones untouched or because they were on the take themselves and didn’t want to give up their perks. There was of course that sticky subject of manipulated religions and blind faith too.. that kicked a lot of societies in the ass too.

                I don’t know which category you fall into Piquerish, but when you can put your cards on the table, be a man and tell us why you spew so much venom over Ron Paul. What’s in YOUR wallet? Spare me the political history lesson.. put the book down and be a man. (I’m assuming you’re a guy) I would LOVE it if these hit and run Paul-phobics would grow a spine and debate me, but most guys like you don’t have the guts to put your cards on the table without hiding something you don’t want to discuss..

                • Kevin Pearson

                  Excuse me, but what how would it effect me if Ron Paul does any house cleaning in Washington? Why would I fear any house cleaning in Washington? If I am not in Washington, have not been in Washington since 2000, and have no desire to ever go to Washington unless absolutely necessary, why would I fear any house cleaning in Washington?????

                  Can you honesty give a viable reason why I would be afraid of what Ron Paul would do?

                  The only thing that I fear is 4 more years of Obama and I know that Ron Paul cannot defeat Obama. Never has there ever been a case in US History where a sitting Congressman has defeated an incumbent President. There’s a first time for everything… yeah yeah, Don’t give me that. There is too much at stake with this election to nominate someone that is a member of a group that has always lost. We need to go with the choice that will give us the best chance. Those of us that have been around for more than one election cycle have seen political cult figures come and go. We cannot take that chance, there is too much at stake.
                  And don’t tell me “But Ron Paul is the only one that can.,,,,” I don’t want to hear it. Some of his positions are full blown liberal, borderline communist. We want to attract conservatives, not liberals that want to rape the miliatary and leave us defenseless so that Communism can take over “without a shot being fired”.
                  In 1972, after a 49 state landslide, Pauline Kael said “How can that be? I don’t know a single person that voted for Nixon”. One cannot rely on one’s personal anecdotes and to the scope of ones personal acquaintances to gauge a national election. Ron Paul supporters only talk among themselves so they have a skewed view and think that Ron Paul’s support is larger than it really is. We cannot take that chance.

                  If Ron Paul is the nominee, I would vote for him, because I know what the alternative would be. However, it is not my vote that you have to worry about in the General. I say he is not electable because legislators are not electable, not because I would not vote for him if he were the nominee.

                  The problem is, You Paulbots say that you will not defend the country from Obama and will not vote for the nominee, if it isn’t Ron Paul. You want to blackmail us with your vote if we do not support you unelectable candidate. Then we have no choice but to proceed as if we will not get yours and find someone who is electable with or without your vote.

              • Did you really just waste a whole paragraph on that? go kill some gay people because you must be an “old conservative” … although thats a pretty brash statement considering you gave no insight to what you are. Its easy to bash someone and not allow yourself to be bashed. keep hiding

          • Alexis Rose

            Why would you care? If you’re not already supporting Ron Paul you don’t have any principles worth a damn anyway.

            • Spoken like a true totalitarian.

              • Anonymous

                Totalitarian? A Ron Paul supporter? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

                • Nice try at being cute. But think about it a little more than a few seconds. Anyone who says: “If you’re not already supporting Ron Paul you don’t have any principles worth a damn anyway.”
                  Replace Ron Paul with any name you want in that sentence, but that is a totalitarian mindset to dismiss anyone who does not think exactly the same way you do.

                • Anonymous

                  You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

                  It means “a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.” Ron Paul is the only candidate who wants to make the government’s impact on people’s lives smaller.

                  You’re right that you could place anyone else’s name in that place, but it would no longer be accurate, as Romney (, Newt ( and Santorum ( aren’t principled. Meanwhile, Paul has never voted to raise taxes, never taken a congressional pension, never voted for an unbalanced budget and never voted against the Constitution.

                • You gave the political definition, not the mindset of an individual. The mindset of a totalitarian is one that allows no room for any other way of thinking but their own. Their way is the best and nothing can be said otherwise. All totalitarians from history thought this way. Unfortunately, many Ron Paul supports think this way. They are completely unaware that their mindset betrays the very principles they attempt to promote.

                • If you want totalitarian look up the patriot act which bush and the republicans gave us and then look up the new defense authorization bill obama and the democrats gave us. Goodbye Bill of Rights, hello civil war.

                • I do not disagree with you on that. The only point I am making is that people should not be so dismissive of other opinions.

                  This is what was said: “If you’re not already supporting Ron Paul you don’t have any principles worth a damn anyway.”

                  That statement is terribly sad and evidence of a close minded person. People who make these statements tend to hurt whoever it is they claim to support.

                • Lee, I agree with you 100%. As a ron paul supporter, I must say, I am a totalitarian. I spit on a Communist (figuratively) at my school and verbally debated him and abused him for wearing a shirt that said “Communist”. In most respects, I feel I am totalitarian, if you do not support the Constitution then you suck and you should move somewhere else.

                • You’re like that knight in “monty python and the holy grail” who insists he’s still a threat even with no legs or arms. Come on, just admit you didn’t understand the word.

                • Anonymous

                  He understands it better than you do, clearly.

                • Anonymous

                  No, he used ‘totalitarian’ correctly, you are intentionally missing the point. The same way you are missing the irony in your statement:
                  “Ron Paul is the only candidate who wants to make the government’s impact on people’s lives smaller.”

                  The inference is that you make the government smaller by electing someone to the highest position in the land, instead of electing people from the bottom-up.

                  Essentially, you are wanting to enforce your ideal from the top down, totalitarian; the GOV. you want has all power to enforce YOUR ideal on the people. Whatever ideal that may be.

                  Government IS the problem. And that includes all career politicians. ALL career politicians.

                  You want smaller government involvement in your life? Get everyone around you to help you get local leaders who will put pressure on the top. Kick out the ‘old hands’, all of them, and put in representatives from normal walks of life. Start at the bottom, move up. Not Top-down. Top-down is totalitarian, by definition. Totalitarian isn’t all you define it as, it is not that simple. Totalitarian is not simply a limitless power, but a centralized power seeking more control; it doesn’t have to regulate everything you do… not at first, not ever. All it has to do is demand expansion of its power and implementation. Top-down.

                  If ‘President Paul’ has and uses the power to get rid of government programs, branches, expansions, etc… (not to mention the FED), which were created and funded by CONGRESS, then President Paul is the definition of a dictator. Congrats.

                • Anonymous

                  So enforcing the rule of law would make him a dictator?

                  Hyperbolic much?

                • Anonymous

                  only if that law is the ideal of himself, and not legislated by Congress. The President doesn’t have the power to get rid of legislation already passed.

                  You can argue that he could cite the constitution as a base law, but hit a catch-22 where the President doesn’t have the power to do what is required to accomplish what you want: He’d have to break the constitution, to even ‘try’ to save it. Finding laws unconstitutional is the power of the courts.

                  Hard to realize that Paul can’t constitutionally deliver his constitutional movement?

                • Anonymous

                  What inference are you talking about? Myingling stated a simple fact. That Dr. Paul “… is the only candidate who WANTS (e.a.) to make the government’s impact on people’s lives smaller.” The poster did not say Dr. Paul is the only candidate that CAN or WILL “… make the government’s impact on people’s lives smaller.” There is no “inference” in Myingling’s statement. Learn how to read.

                • Kevin Pearson

                  Dr Paul is the ONLY candidate that wants to make the government’s impact on peoplle’s live smaller? ONLY?
                  What about Obamacare? Repealing it? That adds a LOT of impact on our lives. 26 states are suing the Federal Government to get rid of Obamacare and by doing so, would definitely make the government’s impact on people’s lives smaller.

                  And one of those states is Texas. And Rick Perry is the governor of Texas. Do you HONESTLY expect us to believe that Rick Perry does not want Obamacare Repealed and does not want to make the government’s impact on people’s lives smaller?

                  NO Rick Perry doesn’t want to make the governments]’s impact smaller. By Texas suing the government over ObamaCare, he is actuall DOING something to make the governement’s impact on people’s lives smaller.

                  So your statement is FALSE. Ron Paul is NOT THE ONLY candidate that wants to make the government’s impact on people lives smaller.

                • bitter, Ron Paul supports the tenth amendment, STATES RIGHTS… that would enable us to centralize government and get things done locally, like you said.

                  You sound like an anarchist to me.

                • Anonymous

                  lol. Nope. Not an anarchist. I just believe in the people, and if we have a problem, the people can fix it. We need good people in government, absolutely, but I was actually quoting Reagan. “Government IS the problem.”

                • Now research neocon.

                • Anonymous

                  Still trying to define labels here Piquerish? Try giving someone a good honest debate on the current political system.. Empty suit…

                • I think he’s referring to the fact that our sad collection of candidates can’t speak honestly, can’t give an honest frank opinion, can’t take a stance w/o focus-grouping it, and can’t wipe themselves without some highly paid “consultant” hired gun telling them they can. Santorum has polled so low I haven’t read much on him, but the others come off as fakes and phonies. Ron Paul may not say things we like all the time, but he speaks honestly even if he knows people won’t like that. And he sticks to the constitution, even when it isn’t fashionable to do so. He may be wrong on the issue of wars/islam, but that’s debateable at best.

                  Who do you think sells (and gives) Egypt the weapons it will need to fight Israel? Think it’s a coincidence that if that goes away some of these companies will suffer? And that they donate to “pro military” candidates?

                • Do you buy the notion that Ron Paul did not write and did not know about and does not know who wrote that disgusting skein of newsletters? “Honestly?”

                • Really that whole newsletter doesnt matter. Except to pro war people. anything to keep the constitution down. strict libertarians cannot be racists by your definitions. they are for equal rights for all.. im not sure if youve ever really payed attention or not.. lay off the legal meds. that kill thousands of kids every year. legalize freedom.

                • Anonymous

                  Ah… it’s the newsletters… try taking a few hours and listening to Ron Paul’s speeches through the years, TRY to understand what he’s saying about Racism, without your media-provided definitions, and you may realize that he’s the best in the entire group. It amazes me that a person like you trying to teach us what a NeoCon is, obviously takes pride in your intelligence. Take that intelligence and apply it to doing your own research on Ron Paul’s character. If you can’t do that without dragging your pre-programmed media bias into it, well then you choose to be ignorant to the rest of the information. That’s not intelligence.

                  You need to go beyond what you’re being fed. Do it for yourself.. It’s apparent that you’ve not done that, or that you LIKE the assumption you have already.

                  THEN… you can put up a good argument if you still don’t agree.

              • Jonathan Mailer

                Hell, if they think they can win without us, we’ll sit it out.

                • Anonymous

                  Take your ball and go home?

                  Come on, patriot, some things are worth fighting for.

                • Alexis Rose

                  Some things are worth fighting for. Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Huntsman, and fearmongering over Obama when any alternative you offer would be just another flavor of the same bitter pill – those aren’t worth fighting for. Those are worth fighting AGAINST.

                • Anonymous

                  And during the Primary, I fully agree with you. That’s why I said what I did. During the primary, don’t you dare ‘sit it out’. The Primary is when the candidate is chosen, when your vote really has meaning for future direction.

                  But if you believe, as Palin does and as is the point of this clip, that without the Paul supporters the Republicans are in trouble, then you will be one sorry “I told you so” with another 4 years of Obummer.

                  I’m not yet an ‘all my way or nothing’ voter. I’m willing to fight for every little bit of conservative and small government that I can get. My kids deserve at least that much.

              • LOL

            • Another liberal in the wood pile?

              • Clever tactic to label and demonize someone your trying to silence. How UN-American.

                • Anonymous

                  Un-american? Wow. Irony. You denounced and responded to a purported demonizing label with a demonizing label.

                  What is your definition of ‘American’?

                  Mine is this: We are willing to be ruled by law, with rights endowed by God, (whatever you call him or believe him to be), and willing to amicably disagree with each other, and due to that law, still be able to live our lives the way we want without interfering with each other. Example: a Mormon, a Jew, and an evangelical can all share a street with an Islamic family, and all raise their families their way, without fighting, killing, or stopping each other from teaching what they like. They can even hold a block party, all meet together, and talk, disagree, agree, and work out problems. All because we are willing to respect that others can disagree, but are still human and have inherent rights, and we all agree to be governed by that law.

                  What does it mean to you to be ‘American’? Is it a guarantee to an audience? Does ‘free speech’ mean you must be respected?

                  It is very possible to be ‘UN-American,’ but calling someone ‘Un-American’ for responding to free speech with free speech, regardless of what is said, is usually a good sign that it isn’t ‘un-american’ at all.

                • Anonymous

                  I am still trying to figure out how Islamists can rectify believing in Islam and being an American. It is not possible for someone to truly believe and practice what is written in the Koran and to also believe in and/or support the constitution of the United States. What the Koran demands of those who claim it as their “holy” book and what the constitution and bill of rights require are in exact opposition to each other. The bill of rights guarantees the freedom of religion while the Koran demands the extermination of ALL other religions. The bill of rights guarantees the freedom of speech. The Koran demands the death of anyone who speaks ill of the child rapist named Mohammed (sp) or of Islam in general. The constitution requires that all citizens be treated equally. The Koran codifies that women are inferior to men and should be treated as such. There are many, many more contradictions but I think you can understand what I am saying from those few examples.

                • I’ve noticed that this poster can’t seem to staunch the raging case of logorrhea he has. Everything approaches dissertation lengths, apparently because he thinks it sounds so … erudite. I’ll bet if you count all the words of all the posters, he’s pages ahead. Oh, yes, photonsoflight is right, except he is projecting. You want him — us — to shut up, don’t you?

                • Anonymous

                  lol. Just exercising free speech. I have something to say, and don’t want to be misunderstood. That’s all. I don’t think I sound all that “…erudite” (nice word), but I thank you for the compliment.

                • is that a deadmau5 head avatar? classy (no, really) FML

                • Anonymous

                  lol. I honestly don’t know. I’ve been using ‘undead-mickey’ for about five years. I guess I need to look up deadmau5 now.

                  Edit– Looked up deadmau5… lol. No. My mickey head is an edit of a pic I found a long, long time ago, and I use it as a joke with my sister-in-law, who worships everything Disney.

                • Anonymous

                  Hey Piquerish, you take lots of pride in your vocabulary… take that nice college education and use it to research WITHOUT, your own bias, Ron Paul’s paradigm on people in general and minorities in specific. Don’t let a good brain get sidetracked.

            • Bravo! Spoken exactly like the snarling brats who did more to repel me from Ron Paul than anything or anyone else. Nasty bunch of snide brats.

              • Alexis Rose

                Liar. You would never vote for Ron Paul or any freedom and liberty candidate so don’t posture like you would have “but if”. If a third party influences you in that way then there is clearly no independent thinking going on in your head.

                I sat through decades of liars like you pulling these manipulative games and I’m quite wise to them now, as are the millions of other people your kind has jerked around with your lies and misrepresentations for all these years.

                May a war you support claim your family.

                • KenInMontana

                  Your done here and there is no way I will leave that vileness up either.

              • Anonymous

                You actually ALLOW other Ron Paul supporters to turn you in another direction? I don’t believe that. If you aren’t following the person, then you’re cheating yourself. Don’t be part of the herd… do your own due diligence.

                And don’t allow media to give you your opinions…

          • catman1210

            he said he is not an absolutists and would not answer in absolute terms,but remember Iowa doesnt matter,wasnt that what the media said when Ron Paul was polling first?

        • agreed

        • Mine too.

        • He will have My vote too. And some of my money as well as my effort. I am so tired of voting for these progressives hiding out in the republican establishment.

        • Anonymous

          Then you are actually voting for Obama, in reality.

        • Then it’s not a republican vote. It’s an Obama vote.

        • Kevin Pearson

          Ron Paul could serve as Treasury Secretary in a GOP Administration. He could not in an Obama Administration.

        • Anonymous

          You mean, your Democrat vote. Right, Jeff? Because, obviously voting for a third party that won’t win but rather secure Obama can only mean willfully selecting Obama to be the President. I guess that rational doesn’t really clue in for a Paulbot.

      • Layla-If that’s the case, then maybe the Republicans should remove their heads out of their own rear ends, start addressing the fiscal concerns that Ron Paul and his supporters are concerned about, and stop acting like Democrats?

        Perhaps it’s not Ron Paul dividing the Republicans but the Republicans themselves?

        • Anonymous

          Not “perhaps” but “definitely”!

        • I couldn’t agree with you more.

          Why don’t we vote them all out? Each and every member of the House of Representatives is up for reelection this year.

          We CAN change Congress.

          • Anonymous

            YES! Congress MUST be changed; the President is NOT the solution. Power must be shared between 537 people, (counting non-voting but lobbying members from districts), not invested in one.

            Congress passed the bills expanding government.
            Congress accepted the FED and gave it the power to print cash.
            Congress ratified the changes to the constitution stripping the states of representation.
            Congress raises taxes.
            Congress has the lobbyists
            and Congress has a super-low approval rating.
            Congress has allowed the expansion of Executive power.
            Congress has tacitly granted the courts the power to legislate from the bench.
            Congress declares war.
            Congress authorizes all spending.
            Congress handed out the blank checks.
            Congress passed the patriot act.
            Congress voted to create the TSA
            Congress continues to fund all these different programs and the UN.
            Congress… etc.

            Congress is where the root of the problem is.

            I’m still waiting for people to wake up to that.

            • Anonymous


              You are spot on RE: Congress. THAT is where the real fight is, and that is why Palin sat this round out for the presidency. There is too much work to do getting the right Congress people elected this year, and Palin is going to be on the forefront of that movement. If we rein in Congress, we begin to rein in Washington. Pay close attention to whom Palin endorses, support them, and vote them in. THAT is how Washington is going to be won back by the PEOPLE.

              I believe Palin is “setting Washington up” for a 2016 presidential run. It will take more than one election cycle to reform Congress, and she’s smart to recognize that and focus on it – from the sidelines, without a title. Who else can do that? She will lead the way and wield influence in the Congressional races of 2012 and 2014, as she did in 2010. Then, in 2016, she can run confidently, knowing there are allies in Congress who share her vision, will support her and endorse her for president. This will be a ground-up, grassroots effort. What better person than Sarah to lead the way? I feel confident and secure in her vision and ability to unite the people for a cause we will ALL benefit from.

              • Anonymous

                I am glad that you have hope for the up and coming Tea Party movement overthecoastline. However, I believe the reason Sarah Palin is not in the 2012 Presidential race is that she needs additional time to learn how to politic. Her appeal is as that of a celebrity, not a leader. She had no published work, so she wrote a book. She had no national campaigning experience outside the Vice-Presidential run in 2008 which was a disaster, so she went on tour to spread her ideas and promote her book. She had little appeal to the broader base of the GOP, so she worked to get those who respect her views elected in 2010. She has been working on garnering support before contending (a noble gesture), yet she will be unelectable for at least two more cycles because of her severe lack of performance in 2008. If she does run in 2016, she will not get the nomination, only the experience of being graduated to the next level of politicking. Michele Bachmann has revealed the inexperience of the recently elected to Congress. They must grow before Sarah Palin can be a true contender. But keep the faith…miracles are a possibility.

                • Kevin Pearson

                  The reason that she is not in the race – or at least the reason that I am glad that she is not in the race – is because any time there is a “it’s his turn” candidate, they always lose.
                  Look at Mondale in 1984, Dole in 1996, Kerry in 2004 and McCain in 2008. The only time that a VP candidate of a losing ticket won the nomination and the Presidency in the next election cycle. was JFK in 1960, and that was only because of BurmaShave and Daley.
                  She should serve as the Energy Secretary of whomever wins the GOP nomination. That would be where she could make her mark as she worked on the oil commission in Alaska.

          • and a good start would be to put the god father of the tea party in the oval office. that way we can have tea party congress and president.

        • Anonymous

          The NeoCons running the republican party are a closet Theocracy, trying to run the country within the host party. They have become parasites in the R party, just as the Socialists/Marxists have infested the D party.

          These parasites would be totally rejected if the population really paid attention to politics. Ron Paul is the D-Con candidate who will RAID the NeoCons’ infestation, exposing them for the religious rulers they have become.

          They are every bit as radical as the “fanatics” they try to warn us about, and if allowed to win next November they will succeed in stripping us of even more liberty than Barack Obama has already.

          There are pests and rodents everywhere we turn. We need the Lawn Doctor, Ron Paul, to get our grassroots back in good shape. We suffer from root rot, over-watering of the facts and and the infamous Beltway Bug.

          • Anonymous

            “The NeoCons running the republican party are a closet Theocracy, trying to run the country within the host party.”

            “Ron Paul is the D-Con candidate who will RAID the NeoCons’ infestation, exposing them for the religious rulers they have become.”

            News flash, Republican Neo-cons are not all that religious. Plus, the constitution does not segregate religion and government in any degree.

            Yes, the Neo-cons are in charge and are trying to dictate policy from the top. I completely agree.

            …but I am confused. If Ron Paul is ‘D-Con’ to these ‘rodents’… (cute analogy, btw), why hasn’t he had any affect so far? So, with two long ‘doses’ of Paul, (’76-87, and 97-present) for a combined time of over 20 years, with no apparent significant curbing of the ‘infestation’, I ask:

            What makes you think he’ll ‘take care of the problem’ this time?

            • The Veto pen. That alone makes the president of the US the most powerful person on earth. Trillions of spending can be eliminated by a single person. Good luck overriding a veto when one side is mad you spent too much on the military, and the other side is mad you spent too much on entitlements.

              Anyone who really understands economics would realize that all the other issues pale in comparison to the threat of hyperinflation. We’re probably beyond the point of no return already, but the complete collapse could be delayed longer. When you take in a whopping $.55 for every $1.00 you spend, it’s not long till nobody wants your paper money.

              • Anonymous

                Paul would wield the veto pen, that I agree on.

                I also think that he would be overruled quickly by a super-majority on each bill… that is if you believe the Neo-cons are actually ‘in charge’.

                as for hyperinflation… if you do some simple math on the Fed audit, (16.1 trillion for 2009-early 2010) and combine that with a tally of traded companies statements to their investors about their bailout funds… (Newsweek tracked a minimum of 20.1 trillion for the 2008-beginning of 2009 period)…and allow for some slosh both ways, you get between 35 and 40 Trillion pushed into the economy. The GDP is just shy 15 trillion, (14.58) and dropping, except for the inflation, so we don’t know where that is going to end. We are going to have to go through at least 200% correction if not upwards of 400% just to equal the cash flow in the world.

                Roughly, what $0.25 or $0.50 could buy in 2006-7, will cost you ~$100.00. Stagflation will kick in long before that point… but the real question is: Where did all that money go, and why hasn’t it hit the economy yet?

            • “NeoCons.” Haw haw haw.

            • right.. neocons hide behind evangelicalism rhetoric. talking of freedom but promoting war. there is nothing religious there, except perhaps satanism.. they say anyone who oposes them as anti-semite. case in point. ron paul. wouldnt be hard for someone to misconstrue religious leaders with satanic leaders when they use word play.

              • Anonymous

                And let’s face it, war is a great distraction. It’s fun to watch expendable humans fight and die. It’s also a nice economic boost if you know the right people and are in the right business. It’s also why there is a great deal to be said about the unilateral aspect of politics in this country today. Everyone keeps talking about the dreaded notion of a third party. I’d like there to be some differentiation between the two ruling parties; and there is none.

            • Anonymous

              less than 10% of the people in the American colonies supported and participated in the war for independence from their great oppressor England…the rise up against England occured over the course of 30 years…

              what makes you think the goal should be any higher than 10%?

              what makes you think 14 years is enough to build a consensus?

              the revolution is beginning, either be a part of it, or be prepared to be rolled out of the way.

              • Anonymous

                I want more than 10% because I want to win.
                14 years is more than enough because it doesn’t take a month to send a message across state or ‘colony’ lines. The world moves much, much faster today than it did in the revolution.

                “the revolution is beginning, either be a part of it, or be prepared to be rolled out of the way.”

                Did you just deliver an ultimatum? Scary. What are the plans for the 90% who you don’t care whether they are on your side or not?

                • R Cress

                  The 90% can do as they have always done, go with the flow. It’s never been the masses that have brought about great benefit for mankind. It’s always been small groups with sound principle. Those working the opposite way have always been small groups as well, it’s just that they were better at manipulating the masses.

                • Anonymous

                  So much for government of the people and by the people. I understand the concept of the minority leading the way, but dragging them along? That kinda ended with the revolutionary war. The power was given to ‘the people’. That’s the rule of law that has allowed peaceful changes of power in government for the U.S.

                  If the sound principle the 10% stands on, regardless of which side you stand with, demands sudden and stark, uncompromising change, you have a danger of crossing to what the founding father’s called “minority tyranny”.

            • R Cress

              Look around, Paul has had an effect but the money lobby, state propoganda schools, the media, and the unthinking masses are a little more than one man can change. There is a huge groundswell of support for the right principles but with the masses being inundated from all around it’s a wonder it’s gotten this far. Even the so called national tea party organizations have been co-opted. I’m resigning from them rapidly, especially when they send me stupid emails asking me to choose Romney or Santorum. This is anathema to the tea party principles. If that’s the best they can do they might as well join the neo-con party in name as well.

            • Anonymous

              Bbitter, you do realize how much propaganda we receive from mainstream media and government, right? You know many people who have formed their political opinions independent of that propaganda? The individuals I know who have done this are mostly Ron Paul supporters who will NOT be pandered to and swayed.

              Ron Paul is a major threat to the corruption in our political, corporate, banking and media systems. Why do you THINK he hasn’t had enough effect to date? Why do you think Vladimir Putin is the favorite on TV and the absolute worst on the street level? Propaganda only works when people can feed, house and clothe themselves without fears and struggle. We’ve reached that threshold.

              It is TIME!!! for Ron Paul to do his job.. bring out the Neo D-Con, the Draino, the Demotraps, the RAID, all those tools necessary to clean up our political/business/media system before it’s too late.

              • Anonymous

                Yes. I do realize and know the propaganda out there. I also have watched Ron Paul for a long time and he uses rhetoric as much as everyone else. That doesn’t bother me, I simply disagree on some major issues with him.

                Why hasn’t Paul had an effect to this point? In my opinion it is because, due to propaganda or not, the main group of Americans are not with him, don’t agree with him, and don’t want him to represent them. (See his previous failed attempts at the presidency if you want proof.) If it is Ron Paul’s time for the Republican party or not remains to be seen. Possibly. But I don’t think Ron Paul is moderate enough to garner the independent vote, and thus would not be likely to win a general election. that’s the point of Palin and others in the Republican party. Yet, Ron Paul has enough supporters that if they decide to run off, the election will be thrown.

                If I believed that our society would still function under Ron Paul’s platform, (which, for all but foreign policy and defense stances, I am for), I would vote for him a hundred times. I would love to see Washington cleaned up, would love to see the constitution reinstated, rights restored, and true honestly returned to fiscal policy, and would love to see all government regulation of business removed.

                …but I don’t think society, the people, the real problem, is ready for that, and the time in the world is not right for Paul’s defense and foreign policy.

                • How can he be effective when he’s fighting to even get mentioned in the media? He’s been the subject of an almost overwhelming blackout in the media. And he gets attacked by Rush, Hannity, and the rest of the RINO stooges every time they deign to mention him.

          • “NeoCons.” Ha ha ha.

        • Anonymous

          “Its the economy, stupid!”

          Well, that’s Ron Paul’s traction with all but his core support from the past. All newer voters are initially attracted to two things: Fiscal policy, and reduced regulations.

          You would hope to believe that the RNC would catch on. I am starting to believe that the Republican Establishment, due to their treatment of the “Taxed Enough Already” party, not only is in the bag with progressives pushing for a new government, but has already concluded that the current governmental structure is terminal at this point.

          Yeah, I said it, the Republican establishment is jockeying for power and position in some new governmental structure, and are purposely not stopping or trying to stop the wholesale destruction of the constitutional government we know and love. In many cases, they are helping destroy it while cementing their power structure. They have chosen their lot, and are determined to drag us along. (The Dems have been in that pot for a long while now, btw.)

          • uh yea. the new world order. lol its what we are trying to stop. a global society ushered in under the auspices or war and futility. if we dont fight for our basic god given rights, both parties will suck us dry and probably sell your children to pedophiles at the bohemian grove. Dr Paul is only running republican because he knows this is our only chance for a peaceful revolution. with ramped up military and police, we would stand no chance against a UN peacekeeping force.. because of a failed war on drugs most americans cant protect their families legally from an invading army or a tyrannical government hell bent on trading all of your birth certificates on the stock exchange. or killing you to nullify the debt accrued on your straw man.

          • very good point

            there are two machines at work here, Republicans and Democrats: both are progressive parties….

            Can you please drink the Ron Paul koolaide now because hes clearly not part of either establishment

            • Anonymous

              ROFL. Love the koolaide… but too much sugar gives me a stomach ache. 🙂

      • wrongo layla, the republican party has divided themselves by sending paul to the edges…

        • No john, The Republican party went wrong when they went Liberal.

        • This is still a free country, John. We are allowed to select our own candidates still. And we used to respect that right without the insults.

          • No Layla it is not a free country. It is a limited farm, where we work for our owners. the corporate UNITED STATES. 1871. you are property. property cannot own property. which is why anything in your possession can be seized. use common sense here. YOU OWN NOTHING> NOT YOUR LABOR NOT YOUR HOUSE> NOT YOUR CAR.. nothing. oh yeah and cps can take your kids too. just in case you thought those were your kids..

        • Sending Paul to the edges? what the heck does that mean?

          • If you do not know what that means you are stupid.

          • Anonymous



          • it means, you call us whackos and nut jobs because we love our country and are excited about a man who relates to us. whats the point in having kids if they will be debt ridden and poor their whole lives, living pay check to pay check… maybe laying dead in a ditch in Iran… We want peace. through diplomacy. not war. END THE FED< END THE WARS or say goodbye to everything you hold dear.

      • L Adair

        Great. Better to have someone we know is a liberal than someone masquerading as a conservative but who follows only liberal policies!

        • Really, Adair? Please show me where he has acted as anything else besides a Constitutionalist or a Libertarian?

      • Anonymous

        We have to vote our conscience and let the chips fall where they may. Paul will pull votes from Obama.

        • Agreed. Just hope everyone will support the eventual candidate, whoever that is. Obama must go.

          • The Ancient

            No the Parties Must go….

            Infact an All Republican Congress Plus a Terrible Republican President is very much worse than a All Republican Congress plus Obama

            we can afford to have Obama and the Republicans fight for 4 more years, we cant afford the Republicans Spending like Drunken Sailors and Destroying Liberty like they have proven they will since the 2010 elections

            • Oh AncientI: It is your President who has raised the deficit to 15 Trillion, NOT the Republicans.


              • The Ancient

                My President? Who is “My President”

                I am a libertarian, as far as I know there have been no libertarian presidents in modern history, and I know ALOT about American History

                • Anyone who honestly believes the Republican and Democratic Parties actually stand for what they stand for is naive and misinformed.

                  Both parties should be reformed:

                  There is no ambiguous (R) or (D), blue or red.

                  Either you want to grow the government or you want to adhere to the Constitution.

              • Anonymous

                Bush also raised it, significantly. Those wars, drugs for the elderly, and the huge department of education aren’t cheap.

                • Don’t forget medicare drug plans(Bush), $1T of “wars” against guys in ratty t shirts planting bombs, TARP, agriculture subsidies, etc, etc. Both parties have done a poor job. One candidate is willing to say that.

          • Anonymous

            Layla, there are MILLIONS of people looking for an honest candidate today. Ron Paul has proven out to be the only guy we got… To get back to a solid ethical baseline in the White House, people will have to accept things they don’t agree with in order to do our house cleaning in DC.

            The clock has to be reset..

            Ron Paul

          • People should not support a false conservative. A progressive is a progressive whichever party they claim to be from. If the republicans give us another luke warm moderate, they will lose.

          • we will support dr paul. write ins if we have to. sorry but this cause is too important to throw away. we will not back down on this, i promise you that.

        • The reason we are in the mess we are as a country is because people have been voting for the lesser of two evils, and I say enough, all you get is evil that way. Better to lose on principal than throw my vote away on evil. Ross Perot was ahead of his time.

          • Perot wasn’t ahead of his time. He understood the people and knew Washington was out of touch. He is also VERY PRO military. You don’t keep a country free without a strong national defense.

            • A strong military is meaningless if you don’t defend your borders, which neither party will do.

            • The US can have any city on earth within 1000 miles of an ocean burning and with all power, water pumping, communications, and bridges knocked out within a week. With just one of their 10-12 carrier groups. No nukes necessary.
              Their fighters (and those used by their allies) have a 50-1 or better kill ratio vs recent enemies.

              They have had troops “defending” S. Korea, which has many times the economy and manpower of N. Korea, for around 60 years now. There are troops in Germany ‘defending’ against non-existent threats there.

              It’s hardly “gutting the military” to spend a little less than 50% of the entire world’s budget for military spending. You do realize that fewer than 5% of military personnel are in front line combat capable units, right? There are literally tens of thousands of military ACCOUNTANTS and LAUNDRY personnel.

              Odds are you can cut significantly here and still maintain a 10-1 combat power ratio over the rest of the enemy nations. It’s not like we’re France in 1940 if we make some cuts.

              But what do I know, I’m just a military historian.

      • Anonymous

        He probably won’t run 3rd party. But it won’t matter because the any of the other candidates will lose to Obama anyway.

        • Look, you think I am the enemy. I am not. I’m on your side. But I am smart enough to know that unless we can unite behind the nominee, it’s over.

          That is the ONLY WAY Obummer wins and he knows it and is encouraging it.

          • Anonymous

            The “Great Unknown” here, is what might the true majority of eligible voters, those millions of non-registered citizens, do if Ron Paul were the Republican nominee? Just suppose they are actually the disillusioned dropouts many claim to be? Might Paul bring them back to the polls? Certainly none of the present candidates have been able to attract them.


          • Layla, youre missing the point. If Paul isnt the next president, it is over. Its not about Obama. Its about Paul. Its about us. Your brothers and sisters, were begging and pleading with you all to help us restore america. to the country it was, free and prosperous. We dont want to fight on the internet, but since this is our only way of communicating, we have to try. we HAVE to try, and we will not give up.

        • Anonymous

          Don’t see it happening. The media is playing its own game and trying like hell to get him reelected. It’s going to be pretty obvious the game they tried to play when Obama loses. They tried to do the same thing in Reagan vs. Carter. Every media poll right up to the end had Carter neck and neck with Reagan and by morning, Carter had gotten obliterated across the country.

          The media has its horse. Right now, they’re trying like hell to pick the Republican runner as well.

          The economy is still in the crapper, gas and food are back on the rise, and unemployment is still climbing. There is no way in hell Obama is getting reelected. He doesn’t have a single saving grace to get reelected on. Gays and environuts aren’t going to pull it off by themselves.

      • Anonymous

        Considering Obama’s unpopularity I think the establishments only hope is a four way race.

        • Right now, the division is killing our chances. This is just one state’s caucus and look at the panic.

          • Your totally misreading this if you think its panic. It is rage. Unless we nominate someone that will bring us back to our roots, (i.e. constitution) there will be blood flowing in the streets. Time grows short for real solutions to work and another moderate, ( i.e. progressive) will not have the tools nor the ideas to correct any of the problems since they do not fundamentally understand the true nature of the political and economical system we have here in this country. It may already be to late to correct things, which I suspect to be the truth. Why else would they give the president the power to detain Americans without proof, trials, etc indefinitely?

      • Anonymous

        You’ll just have to sweat it out Layla.. You certainly give Obama lots of credit he doesn’t deserve, and you are not recognizing the pull Ron Paul has from ALL disenfranchised voters and former non-voters. Romney can’t get those votes, Obama sure as HELL can’t get those votes, but Ron Paul will be the lifeboat candidate for all who refuse to get onboard with the NeoCon and Socialist pirates.

        Ron Paul can win.. if the NeoCons don’t want to LOSE AGAIN, they might smarten up and back Ron Paul, but Ron Paul is unlikely to endorse a warmonger in any way shape or form.

        • Vanyam, how much more damage do you want to see Obama do? How much more should people have to suffer because of the zealous Ron Paul supporters who will not vote unless he is the candidate?

          I have been working hard for the past few years trying to turn this thing around, but that is pointless with your thinking. You are just as extreme as Obama. You are not Republicans. You are just taking up space in this country unless your candidate wins.

          I’m sure glad our founders didn’t feel that way. We very likely wouldn’t be here!

          • Anonymous

            You’re trying to sell me the Obama damage routine? That’s slick Layla, but the damage coming from your NeoCons would be as bad or worse…

            What’s your issue here…why are you a fan of NeoConservatives? They aren’t Republicans… AT ALL. We’re taking up space? You’re absolutely wrong about the Founders… they suffered from Idealism, and that’s what our country is BASED ON Layla… Ideals, not mediocrity and settling for lesser of evils…

            That’s just plain NUTS…

          • Keep pretending there aren’t lots of Republican and Conservative Ron Paul supporters. This is the typical attitude of the establishment GOP, who absorbed the tea party senators and reps after the last election.

            People want their small government, freedom and liberty back.

            Now, we’re being told we’re not really Republicans. That means we’re already marginalized. The GOP is digging it’s own grave , then.

          • Anonymous

            Layla, you are making a *grave* miscalculation if you think that this. A very large swath of Ron Paul supporters will _never_ support any warmongering neoconservative nor any big government opportunist politician.

            Marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters at your own peril, Layla.

      • Any more than Juan McCain did four years ago?? Your comments are wholly unintelligible and lack any coherence.

        • Pardon me? I can’t understand what you’re saying.

      • He didn’t run third party last time around. People didn’t vote for McCain because he was a terrible candidate. And Obama seemed fresh and was a good talker. McCain is today’s Romney.

      • I guess the Republican party better wise up fast and support Dr. Paul then, huh? Now that you see how many of us there are, how much money we can raise, and how many independents we can claim, maybe you better learn to fear and respect us rather than belittle and ridicule and marginalize us.

      • The Republicans divide the Republicans, not Ron Paul. If the GOP put up a worthwhile candidate they wouldn’t be constantly threatened by a third party.

      • Anonymous

        shot and killed by the military

      • Anonymous

        Republicans lost because they put up a weak candidate. So weak that he lost to Obama. If we make a similar choice this go-round, we will get the same result.

      • Joe Hart

        Paul IS THE REAL Teaparty candidate. All else are big government stooges. Paul WILL win, or we’ll all lose!

      • Anonymous

        WAKE UP! There is no Republican/Democratic party. There is only the Establishment party. Do you think they really care if a Republican or Democrat wins. They could really give a rats ass. as long as THEIR Establishment (Republican/Democratic) horse wins, and being that only their puppet gets that far, they are going to keep laughing at you, and snarling at me.
        Ron Paul is a fly in their ointment, and a savior in our court.

      • Anonymous

        The Neoconservatives divided the Republicans by libeling and slandering Ron Paul. The notion that we’re all supposed to hop on the bandwagon of some clown like Santorum or Gingrich, who have done nothing but smear the one candidate that Libertarians could get behind, is arrogant beyond belief.

        Ron Paul is dividing Republicans? No, Neocons in the media, on radio, and in the campaign alienated the Libertarians and called us all crazy. Like hell we’re going to just step in line and assist them as they destroy this country.

        And frankly, we don’t see a great deal of difference between Obama and your Romtorumrich. Maybe Obama’s radical Marxism can kick people in the behind a little, and wake them up a little quicker than Socialist Mitt’s moderateness.

      • Emilie Rensink

        Soooooo the solution is that he runs as the Republican nominee! In all polls, he’s shown to be the strongest opponent against Obama.

      • Anonymous

        as well he should. People that vote for Santorum, Romney, etc, get what they deserve, that is a non functioning, utterly corrupt govt. These Rinos are white Obamas.

      • if you dont want obama again i suggest you vote for ron paul. sounds pretty simple to me.

      • Ernest

        The GOP must be pretty weak if ole ‘nutjob’ can divide them.

      • Jeremy Merriam

        And somehow you think Romney or Santorum is going to be any better than the useless Obama. They are all the devil in sheeps clothing

      • Anonymous

        It’s not a matter of what he will do but the damage he’s already doing. His presence in the race at this point is helping Romney secure the nomination and that in turn will ensure Obama’s re-election (and likely a return of control to the Democrats in both houses of Congress) The same could be said of Bachmann and Perry to a lesser degree but they’re already looking at the results and likely won’t stay in much longer … I really wish Paul’s ego would allow him to do the same but I’m very doubtful and expect him and his supporters to continue to work towards Obama’s re-election.

      • Anonymous

        Then YOU should support Ron Paul…if not, folks like YOU have lost the country for us all….gee thanks

      • Anonymous

        You sound like a mooddderate republican. Know what moderates are? People without convictions.

      • Ever stop to consider that it might have been the Republicans that divided the Republicans? As long as the GOP puts up lackluster candidates it will be divided.

      • Anonymous

        As if it will make any difference if Obama gets re-elected or some GOP salesman panderer

      • Anonymous

        If you are correct about the divided part it’s not because Paul abandoned the party, it’s because the party abandoned the Constitution and fiscal responsibility. If the party keeps backing candidates like McCain and Romney the same scenario will play out over and over again. Meanwhile Ron Paul finished within 4% of first place and the top 3 contenders all got 7 delegates. It’s a 3 way tie. Ron Paul 2012.

      • what’swrong with that? Sends the message doesn’t it?
        Since there is no difference between establishment Rs and Ds, better to take a hard stand and try to make change happen. Look at Obama’s domestic, monetary and foreign policy and tell me how it differs one hair from Bush’s or Romney’s. You can’t. THAT is why Paul and his die-hard supporters like myself will NOT vote for any republican but Paul in the general.

        Think about it! I also hope the Paul campaign realizes that they have the GOP by the short hairs here and bends the establishment to his will. He is the king maker. If I were Paul I’d say to the GOP elite it is my way or the highway, I get the nomination or nothing at all. If he calls their bluff they will fold, because he is principled and will pull votes away but they are only power hungry and will cave in and do anything to stay in office. Game over.

      • Anonymous

        I believe he has a lot more Liberal supporters then Conservative. Some that voted for him in the Caucus would not vote for him if he ran Independent. The majority of those who would will be taking Obama votes away not GOP.

      • Anonymous

        So you think Paul “divided” the republicans in 2008? Where do you get THAT idea? McCain lost because the RNC pushed an aging RINO codger who sided as much with the Democrats as he did with Republicans. It had NOTHING to do with Paul and everything to do with McCain’s incompetence. It was impossible to get the electorate (conservative) excited about another RINO after eight years of Bush giving away the farm.

      • Good. The GOP can’t keep pretending to be conservative forever. Better the devil we know. The GOP is working hard to earn their losses lately, and they may even get extra credit.

      • Wyrdless

        Divide what? Ron Paul supporters don’t want unlimited detention without, lawyer, bail, trial or judicial review. Unlike Obama, Bush, Romney or these other scum bags. We are NOT going along with the status quo anymore.

        GET IT!

        Not this election, not ever.

        There is nothing to divide

      • GeorgeJackson444

        Ron Paul is a uniter and brings in the youth vote, independents, and disaffected Dems. Remember the Reagen Democrats? Ron Paul is making the Republican tent bigger. The Repub leadership and neocon pundits are shutting the door. If they embraced Ron Paul and supported this true patriot Obama would lose big time. However, when your own party smears you and treats your supporters like dirt you better expect they will return in kind.

    • Anonymous

      It may depend on who that nominee turns out to be. There ‘s a long way to go yet.

    • I agree. If Ron Paul does not win he will just clam up and sit quiet and not endorse the Republican. He will do what he did with McCain. He will stay in the party, no endorse, and take pot shots from the sidelines like he did last time.

      Ron Paul will hold a grudge and just sit with his sour grapes.

      • he’ll keep sitting with the Constitution, as he’s the one who actually follows it…

        • Except when it is inconvenient for him, as he’s shown in the past.

          • Anonymous

            name one vote…

            • National defense.

              • zing! good one!

                • Anonymous

                  Um, I said what vote. He’s for national defense. He voted for the AUMF for Afghanistan. He submitted a declaration of war for the Iraq conflict. He just doesn’t think our Military should be used for corporate and personal gain, or for nation-building, empire building, etc. We should follow a policy of Armed Neutrality, until and unless we are ACTUALLY attacked. (not just because you fear boogie men around every corner) THEN he will ask Congress for a Declaration of War like he’s supposed to UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, and then he’ll fight the war to a speedy conclusion.

                  Perhaps you should read the actual Constitution some time instead of your idea or someone else’s idea of it. Read the actual words for a change.

                • You must also support obama destroying the Bill of Rights by using the military to detain and imprison Americans without due process. It is hard to use national defense argument when neither party will secure the border.

              • Do you mean like the last appropriation bill the gives obama the right to detain and imprison any American without due process of the laws? So you support ending the Bill of Rights for all Americans then.

                • Kevin Winters

                  Well if you want to get technical it only overtly sets aside the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th amendments. I suppose it could probably be extended to the others but that isn’t as clear cut, if they didn’t like what you said, the President could deem you a terrorist, so that would take out the 1st. If he decides only terrorist have guns, so if you have a gun you must be a terrorist, that would get the 2nd. If he were to decide only terrorists wouldn’t freely volunteer of their own volition to have soldiers billeted in there homes, so if you objected if he decided to direct that you could be deemed a terrorist, so that would take out the third. And to wrap it up, since the NDAA give him the power to decide Nations, Persons, or Organizations are terrorist with no burden of proof or oversight, I guess he could in theory decide the state of Arizona is a terrorist organization, because he doesn’t like their immigration laws, and set aside their 10th Amendment rights. So yeah in summary I guess it could take out the entire bill of rights by extension, but only takes out half of it directly.

          • Agreed!

            • agreed to an ignorant non substantiated claim? de de de… still waiting for one vote that was made by paul that was in some way unconstitutional.

      • Anonymous

        It’s way beyond sour grapes Krieger.. we don’t have the luxury of pissing away any more elections. Have you noticed that both parties are out to eat our lunch?

        How much endorsing would YOU be doing if you had a choice between the Genovese and Corleone mobs? “Let’s see, Genovese would break my kneecap, but Corleone would cut some of my fingers off… hmmm…. Ok, Genovese it is, because I can still pick my nose… ”

        Wake up Krieger..

        • I also choose my legs broken because they can heal. I need my finger to type. lol.

          I am clearly awake and there are alternatives and that is the conservative choice over the appeasing isolationist libertarian nutcase Ron Paul!

          • Anonymous

            Get used to real change Krieger.. there will be more to come. NeoCons are not Republicans.. They’re just CONS..

          • Sure beats belligerent, paranoid, busy bodies that love to give everything away to enemy nations, while treating their own people as enemies. Hmmm am I talking about the apologist obama or the addle brain bush baby? Doesn’t matter they both have the same policies.

          • isolationist?! got that from cnn didnt ya? sly dog you!! :p geezzz enough with the talking points…

      • So he should endorse someone he feels is continuing down a bad path just “for the party”?

        See, that’s why a lot of people want someone DIFFERENT. There isn’t much difference really in the other major candidates besides Paul. Party politics is what put us in the current mess.

        Besides, only a patriot or a fool would want the job for the next 4 years. Whomever it is will take the blame for the massive economic and monetary disaster that will occur from the can-kicking for the last 4 years.

    • Most of his current supporters are converted Democrats. They switched arties just to vote for him in this primary.

      • greg happel

        I just caucused for Ron Paul and I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. I’m a life long Republican who initiated our city’s first major Tea Party. I was out doing lit drops to defeat Democrats since I was in the 3rd grade!

        • Greg, he is not referring to you. Obama and his supporters know the ONLY PATH to his victory is if they can divide the Republicans. They know Paul will do that because he will not throw his support behind another candidate.

          We will have a repeat of the 08 election.

          • Obama and his stooges don’t need to divide the republican part, your alienating Paul supporters just fine. Perhaps your an obama operative?

          • and none of the other candidates would support Dr. Paul.. save johnson. double standards much?!

      • A Kazen

        Daniel, I’ve been a republican all my life, and I’m a Paul supporter. If the republicans fail to nominate the one true conservative in the race, I won’t be a republican any more. Good luck electing your neocon nominee without this republican’s vote.

        • Jonathan Mailer

          A Kazen, they don’t really care. It’s all about bailing out the banks by the Fed, huge contracts for the military industrial complex, and bombing the next concocted Middle East bogeyman. The bread and circuses of this empire.

        • Same here – lifelong republican – but no longer held to the party if the party doesn’t truly return to the Constitution. As a veteran from a long military family history, we need to stop these needless/fruitless wars and build our own defenses and strengthen our own borders. If we do not have the candidate in place (only one preaching this right now -RP) I and many others I know will go wherever the right candidate is. It is the message – not the man. Although the only real MAN up there right now is Ron Paul.

      • True. Splitting the party is the only way Obama can win.

        • better tell everyone you know to vote for paul then.

      • Anonymous

        Daniel, your ducks are not in a row… you have no idea what you are talking about…

      • Cite your source. I’ve never voted Democrat in my life, and I’m considering Paul.

    • Proud American

      onceproudamerican, does it mean that you are not proud of America anymore. Does it mean that you will destroy this country from within simply because you are not proud of her? How are you different than Obama’s Kool-Aid drinkers?

    • I am sure the RonPaulBots will go bonkers over this thread. LOL

      • Anonymous

        Actually, it’s going quite well here..

      • we take offense to every derogatory attack on us sure. we will defend ourselves and our candidate. what kind of americans would we be otherwise. Ego is a cruel cruel thing.

    • Anonymous

      Exactly, and he shouldn’t.

    • Ron Paul speaks to the principles of the Constitution. He is not alone even among the Presidential candidates. Further, he will not run as a Libertarian.

    • Rick Bofinger

      If that is true, it is too bad. Santorum is the only good choice, not having the baggage of Gingrich, nor the same old same old of Romney. Paul is living in the 18th century as to foreign policy. I like his economics, but if we are all dead, what does it matter?

      • 18th century? know much? lol doubt it. we do not have a right to be over there telling or forcing other people to do or say or believe what we do.. its just retarded to think its works.. just retarded.

    • John Gorentz

      There is zero chance that Romney will support and endorse the GOP nominee unless that nominee is Mitt Romney.

    • Tim White

      Not so fast. If it’s a brokered convention and Ron Paul has delegates… is it far-fetched to say that the GOP nominee is Rand Paul?

    • We shall see. I support Ron Paul, but I plan to use my vote wisely. Dr. Paul is only seeking the GOP nomination, and does not plan to run as 3rd party. So I believe division fears are unfounded.

    • It’s usually bad grammar to use absolutes; i.e., zero, nothing, nobody. I live in Hungary and Hungarians are generally a depressed group that uses these absolutes often. If you don’t put water in the glass, you will never be able to decide whether the glass is half full or half empty. If there is zero chance, then there is no chance in trying to dissuade them from going rogue.

    • Anonymous

      You are correct, inasmuch as we can be for future events! He is actually a left-wing whacko in my opinion, but then Santorum has lots of voting that labor loves so where are we anyway?

    • he will. he has.

    • Randy Cornell

      He shouldn’t! A corporate raider worth a quarter to a half billion or a far right, RINO, homophobe, chicken hawk. The Democratic party will have a field day with either of those two. Ron Paul has already been vetted considering his strong standing despite tireless efforts from his own party to shut him out or find any dirt they can that would stick. People need to understand that Mitt or Santorum (I still can’t believe I’m having to mention single digit Santorum) are going to be thoroughly trashed by the Democratic attack machine. Mitt for his disgusting days as a corporate raider, laying off thousands and plundering desperate companies and Santorum for being an scary evangelical and rabid homophobe that will totally polarize voters. The GOP is setting up a ringer and no polls have shown Romney as able to beat Obama and Santorum hasn’t even been in the conversation until a few days after Xmas. This whole cycle has been a joke and the GOP party continues to weaken itself.

    • Not endorsing the GOP nominee is an endorsement for obama.

    • Anonymous

      Discount Paul and you loose all the young and independent voters. Republicans don’t have enough votes to put Romney in office without them.

    • Anonymous

      There is zero chance the GOP will embrace Rep. Paul’s supporters either, so take a hike.

    • Another reason why you SHOULD vote for Ron Paul. Eliminate his chance of going 3rd party or endorsing 3rd party. With Bachmann out, all those remaining within the GOP candidates, besides Ron Paul, are big government Republicans.

  • If Paul were to run as a third party, it would torpedo any chance that the Republicans would have to gain the Presidency.

    • And I’m not all that disappointed if that happens. Paul would be a much-needed wakeup call for this country. And we need it.

      • Yes we do, Bill, but Paul is going to be 80 soon and his foreign policy is not acceptable to most.

        • You’re right. Let’s just keep up the endless wars and bombings of nations around the world. That’s a good policy. It makes people like us, and keeps us safe.

          • Do you think Paul is the only candidate who is against war?

            • Mike Stahl


            • Yes, I do.

            • he isn’t against war, he is against undeclared international police actions layla…get educated and stop parroting

              • Parroting what, Josh?

            • Yes, he most certainly is. All others represent the status quo.

            • Ron Paul will actually bring the troops home, because he actually cares about his beliefs and isn’t trying to impress people. He doesn’t flip flop and he follows The Constitution. Real change will come from Ron Paul, Some candidates might be “anti-war” but when it comes time for them to act they do nothing, like Obama did in Afghanistan. Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are certainly not anti-war.

              • I don’t think there is a candidate in this race who wants to see this war continue.

                • Anonymous

                  But Ron Paul is the only one who will end it.

                • Anonymous

                  Uh-huh…. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

                • until they get into office and are told that the wars must continue by their puppet masters…

              • There is that word “change” again. We used to have a great country and since everyone has decided to “change” it, it’s gone to the dogs.

                How about we vote out the entire House of Representatives? They are all up for reelection this year. That’s real change.

              • Anonymous

                May I remind all those Ronulans here that, to paraphrase the words of the late Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson: “The Constitution is NOT a Suicide Pact!”

                • its not. but it is our law. without it, we are slaves. guess what?! were slaves. thanks.

            • yes, he is the only one, the rest are War Mongering RHINOs

              • Warmongering RHINOS? Am doubtful you are a Republican, Josh. It’s RINOS. And we’re all sick of the warmongering. Republicans know that.

            • Of course he is! The rest of the GOP candidate are NeoCON z10n1sts who’ll gladly shill for the Globalist Elite and their endless “wars”/empire building.

            • Anonymous

              Which decade are you asking about Layla? Please point me to anyone else on that stage who wouldn’t lead us into war over Israel…

            • If you take each at their word…yes.

        • in five years stupid,,a few older then newt and he is in way better shape,,dont fret dear cain can be found by you maybe

          • Ralph, who did you vote for last time?

            • Anonymous

              I voted for Ron Paul.

              • Then we can thank you for the fraud in the White House now.

                • McCain would have been Obama-Lite and the debt time bomb would have simply been strung along until his term(s) was/were over. McCain was about as much of a Democrat as a Republican could get.

                • Anonymous

                  um, really you can’t really thank her, because Dr. Paul wasn’t an option in the general election (o8). Layla, have you voted? Have you at least had a civics class and learned about primaries and general elections.

                  How would that have contributed to thanking her for the Obama mess, wasn’t McCaint the nominee?. Jeez.

        • Oh, and 80 year olds are stupid – especially those in perfectly good health physically and mentally.

          • No, it’s just that we need a younger candidate, someone who can inspire the whole country.

            • yeah, the young one we have now is doing so well. All that experience just shining through…

            • This is pretty inspiring to me:

              • This video is a insult to ALL troops who served. Nothing inspiring about it!!! Nothing but a bunch of propaganda lies by Ron Paul cultist freakjobs!!!!!

                • I served, and the only thing that ever insulted me was sending me around the world to fight for the goons in DC. Risking my life and spending years away from home for absolutely nothing is rather insulting.

                • My family has been a military family for 27 years. You are all whiners. You have no idea what it means to truly serve your country, not just your candidate.

                  You weren’t fighting for the goons in DC; you were fighting for the country. If you didn’t ever know that, those years were wasted.

                • Anonymous

                  You didn’t swear an oath to defend the Country. You swore an oath to defend the Constitution. Defending the country is not in your job description, defending Liberty is. If you don’t understand the difference, those 27 years were wasted.

                • You sir, are absolutely correct. Tip of the hat.

                • Odd how the troops overwhelmingly support Dr. Paul. The failed US foreign policy is an insult to anyone who has ever served.

                • No, they do NOT.

                • Yes, they do. Check the person to your right and the person to your left … those people are Paul supporters Layla.

                • Anonymous

                  Dr. Paul has received more than twice the contributions from Active Duty military than all other GOP candidates COMBINED. He has received more than Obama. Paul’s top three contributing employers? U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy.

                • Anonymous

                  Hey McFly, the troops support RON PAUL, by more than a 2-1 margin of all other candidates COMBINED and they support him more than Obama. Obviously, you are clueless.

                • Anonymous

                  I guess the troops believe that the military is a pleasure cruise and a place to cash fat checks and eat steaks.

                • Anonymous

                  No, they just know they aren’t the personal water boys for this or that elite who wants to play proxy war for his corporate buddies.

                  Our military is for DEFENSE of LIBERTY – not you or anyone else’s personal dragon slayer. If you have boogie men to take out – do it yourself, stop using our military to create more of them and steal my money to pay for it.

              • Anonymous


            • He sure is inspiring the younger voters! It’s the stubborn old ones that need to clear their heads of the propaganda that has been fed to them.

            • Anonymous

              I’m not being a wise guy, but how does being young inspire anybody? We have a “young” president now. He’s pretty divisive. …. and not too bright I might add.

            • Anonymous

              Been under a rock the last 5 years? Are you telling us Ron Paul hasn’t cured the apathy of millions? Hasn’t inspired anyone? Clueless much? Real change, consistency, integrity, Liberty and common sense are a breath of fresh air, and inspiring to anyone. Unless you don’t care for those things.

              • Sam, it wasn’t Ron Paul who woke Americans up. It was the Obama administration that you stuck us with after the last election. I’ve spent 27 years in the military. Don’t lecture me about integrity, liberty or anything else. You are not qualified.

                • Layla, Paul is a lightning rod — he’s collecting the awakening electorate, just as Palin has done. Paul’s brand of politics may not be the run-of-the-mill GOP brand, but it’s a throwback to an approach that is sorely needed right now. What you’re seeing in the Paul advocacy is a heartfelt desire by many to return the GOP to it’s real underpinnings.

                  The Won’s election, though painful and damaging in the short run, will have long-lasting effects on the conservative brand of governing. Paul may be coming along at the right time, or maybe he’s even early, since many ‘conservatives’ just don’t get the dire straights the GOP brand has helped to guide us toward. Drastic correction needs to take place as soon as possible, yet none of the GOP-endorsed crop of candidates has it in them to fight for those necessary changes.

                • Anonymous

                  I didn’t stick you with anything. In my state, McLame won by a landslide. (though I did get to vote for Paul)

                  Voting for McLame et al got you Obama. Nothing else.

                  And you can save your self-important snide remarks. I’m an American. That qualifies me.

            • Anonymous

              Ron Paul’s doing a great job… are you discriminating here? That sounds a little shallow Layla.

        • David Williams

          Just because “most” want to jump off the Empire State building doesn’t mean I’m going to jump too.

          Ron Paul 2012 or bust, rather Obama most likely.

          I won’t vote for anyone else but Paul. If it torpedoes the GOP, so be it, let the chips fall where they may.

          • Most likely our last free election if you do that. Say hello to the Obama Regime.

            • Way to be way over-dramatic. However, if that is the case, then unfortunately, America will get what it deserves for allowing it to happen. If voting for a single candidate in a free election allows such a thing to happen, then the problems that REALLY allowed such an atrocity would be much deeper rooted than a single election.

              • I sure hope I’m being over dramatic, Mike. I’m watching lots of things happen that I never dreamed would happen in this country. And nobody is stopping it.

                • Ron Paul will stop it. Isn’t that the whole point here? Everybody else represents the status quo.

                • I don’t doubt that he will try. The point is, you won’t, if he doesn’t win the nomination. without you, we are not united. don’t you understand that?

                • Anonymous

                  United behind whom? Another neocon but this time with an R after his name rather than a D? Sorry, I stand for actually fixing things, not just gaining power so we can continue off the cliff.

                • Anonymous

                  No one except Ron Paul is even addressing those concerns. Repugs are just as responsible. Remember, it was Bush who gave us the abomination called the USA PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act. Obama is just continuing his policies. Newt Romtorum would simply continue them as well. Ron Paul is the only one who opposes these policies with every fiber of his being.

                • Newt has address everyone of those concerns. Newt Gingrich is responsible for putting the Republicans in the majority after over 40 years of solid Democrat control.

                  Newt Gingrich is the only candidate with a record to run on. I am supporting him, but if he does not win the nomination I WILL support the nominee. Can you say the same?

                • Anonymous

                  No because I put my Country ahead of party every time. Partisans are the problem. George Washington was right.

                  p.s. – and then Newt proved he was just another politician by governing as a liberal with no principals and no ethics.

              • Mike, AMERICA doesn’t deserve ANY of this. Unemployment in my town is about 14%. One fourth of the Nation’s children are now homeless. Millions in this country have lost homes and jobs to these people and you are standing here with your friends, throwing a hissy fit over your candidate.

                It is the Paul supporters who allowed THIS atrocity of Obama to happen.

            • If anyone wins but Ron Paul, Obama will be re-elected anyways because the Liiberals love Iowa for voting for 2 Liberal fake republicans

              • Jeff, you are NOT a Republican. Just like Obama, you don’t know how we think or why we think the way we do.

            • Honestly? I think the same thing could happen with one of the status quo conservatives running or a Democrat president after them. Mainstream conservatives like strong federal government, as long as they’re the ones at the helm. So, a Romney or a Santorum or a Gingrich, etc. will give themselves plenty of power if they win, but what happens after them? What happens when another liberal Democrat is elected to the presidency?

              • Witty, how about voting out the entire House of Representatives this year? Did you even know they are ALL UP FOR REELECTION?

                VOTE THEM ALL OUT.

                • Considering that I have but one vote, I can’t exactly do that, but I do appreciate the sentiment and hope that actual conservatives run against Dems and RINOs for Congress.

            • Anonymous

              Mittens et al will simply be Obama II, Bush IV, whatever. They are ALL the same, except for Ron Paul that is. Even his opponents admit it.

            • Anonymous

              Or the religious Romney/Santorum Theocracy/Oligarchy…

          • None Ofyurbizness

            I, and TENS OF THOUSANDS of us are with you David. Ron Paul is the only name we will place on a ballot this year whether he runs 3rd party or not. Like it or not, America, if Ron Paul isn’t the R nominee then no Republican will win 2012.

            Ron Paul 2012!

            • Anonymous

              Never happen. He is the same kook who has lost twice before and is an embarrassment to the Tea Party.

              • Who’s paying you Patriotsunite? What you said is garbage, but then again you’re relaying points from the playbook.

                Paul is the only candidate that is ready, willing, and able to turn the ship of State and get things moving in the right direction before it’s too late. He has the courage of his convictions — unlike Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and a couple others. The Tea Party loves this guy — he’s what’s for breakfast.

              • You mean the same Constitutionalist who won’t bow down to the Globalists and their z10n1st allies.

            • Then no Republican will win. Congratulations, Obama. Why not save ourselves a lot of money and not bother with an election if this is a foregone conclusion?

        • Is the CIA’s assement acceptable? Or not since they agree with Ron Paul?

          Or do “most” know more than those with actual experience?

          • Your CIA source is an Obama appointee. We are back to the split the party argument being the only way Obama gets reelected.

        • Anonymous

          I’m not sure you could really even call his thinking a foreign policy.

        • Anonymous

          Only most of those duped by the neocons. 77% of the American People support Ron’s Foreign Policy. (as do 100% of the Founding Fathers, after all, it’s their policy, not Ron’s)

          • you mean they support his lack of a foreign policy

          • Sam, I have some founding fathers in the family as well, 3rd boat over, and you need to go back and study your history.

            • Anonymous

              I have. Perhaps you need to. The writings they left us and their speeches say they agree with Ron Paul. (actually, it’s Ron Paul who agrees with them)

        • Anonymous

          Not acceptable to most WHAT? Speak for yourself… you sound like Fox or CNN..

        • Anonymous

          Yes…Luap Nor’s 19th-century foreign policy stance works wonders in the 21st century.

    • No, there is still Newt. Others are not that good though. Especially Bachmann. Anything would be better then Obama right now though.

      • Gingrich is the only candidate with a 97% consistent rating with the American Conservative Union. He pushed through welfare reform and balanced the federal budget with Bill Clinton. I’m sticking with Newt.

        • Unfortunately it isn’t 1996…Newt’s been pretty terrible since then.

          • Anonymous

            Scozafava and a certain couch visit with the Wicked Witch of the West (AKA Pelosi) come to mind.

        • william smith

          The national debt was higher at the end of each fiscal year Newt was in Congress.

          • William, Gingrich was the Speaker of the House when Bill Clinton balanced the federal budget.

        • Anonymous


    • Then the repubs have a choice to make, nominate Paul and win or 4 more years of Obama. I think the repub establishment rather lose to Obama than see Paul as their nominee.

      Personally I’d rather see a politically used up Obama than his spiffy new clone, Romney (with all the good will a new guy gets) in the White House. Here’s the important point: Both Obama and any Repub but Paul will give you more wars, more debt and an even more declining economy.

      • Anonymous

        Yes! Wrong Paul will give us a foreign policy that includes nuked American cities when the Twelvers in Iran fulfill their promise to destroy the United States to force the return of their prophesied messiah. Wrong Paul is the Neville Chamberlain of our era. Contrary to what the Paulies think, he is NOT channeling the Founding Fathers!
        Are Americans willing to risk tens of millions of dead Americans on the interpretation of the Constitution by one man? We’d better pray they aren’t that foolish!

        • yeah right… more fear mongering. Russia told Reagan they were going to bury us… didn’t happen. Everyone told us Iraq had WMDs… nope. Now we beat that drum again…

          I served in the Army, as did my father, brother, wife, uncles, cousins and currently my son…. please make sure all of your family of military age are serving since you are in such a hurry to get in yet ANOTHER war we can’t afford.

          Ron Paul is the ONLY one who will break this cycle of being the world police. The military is supposed to provide national defense, not international defense…

          • JT, we’ve been a military family for 27 years and I don’t believe Ron Paul is the only candidate who can accomplish this.

          • Anonymous

            So what. My family and many others have served in the military back before the Constitution up through my son who served in Iraq. Was Ron Paul in WWII ?
            My father would be furious about Paul’s naivete and those who blindly follow.

        • Those fairy tales must keep you awake at night.

          • Aren’t you supposed to be reading the Huff Post or something liberal?

        • Anonymous

          Great book by William Manchester called Alone about Churchill 1932-40 in which he describes Churchill as the sole person recognizing the power grab of Hitler while Chamberlain diddled and begged Hitler to be friends, abrogated the treaty with France. He told Hitler he could have Czechoslavikia because England didn’t want to fight. England considers him a traitor and responsible for England almost losing the war.

          • Your parallel/analogy has one MAJOR flaw: The size and strength of the U.S. military vs. the size and strength of Iran’s is incomparable to England/Germany. There are a multitude of nations with nukes, why do you think they have never been used (outside of the U.S. against Japan)?? If you want a lesson in history, look to the Cold War and realize Iran would have a death knell to EVER attack the U.S. outright. Our warmongering would make the Founders cringe. RON PAUL 2012! (even if that means writing him in).

        • Hogwash! Stop buying into the bogus “islamo-boogeyman” rhetoric…predicated by a false flag attack. This Republic was NOT founded to be the “police force” of the world.

      • You’re being as arrogant as the Romney people. There are other candidates in this race and this was the first caucus.

        Settle down, watch, wait.

      • Anonymous

        You are living in leftist utopia land. Conservatives would rather lose to Obama than have a known racist as a candidate who thinks America is at fault, like Obama. Just 30 years older than Obama.

        • Geez. Give it up because nobody is buying what you’re intent on selling. Making things up or reaching back to old, disproven boogiemen just make your points seem quaint and uninformed. Try some truth for a change … you may like it.

      • Kimberly Hall

        You make such a good point here, and I think you’re right. The people who like Paul love him and are devoted to him so much that they would rather not vote than vote for someone else.

    • If you look at the political spectrum there’s two dimensions: libertarians to authoritarians, and then left to right. It seems that the right wing of America(the Republican party, essentially) is splintering between the libertarians and authoritarians. The same is happening on the left I think too, many of the left are disillusioned with Obama because of the authoritarian positions he’s taken. So really I think the general trend is that America is standing up against authoritarianism; you see it in the Ron Paul camp and the subverted remains of the Tea Party(some argue Ron Paul spurred the Tea Party), and you see it in the Ocuppy Wall Street crowd. Liberty and freedom is burning bright in the minds of people across the country.

      • Anonymous

        Notice all the candidates claim Tea Party connections but Ron Paul did not start it. Many, many members of the silent conservative majority wouldn’t be in the same city much less room with him. Ron Paul’s followers are Occupy and that is not the same as Tea Party. You make your point – Ron Paul’s narcissism and funding from anarchists/leftists may muddy the conversation for the uneducated.

        • Good assessment of the situation. Actually, Bachmann was the first to support the Tea Party.

        • Anonymous

          Being well right of Attila the Hun and a defender of the Constitution, I find your characterization of Ron Paul supporters myopic, dim-witted, and intentionally inflammatory for no good reason. You are falling into the trap of divide and conquer the oligarchy loves. Ron Paul is not only a patriot, he has the balls to walk the walk and lead. Everyone has faults, and Dr. Paul is honest enough to expose his, whereas the typical politician would obfuscate and mislead to form false impressions for their benefit. Ron Paul and I are united patriots committed to fight for liberty and the Constitution – even if that permits you to express your ignorance.

    • Anonymous

      So, considering that NeoCons aren’t actually Republicans, is that a BAD thing? Maybe they should fly the right flight, like Fascist-Lite…

    • Yes, and the democrats know that, which is why many are helping Paul.

  • They already dismissed Ron Paul.

  • Anonymous

    Pay close attention to what Palin says. She is a shrewd, prescient individual. I wouldn’t want to play poker with this woman. She’ll be the leading voice during this year’s Congressional races, which is where the REAL fight is. We are going to need her judgement and endorsements now more than ever.

    • Anonymous

      And it’s going to be fun to watch..:)

    • “Judgement”??! You’re joking, right??

      • You haven’t been paying attention then.

    • Anonymous

      Is she tippy toeing around Ron Paul supporters so they don’t bolt the GOP?
      That would be my guess – but then, I don’t play poker!

      • Anonymous

        No – these people are not Republicans who are following the pied piper Paul.
        They said they are not for Paul because he could beat Obama. If not voting for someone to beat the opponent, then you are the enemy snuck in to do what?
        Get Obama re-elected.

  • Anonymous

    Paul and his fellow kooks can go ______ themselves.

    Many are wacko libertarians or Dems.

    They can choose if they want to vote for socialism or capitalism.

    • You have got to be kidding. Paul is the only capitalist in the republican primaries. For once Palin is right about something. Most of us Ron Paul supporters will either write his name in or vote 3rd party if Paul’s name isn’t on the ballot.

      Your establishment candidates are tested and proven to be socialists. No different from Obama and just as war hungry as Obama.

      • do you have ANY IDEA what you’re talking about???

      • Anonymous

        I think we need a Paul/Palin ticket.. Sarah’s willing to learn from Ron. She actually said that back in 2007.

      • Anonymous

        So you will endorse Ron Paul or vote third party even if they have zero chance of winning instead of throwing your weight behind the GOP nominee? That pretty much will guarantee a win for Obama.

    • moron globalist ,,you are as much an idiot as lyla

      • What a sweet man you are, Ralph!

    • yeah, how about all of those active duty and vets like me supporting him?

      How many years in the military did you serve with “us kooks”?

      • I’m a retired Vet and I have to say this, Ron Paul is the last hope to save this country and bring back freedom, the rest of the candidates want us thrown in prison as Terrorist, with out due process, and I’ll be damned if any of these others will force me to disarm and arrest Americans.

        • Andrew Fu

          Thanks for your service. I bet the majority of these people that love to post in anonymity of the Internet how we should be fighting these wars would shoot themselves in the foot if it came down to their lives being put on the line.

      • Anonymous

        4 years – diesel subs. Would go back in a minute if they would take me.

    • Your comment is exactly her point.

      • Anonymous

        Good for Sarah.

        Many of us have had enough of RuPaul’s garbage.

      • Anonymous

        I stand by my original comment. It’s exactly how I feel about RuPaul and his disgraceful supporters.

    • David Williams

      Hope you get a chance to die in Iran for our “freedoms.”

      • K-Bob

        Tone it down, folks. We don’t need bannings over the Iowa caucuses. There’s still a loooong way to go.

    • Better just choose to stick with what we’ve been doing for the past 11 years. It’s been working SO well: never ending wars, removal of rights one by one, skyrocketing debt, rampant unemployment, illegal alien invasion, financial aid to enemies.. Say what you will about Paul, but he’s right on the matters effecting us the most. I’ve always been a Conservative but I’m tired of the same garbage that’s not working and I’m tired of politicians who put themselves before the people who elected them.

    • Anonymous

      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

      Enuff said about your character, and the 2 likes you got

      • Anonymous


        You mean like blaming American for everything?

        Call Gaza a concentration camp??

        Saying you would’ve done nothing about the Holocaust??

        Or denying the newsletters even though you made millions off them? Having the nerve to get mad when being asked about them!!

        Either way… RuPaul is done after tonight. After all that hype… and a measely 3rd place.. over 4000 votes behind a real conservative!

        At least he’s finally retiring. Good riddance Rumpelstiltskin!!

        • Anonymous

          Ron Paul got 10% in Iowa in 2008.

          He got 21% in Iowa tonight.

          He’s just gettin’ warmed up.

    • onceproudamerican

      What is kooky about thinking the government should obey the Constitution? Ever read it? Or, are you just like the democrats and think you can pick and choose which laws to obey?

    • hey conservative, you aren’t even close to conservative based upon your leftists comments…LOL…conservative, Indeed! LOL

    • And you and your neocon progressive ilk can go _____ yourselves. 🙂

      • Anonymous

        Right back at you kook-boy. Why don’t you try living in Israel for awhile??

        • That’s “Kook-girl” to you, thank you very much.

          As for Israel, no thanks–I’ve heard it’s very expensive to live there.

    • The NeoCON z10n1st puppets of the Globalist Elite and their sheeplized followers are the issue.

    • Anonymous

      You got to go to a free Romney picnic on the lake, right??

  • Ok, now i’m sick of hearing from Sarah Palin, she’s a quiter….

    • Anonymous

      Spell much?

    • Anonymous

      whoa there for a minute I though you said spitter.

    • I’m sick of hearing the same hateful attack on her. Oh Yeah! I forgot there is nothing to attack her on or for.

    • Heh. She left her state in pretty good rig, and is working harder and having a much greater effect on the country than she would have if she’d have stayed in the governorship. Quitter … hardly … she woke up the country to the Dufus-in-Chief and his cronies.

  • The Republican establishment is rigging the vote in the Iowa Caucus.

    • How? Voter fraud?

      • Anonymous

        Yes they stated that they would make sure Paul did not win…guess we can’t complain about demoncrats and their voter fraud anymore, publicans do the same thing.

      • get lost troll

        • Troll? Have we a liberal in the bunch?

    • K-Bob

      With 75% against Romney, they aren’t doing a very good job.

    • The Globalist Elite will ensure their puppet is elected to face their (coin flipside) other puppet.

    • Anonymous

      I noticed that when they had 39% of the votes tabulated, Gingrich had 13%, Perry 10.1% and Bachmann 5%. At that Point Romney had 23%, Santorum 23% and Paul 23%.

      At 89% tabulation, Romney was at 24%, Sanitorium 23% and Paul 22%. HOW did those top three numbers change that much in counting 50% of the votes when the next three didn’t change? That smells..

  • Spot on, Sarah, spot on.

  • I can’t believe Tea Party is aligning w/ Santorum. What a waste it will prove to be if this continues

    • In Florida, it will be Gingrich and Romney.

      • and you ,,you maroon

        • I may be a maroon, Ralph, you’re still a sweetheart!

      • Layla, Why not just admit you a hard left Liberal ?, because you sound just like one, maybe you should tell us the truth, that you really want Obama to be re-elected.

        • I’m a conservative. I used to be an ordinary Republican but this fraud in the White House drove me to the extreme right. I like Paul, but not his foreign policy.

          Believe me, I don’t want to see Obama reelected. I worked to get out the vote in 08 and the Paul supporters would not vote for the Republican candidate. That cost us the election. I am afraid we are seeing it again.

          • At one point, back in 2002, McCain was contemplating a Party switch — that’s all a person needs to know about that guy you campaigned for and his policies. McCain is symbolic of the modern, entrenched GOP — lesser Liberal-Progressives of another stripe. You can’t knock the Paul supporters of 2008 for knowing the candidates.

    • Anonymous

      Santorum looks like wimp, acts like wimp, talks like raging wimp, and still he is simply wimpy wimp. Sadly for many, just a light weight wimp.

      • Anonymous

        but he looks nice in a dress

      • Anonymous

        And he uses “family values” and “social conservative” as a euphemism for bigot.

    • Santorum backed Specter… the deciding vote in Obamacare… yay…

    • onceproudamerican

      Anyone who is for the Patriot Act has violated their oath of office and isn’t eligible for this TEA Party member’s support!

    • Santorum doesn’t have a prayer. He’s the Huckabee of 2012.

      • Witty, do you understand that it is the evangelicals who are supporting him? You need to know where these voting blocks are coming from.

        This 3 way tie was an anti Romney vote in Iowa.

        • Yes, I do understand that. Huckabee was also supported by evangelicals and look how much that helped him.

          So long as it’s an anti-Romney vote, I’m extremely doubtful that a lot of conservatives will convalesce around one candidate any time soon, particularly Santorum. Unfortunately, I fear that this will help Romney.

    • I don’t think they are. this was an anti Romney vote and just the first caucus. I don’t believe Iowa has ever selected a president.

      It’s just one state and everybody is in a panic.

    • Anonymous

      Rick Santorum is a big government power grabbing neocon that does not mind corruption. A real conservative would not force the federal government into our homes. Santorum lost his Senate seat in part by trying to shove PAWS legislation (2005) down our throats (do a search of the web). PAWS was an attack on companion animal enthusiasts. Santorum would have subjected small-time breeders to big government restrictions, such as unannounced inspections by the USDA. Compliance with USDA animal housing regs calls for concrete kennels; anyone housing a dog or cat on a pillow, carpet, or sofa would be found in violation. Following the money, the apparent motivation for Santorum was in forcing all animals to have RFID devices and tracking databases. With an estimated 250M dogs and cats in the USA, and their short lifespans, this is a rich target market that replenishes itself. A major RFID manufacturer in Santorum’s home state would benefit greatly from a federal mandate for their product. That is just one way he earned his high ranking in the Most Corrupt Members of Congress Report.

  • Anonymous

    Sort of late for this little nugget from Palin…the republican representative, after moving the votes to a private location in Iowa, says that they will make sure Paul does not win….then he comes in 3rd, looks like election fraud to me. Guess they can’t whine that Obama and demoncrats are perpetuating fraud in the next election after this nonsense.

    • Anonymous

      The Powers of Rothschild and the NWO will put in place who they want in place.

  • Too many momma-grizzlies in the kitchen, apparently.

  • Paul will not run as a third party candidate in the event he does not get the nomination. If he did not against Obama and McCain, no way will he do so against this crop. However, Gary Johnson will be an option for Paul’s followers, whether the GOP frontrunner is a social-conservative-fiscal-weasel like Santorum or an outright weasel like Romney. So the GOP better think hard about who they’re going to put on the ticket if the independent vote is at all important to their general election prospects (and it’s crucial).

  • They already screwed the pooch. I’ll elaborate after the primaries. But the Republicans and their attack arm have cut their collective noses off to spite themselves. And perhaps now you can understand why Palin has been running interference for the nominees for so long.

  • Anonymous

    Quick non scientific poll. “Like” this post if you support Dr Ron Paul! Let’s show the Internet how many of us there are!!!

    • Anonymous

      I am lucid. Where is the unlike button?

      • I designate your post as the official unlike button.

    • onceproudamerican

      There simply isn’t any other choice for a person who put the Constitution above everything else.

      • Daniel Martin Gray

        While I take issue with Paul’s unrealistic views on foreign policy (too trusting and libertarian regarding enemies, too uncommitted to allies),

        no one can doubt his staunch defense of the Constitution of the United States of America, nor can they doubt that the vast majority of his ardent followers are patriotic, serious Americans.

        If I were President, I would ask Mr. Paul to be the Attorney General and head the Justice Department. He would have no qualms about pursuing criminals, and would ensure that all were treated as individuals in accordance with the Bill of Rights…

        • He would prosecute most of Congress before being fired.

        • Kevin Pearson

          He is a doctor not and an Attorney, so AG would NOT be the proper place for him. Treasury Secretary would be his role.

          The vast majority of his followers are newcomers to the electoral process and have no concept that idealism must be coupled with pragmatism. A large number of his supporters are of the “both parties are all the same” chorus, that I have heard say so for over 25 years, mainly because they are upset that the Democrats will not publicly announce support for deciminalization of drugs. And those that will post any and every negative hit piece on every other GOP candidate regardless of how left-wing the source might be, and accept it as proof or fact.

          If the Constitutionalist Dr Paul could not reduce spending while serving in the very body that appropriates spending, pray tell how he will be able to do it from the White House?

    • K-Bob

      Someone is in a hurry to get “likes” today.

    • Ron Paul’s internet crack kids at it again.

      • You obviously used your incredible critical thinking skills to come to that conclusion right?

      • maybe you can explain why the military donate more to Ron Paul than all of the other candates COMBINED!

        • PSD?

          • Josh Rogers

            Why don’t you go fight in Iraq you miserable little POS?

          • Anonymous

            No doubt you are another RINO loser who didn’t serve and won’t let his kids serve either. You guys are all too willing to send others off to slaughter for your benefit.

            • K-Bob

              Telling people what it is that they think is just trolling for a fight.

              This thread is already contentious enough without that.

            • Your attitude is EXACTLY why Ron Paul is not a legitimate candidate any more than Ross Perot or John Anderson. As Palin calls for the RNC not to dismiss the Paul supporters, you mock and show disdain for those conservatives and Republicans who do not support Paul.

              Ron Paul would take the same attitude into a presidency and as a result be the least effective president since Jimmy Carter. No doubt you folks would spin it with cries of unfairness even as you glare at Paul wondering where is the trillions in cuts, the withdrawal from the global arena, and why the federal government still has it tentacles in the states where it doesn’t belong..

              In the years leading up to the founding of this country and for a few years after, thousands of “normal” citizens sacrificed immensely to bring about the republic we love and are so blessed to be a part of. The fight for many of Paul’s positions which I agree with to varying degrees will require a grass roots, broad and comprehensive movement to include hundreds of federal, and even thousands of state and local ELECTED officials. This will require sacrifice and effort tantamount to what resulted in the establishment of the United States.

              With the attitude expressed by the majority of Paul supporters which is only marginally better than some 14 year old Internet troll defending his favorite video game, and the lack of a large grass roots movement within the Republican party (or Democrat for that matter), to champion these necessary changes, I simply do not believe a Paul presidency is a sincere endeavour. The horrible, and almost unforgivable aspect of Ron Paul’s campaign is that he is not outlining how great the effort needs to be with the result that he is whipping up unrealistic expectations in a large number of his supporters that will dashed whether he is elected or not, resulting in the loss of many altruistic, and potentially dedicated souls willing to undertake the effort necessary.

              Should Paul not win the nomination we will find out how much a patriot he and his supporters are. If they embrace the nominee ENTHUSIASTICALLY, and work for change in state and local elections for years to come we will know.

              • TL;DR True conservatives support Ron Paul. PERIOD.

                • Kevin Pearson

                  So why is it that he never got more than 2 bills that he has sponsered to pass in the 30 years that he was in Congress? Because they are all crooks I guess?

                  So you expect Ron Paul to serve in the White House and get more legislation passed while sitting in the Oval Office than he would have while actually BEING in Congress? “Well he’s the President” Ever heard of “separation powers” .. Constitutionalist my foot.

                  In 1993 as Clinton was inaugurated, Walter Mondale said, “if the Congress treats Bill CLinton like they did Jimmy Carter, then the Democrats would not elect another President for 40 years. ”

                  So Ron Paul, who is throwing a tantrum because he is ignored by Congress for 30 years, and is calling them all crooks, is going to get more cooperation from Congress than did Carter?
                  The above poster is right, He will be less effective than Carter, and teh GOP will suffer for a generation because of him.

              • Anonymous

                So, voters are supposed to support anyone who winds up on a ballot with an R after the name, no matter who it turns out to be? That’s how we wind up with the RINO candidates who have given us such glorious votes as having that evil NDAA that flies in the face of about 30% (conservatively) of the Bill of Rights get passed on to the Senate where it was passed out to our glorious Coward in Chief who signed it over the weekend so it wouldn’t get the coverage it deserved. Voting party first is how we got ourselves congress after congress that spent too much money on both sides of the aisle. Maybe that’s why George Washington wanted us to be a nation without parties.
                My idea is to print ballots with no party affiliation listed at all. Freedom of association rules out making them illegal but it would break some of the stranglehold they have on our electoral system.

                • Kevin Pearson

                  I would rather be a nation without parties, but we were also supposed to be a nation that sent electors to Washington to decide themselves who would be the President rather than have the people vote directly for the President.

                  Unfortunately with the sytsem the way it has developed, either you vote for someone with an “R” beside their name or you have 4 more years of Obama.
                  Hey I grew up in the Yellow Dog south, I would love to vote for a Democrat, but the Democrats keep nominating the most unacceptable candidates imaginable.

              • Anonymous

                Least effective?? We are stuck with that moron currently in the White House.

          • SR

            How many of you even bothered to notice that the country is broke?

            Just wonderin’.

          • STFU dipwick.

            • Anonymous

              I see we are dealing with an educated bunch here. i am out.

            • Ooh – name calling! That’ll rip the cover off their evil deeds!

          • Anonymous

            Written by someone who has likely never left his parents’ basement.

        • JT, my family has been in the military for 27 years and this statement is false, patently FALSE.

          • Sam Marcum

            The donation amounts are easily verified. JT is telling the truth. It is certainly something to consider. Paul also has been endorsed by the former head of the CIA unit that tracked Osama Bin Laden, Michael Scheuer

            • You’re assuming Layla would actually try to verify that information which can of course be easily verified……..if Layla were to take the effort…but Layla would rather study NOTHING…This is why Layla can not understand Paul.

            • Kevin Pearson

              The CIA is full of career bureaucrats = Liberal Democrats.

          • Take your head out of the sand. My family has been in the military since WWI. My family served in WWI, WWII, Korea, ‘Nam, and the Cold War, as well as Iraq. , and your statement is not only false, but either extremely ignorant, or intentionally lying.

            Oops… looks like you were disproved with one copy/paste. Any more ignorance you’d like to spew? If you actually loved your country, you’d get behind the only person in the race who actually wants what’s best for the country. But no… you’ll probably go vote for Mitt. And if he wins, you’ll certainly deserve him.

        • Anonymous

          I guess the troops believe that the military is a pleasure cruise and a place to cash fat checks and eat steaks.

        • Cite your source, please. Just because you say it, doesn’t make it so.

        • I wave the B.S flag on this statement. I’ve been in the U.S Army for 7 plus years (both Active and Reserve) and knew maybe two people who could be considered “supporters”. Both were quite liberal btw. I also doubt they ever gave money to his campaign. In the unlikely event that this statement is true, I would have to contend that Ron Paul has been a candidate for almost every presidency since I believe 1988. With that kind of consistence you will probable get a certain following. Now if I was someone in the military that only wanted to do the bare minimum, get a paycheck and didn’t want to risk life or limb, than I guess I would be a money supporter of RP. But than when the inevitable cutback in personnel comes around, who would be the first to go?

          • R Cress

            It’s simple to verify. Occupation is required when making most contributions. Not only does Paul collect more military contributions than all the Republicans combined, you can throw Obama’s contributions in with them and Paul still collects more. Do some research before calling BS there YD. Do you honestly believe that if that were not correct that the Faux news, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc. pundits would not be screaming bloody murder?

          • Sam Marcum

            Mitt Romney’s top contributors are Goldman Sachs, followed by Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Barclays , Bank of America and JP Morgan. Ron Paul has a top three donor list made up of the US Army, US Navy and US Airforce…
            As for the donations, retired and active military personnel donate to the Ron Paul campaign at a 4 to 1 ratio over Mitt Romney. These are Federal Election Commission numbers that are public record, much like Census numbers.

    • onceproudamerican

      The problem with Dr. Paul is you have to be intelligent to understand his world view and how it all fits together; translation=> we’re doomed.

      • Not really. Having the intellect to understand we cannot afford to be the policemen of the world, but at the same time understand we have specific obligations and treaties to fullfill, is something Ron Paul supporters seem unwilling to comprehend. Yes we spend the most in the world in the military (with room to cut) but than who are the next biggest military spenders in the world? Combined you have a bunch of unsavory regimes/countries that stand poised to fill the void when we leave that vaccuum. Isolationism does not work. Period. Oh and what is Ron Paul’s stance on illegal immigration? I get mixed messages from him on that. Being a parent of legal immigrants to this great nation, I have little tolerance for that.

        • R Cress

          The term isolationist is a media tag that has been well ingrained in those with a talking point only view of the world. Paul’s position is closer to Roosevelt’s big stick position. Have the military there when it’s needed, use it to destroy the enemy when necessary, but don’t use it to further the military industrial adventurism and nation building of the internationalists. One thing you can be is that Paul’s position on illegal immigration will be according to the Constitution rather than how many votes he can pick up.

          • Yeah. And let Iran get a nuke.

          • Kevin Pearson

            The word “immigration” is in the Constitution right next to where is says that a woman has the right to choose. Nowhere. The Constitution makes no stand no the Constitution.

            Jefferson was a strict Constitutiionalist too. But he purchase the Louisiana Purchase from France, even though the Constitution did not give him the right to do so. So according to Ron Paul, the Iowa Caususes are unconstitutional because Iowa is part of the land that the President did not have the power to buy.
            BUT it served the common defense of the Preamble of the Constitution, to get France off of the Western border.

            While the Constitution is important, there do exist insistences in which the country is better served when it is bent a little.

        • Kevin Pearson

          There was an episode of Star Trek or Doctor Who or something, where some alien power was using some primitive planet to get its way or to try to develop technology to repair its ship to escape or something and in doing so, helped one warring faction on the planet against another and provided it with gun powder or something.
          When the protagonist (Captain Kirk?) arrived, he admonished the alien saying something like, You give them gunpowder now, will they have nuclear weapons in the Middle Ages? The implication is that if a civilization has access to weapons that are more advanced than the civilization than the results could be dsasterous.
          There is a reason that parents keep their razor blades on the top shelf of the medicine cabinet and they keep other sharp objects and matches out of reach of children because the children are not mature enough to know the proper method of using them and how to use them safely.
          And yet you have Ron Paul saying that if one country has nuclear weapons, then there is no reason that any other country should have nuclear weapons, including Iran. Does he give porn to the babies that he delivers?
          Just because they are a sovreign nation does not make them equal to any other country and does not make sense that they should have nuclear weapons just because.
          The United States developed nuclear Weapons because they thought that Hitler was developing nuclear weapons. What I have read is that Hitler gave up because the Germans thought that it was not possible to create nuclear weapons. Once the United States developed nuclear weapons, it because obvious that is IS possible. There is a huge difference between some country experimenting and developing a nuclear weapon on the come and another that KNOWS that it is possible and just wants to keep trying until they make it happen.

    • Anonymous

      your wrong paul party is dying a slow death!

  • Anonymous

    If they don’t nominate Ron Paul then this independent is voting third party. The GOP has a good chance to elect a pro-Constitutionalist conservative who would abolish the fed, the income tax, the IRS, and end all the overseas quagmires. But it appears at the moment that they are voting for the candidate whom they think will be best for ISRAEL. The GOP’s priorities are out of whack, pure and simple. I just hope the price to be paid for this isn’t going to be our Republic and our children’s futures, sacrificed on the altar of the third temple of Israel.

    • It will be if you vote 3rd party. Paul ran 3rd party last time and split the vote, costing the election and giving it to Obama.

      • Josh Rogers

        He didn’t run 3rd party last time. But thanks for just asserting it.

        • He was in there until the very end and his supporters would not support McCain. If that’s not splitting the party, what would you call it?

          • You see the issue here, right? Because you backed McCain, the Paul vote ‘diluted’ the support for your candidate, so in your view he cost the GOP the election … if you look at it from the other side, Paul voters voted for the man and his policies, not the guy with the ‘R’ beside his name. You could say that there were too many uninformed Republican lemmings going with the guy who spent many, many millions getting his name and the ‘R’ out there, effectively spoiling Paul’s bid. Perspective.

            Get behind a guy that will actually transform the GOP and the country (without all the hopey-changy crap). We need action, and we need educated voters to avert the coming disaster of an Obama Act II (be it The Won or a GOP RINO).

          • And if they didn’t see any clear distinction between the RINO and Obama, why should they have done any different. You have a rather myopic view. I would say it was the Republican establishment that cost the election because they selected a poor candidate to run in the first place. I would never say that someone else is wrong because I disagree with them, no sooner than I would change my own belief system for the lesser of two evils. If you can so easily compromise your values, that does not speak well for you.

      • Anonymous

        It’s the GOP’s fault for nominating left-leaning RINOs instead of Constitutionalists. We’re not going to vote for someone ‘just to beat the other guy.’ If they for once would nominate the latter instead of the former, they would unite more people and win easily. But I guess you just can’t fix stupid. The GOP will learn the hard way when Romney falls to Obama like McCain did.

        • There are plenty of other candidates in the race who are conservative. Pick one. You don’t have to support Mitt Romney.

          • Layla…Way to admit you totally put out a falsehood about Ron Paul last time around. Why even post something if it’s a all out lie? Atleast say you screwed up with your info.

          • Josh Rogers

            Which ones are conservative? You said there are plenty, but I’m not aware of any. I guess it depends how you define “conservative”. Personally I think it means someone who respects the constitution (Newt clearly does not – just see his thoughts on judges), limits the size of government (Santorum clearly does not have a record that indicates he would do this), supports civil liberties (Bachman has voted for the NDAA and the Patriot act), believes in free market economics (Romney supports Keynesian stimulus). Just let me know. Thanks.

            • Josh, you don’t believe in limited government?

              • Josh Rogers

                Yes I do….. It’s stated in the comment that you responded to…. I was noting that Rick Santorum does not.

          • Anonymous

            Well Santorum said he’d bomb Iran’s Nuclear facilities if elected president. I don’t think that’s the right track. We don’t need yet another war monger in the White house.

            • Defending ourselves is not warmongering. Iran is close to being able to launch a nuclear weapon at us.

              What’s your plan?

              • How about we get the Hell out of their neighborhood and render them insignificant to our national security by using our own natural resources. Iran would lose any confrontation with the United States within an hour of launch and they know it — besides, others in their region would deal with Iran before they get a crack at us. Support the only Democracy in the Middle East by coming to their aid only when asked (they have stated that they can defend themselves) and support their rights to run their nation and defense of it as they see fit.

                Even Russia pulled back in order to get their shit together. We’re going to be forced to do the same thing very soon, so you better get used to the idea.

      • onceproudamerican

        Where do you get your info Layla? It has no relationship to reality…

        Ron Paul was the second to the last man standing in the Republican race, and the ONLY Conservative left.

      • Paul did NOT run third party in 2008. Nobody split the vote last time.

        Regardless, the lesser of two evils is still evil. Whether it’s Obama or Romney or Santorum, it will be more of the same big government liberalism (or phony neo-conservatism). If it comes down to Obama vs. a phony Republican (like Romney), you better believe I’ll vote third party. It’s Ron Paul vs. the status quo. Liberty or bust!

        • How about we vote out the entire House of Representatives this year? They are ALL up for reelection. That’s how you make change.

          I’m on your side.

          • Anonymous

            Dream on and go back to Intro to gov’t. HoR incumbents are reelected about 90% of the time and in 50 years has not dropped below this.

            This is not a realistic plan for change.

      • What exactly have you been smoking for you to think that Ron Paul ran as a third party candidate in 2008? Seriously, I’ve seen you post this sh*t before and every time someone calls you out about it, you never respond. What the hell are you on?

      • I can’t stand Obama, but I’d rather see him win again than the rest of the Fake Republicans.

        • Jeff, the ENTIRE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES is up for reelection this year. Vote them OUT, ALL OF THEM.

      • Anonymous

        And if we don’t support the ONLY pro-liberty candidate and vote for Dweedle-Dee, there will be no discernible difference between the President from Socialist Party A and the President from Socialist Party B. For goodness sakes, people, make a difference. If you just want the SOS, don’t bother voting at all.

        • Great advice. Throw it all to hell because you didn’t get your way. That’s exactly what you did last time and look what happened.

          • Anonymous

            Please explain to me the substantive difference between Bush I and II and Obama? And you have no idea what I “did last time” … about the only thing you can be sure of is that it wouldn’t have been the same thing you did.

    • jhkmsu

      Ron Paul is not a king either. He has to have a Congress that will abolish all that stuff. He can’t do a thing without Congress.

    • Israel is our ONLY ally in the middle east. That is one very good reason why people cannot support Paul’s foreign policy.

  • Does Iowa even know what Santorums voting record looks like?

    • If they don’t, it’s Santorum’s fault.

  • Sorry, but with results like these, Iowa has rendered itself irrelevant. Ron Paul’s role has only ever been potential spoiler and Iowans are allowing him to do so here. I like Rick Santorum, but he has no national organization and can’t spend 6 months in each and every state like he did in Iowa. So, once again conservatives, in the grand tradition of a circular firing squad, have split the vote just enough to give Romney the win/tie with under 25% of the vote, with half of the vote going to candidates who will not win. Really pathetic! Only Newt and possibly Perry have a chance to beat Romney for the nomination, but the conservatives have just made that prospect even more difficult, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, giving Romney a win with under 25% win he should have lost 75% to 25% instead to Newt or Perry. Iowans, you suck!

    • caphavoc

      I am a Ron Paul voter. I am a Libertarian at Heart and have voted Republican since Reagan out of fear of the Democrats. I am now just as scared or even more scared of the Republicans. For me it is easy. Johnson if Paul is trashed by the GOP. The GOP is going down big time after insulting all the Paul voters. The Tea Party is a huge flop if they are going for Santorum. He is a Big Government Republican.

    • Don’t know why everyone is so upset with Iowa. It is just the first of MANY. And Iowans have never picked a US President.

      • Anonymous

        Iowa has picked the last two US Presidents, Obama and Bush.

        • Oh, in that case, good job Iowans! /sarc

  • alan222

    Ron Paul should run as an independent candidate because the Republican Party totally disrespects him, his views, and his followers. The Republican Party has lost touch with the American people and the only way to get it back is to lose decisevely in the next election because of a Ron Paul indepependent run!

  • Paul Sheets

    I refuse to ignore Ron Paul’s destructuve foreign policy and antisemitism.

    The GOP doesn’t need to marginalize them. They do it themselves.

    • Will you also refuse to ignore Romney’s flip flopping?

      • No way I’d support Romney. I like Gingrich or just about anybody else.

    • Anonymous

      Oh please. As if Obama’s is stellar. No matter who the eventual Republican nominee is, promise me you’ll support that person, so we can get this Marxist puke out of our White House.

    • onceproudamerican

      But I bet you cannot provide a single example of either of your claims.

      Israel says they can protect themselves, so why shouldn’t we let them?

      The CIA’s Bin Laden Chief favors Ron Paul’s foreign policy as do the Founding Father’s:

      Ron Paul has the best conservative voting record of ANY member of congress since 1937:

      If you get your news from TV, radio, or newspapers you will never know what is going on!

    • Anonymous

      It is not antisemitism to think that we should not fight all Israel’s wars with American blood and treasure!

      • Anonymous

        Um, pretty sure what you just said is anti-semitic, actually.

        • Um, no…

          “Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is suspicion of, hatred toward, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage.”

          Allowing them to handle their own affairs is not anti-semetic.

          • Anonymous

            Um, yes. Ron Paul fits that definition.

    • anti-semitism? lol. Wow!

  • The Next President is not in the Race or the W/H
    the Next President will be Donald Trump
    and Trump VP will be Sarha Palin
    anybody with a brain Knows that.
    Barack Hussein Obama wont get 30% of the votes in NOV.
    Believe it or not.

    • Yes he will, because Republicans will not unite. That is the only way Obama wins.

      Watch each candidate that drops out. They will not support any of the others.

      • Disagree. It’s early. After licking their wounds, they’ll support one or more of the remaining candidates.

  • Anonymous

    The Republicans seem to want to keep the tent closed to the youth. Look at those exit poll demographics. Mitt seems to be starting to understand that he needs to appeal to the Paul group, not dismiss.

  • first bright thing she said,,as you can see the posters ghere are too dumb to listen

    • K-Bob

      Typos and accusations of stupid just seem to go together.

  • Anonymous

    screw the GOP. they revealed their true selves and i will never vote for the lesser of two evils again

  • Anonymous

    Too late. GOP’s already shot itself in the foot, again. All of their heroes – Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin – especially Levin – talk a real big constitutional game. But when it comes to supporting an actual constitutionalist, they’ll pass, and use attacks that they’d glibly dismiss if liberals used them. And they know it.
    For good reason, the legendary columnist Sam Francis referred to the GOP as ‘the Stupid Party’.

    • Anonymous

      I am sick of Paul being called a constitutionalist. His views on the executive branch show very little knowledge…I wonder if he ever read the federalist papers. He is the isolationist which kept FDR in the White House for four years. He would be the weakest president ever.

      His point that you could balance the books on the back of the military shows he can’t do math…Paul does not have any plan to reform entitlements, which is to say, the bankruptcy continues.


      So I ask all the constitutionalists out there hell bent on saving the country, to have an open mind. Paul is not going to win the primary. His “Name’s” association with various racists and certifiable nut jobs will not win a general election let alone a primary. He is likely going to finish third tonight…couldn’t be happier about that! Although its going to be close.

      • Josh Rogers

        Please enlighten me on the intended powers of the executive branch.

        Second, please enlighten me on how he doesn’t understand math? He has a budget that you can actually go read. It’s fairly obvious that you are just ranting so please edit your statement so that you can back up what you’ve asserted.

        • Anonymous

          Yes I can, Paul believes that the President needs congressional approval to take foreign action against a foreign aggressor…this is in not correct. The Constitution provides that Congress “Declares” war. In fact if Paul read Madison’s notes he would discover that this was a change from “Make War”, the reason for this change was the framers understood that the executive branch needs the ability to maneuver, a long protracted war would require congressional approval.

          Paul maintains our wars in the middle east are not constitutional…But that’s WRONG Congress has authorized this, the 1st circuit confirmed this. And if you doubt the court, the fact that Congress has funded our operations overseas is by proxy the check necessary. Those are the facts!

      • He most certainly does have a plan to cut entitlements. You can’t cut $1T without touching entitlements. You think that being associated with “nut jobs” makes you toxic in the political realm? Obama is friends with a guy that literally bombed the Pentagon, and Paul is the extremist?

        Sean Hannity calls Paul a threat to Israel. Doesn’t Hannity have the Rev. Al Sharpton on his program, entitled “Hannity” (i.e. bearing his name) consistently? How many Jews is Sharpton responsible for killing? (BTW, it’s not a rhetorical question; the answer is: more than Ron Paul, less than Arafat).

        After what the “right” has done to Paul, I’m voting for Obama if Paul doesn’t win the nomination. Screw you all.

        • didn’t you vote for Obama last time?

    • Well, some of the comments I am reading here certainly justify that.

    • They’re not passing. they are annoyed, like others, at the unbelievable response coming from the Paul supporters: “My way or the highway.”

      I think everybody is tired of the extremism. We are looking for a candidate we can all unite behind. And yet look at the insults flying here.

      Good reason for Obama supporters to be pushing, supporting Paul.

  • Alan, if Obama is reelected and the socialists, communists and marxists all get a foothold in government, that will be our last election.

    Believe it.

    • Josh Rogers

      So if Obama is reelected we will face a dictatorship and no longer have elections? Maybe a bit far fetched???

      • Not in the least. Who is going to stop him? Congress?

        • Anonymous

          View like this show that the Repoblican Party has gone completely nuts.
          Don’t worry – if elected for a second term Obama will invade Iran and kill all muslims in the worls do things will be OK.

          • I don’t like Obama and I don’t believe that. What I see that I don’t like is rapid Paul supporters who won’t accept anybody but Paul. This happened when McCain ran and it split the party, guaranteeing Obama the Presidency.

            I don’t want to see that happen again.

            • Josh Rogers

              Would there have honestly been much difference between a McCain and an Obama presidency? Other than Obamacare, I really can’t think of much.

              • Don’t know, Josh. But you are forgetting that Sarah Palin was a part of that team. Paul’s people wouldn’t support her. If Paul’s people won’t support anybody but Paul, what good are they to everybody else? I don’t mean that in a negative way. Think about it. In this election we have to have a plan A and a plan B and that should apply to Paul supporters as well. We have one common goal and that is to remove Obama from office.

                Let’s start there. NOBODY is against Paul except the DC establishment. He makes good sense. It is his foreign policy that becomes just as extreme the other direction.

            • Anonymous

              Believe me, I wish it wasn’t so easy. I’m not voting for those clowns.

      • The governor of NC already floated a trial balloon. Fo’ realz.

    • with the way that Obama and the dems are ignoring the economy and continuing to start brush fires in the path of the Congress, it is apparent that the ultimate goal is to push us into a depression. The economy has tried to turn on its own, but has been pushed back by more and more government intervention. Should a depression arise, Obama will have no qualms about declaring a national emergency and using executive powers to stop the election all together. If that should happen, we will have seen the last of a free republic.

      • Couldn’t agree with you more.

    • Layla, Are you saying the rest of the GOP field is not Socialist, communist and Marxists ?, are you for real ?, they are just like Obama.

      • that is just foolish

      • I don’t think so. But my opinion isn’t important here, Jeff. I have a candidate I like, but plan B is to support whomever the nominee is to take this country back. You need to have a plan B as well. Picking up stakes and refusing to vote is not a viable solution.

  • Rick 16,916
    Romney 15,688
    Ron 14,459

    I’m starting to sense a bit of voter fraud here.

    • If you looked at this logically and were paying attention, a 3 way tie was expected.

      • Yes, because the Iowa GOP worked shady deals. Watch this video.

  • they are about that stupid,,the globalists cant stand the thought

  • Anonymous

    screw the GOP. they have revealed themselves as the NWO loving crooks that they are. i will never vote for the lesser of two evils again.


  • Ron Paul lost. Good. Rick Santorum won. Perfect. If he becomes a nominee and picks Cane as VP, Obamer won’t have enough illegals to get reelected.

    • Josh Rogers

      It’s Cain. Oh and look at Santorum’s record – if you want four more years of Obama/Bush he’s your guy. Personally I’d rather not see how high the debt can get

      • Don’t forget about his desire to attack Iran. If you think the economy is bad now, wait until the Strait of Hormuz is shut down. Think tripling gas prices will make a difference? How would you like to pay more for every single thing you buy?

        Santorum is dangerous. He’s a chicken hawk who never served his country,but rattles his sword like he’s George S. Patton.

    • Paul didn’t lose. They had a 3 way tie.

    • Cain said he’d happily serve as Secretary of Defense on Piers Morgan the other night. Seriously! He didn’t know his own position on Libya, but he wants to be SecDef. After what the GOP did to Paul, if he doesn’t win the nomination, I’ll vote for Obama and encourage others to do the same. That should make up for a couple of truck-loads of illegals.

  • If the GOP expects us to settle for their socialist warmongers they are sadly mistaken. We have principles. They do not.

  • mike payton

    Sadly the mainstream GOP has already alienated every candidate not named Romney, as well as those supporters. Paul is 1000% correct on fiscal issues. He’s a crank and a racist, so he has no chance of winning the nomination. Put him in a cabinet post or in charge of the Federal Reserve and watch liberals that support Paul decry him as worse than Bush. 😉

  • Anonymous

    Only Paul can decide the direction the majority of his supporters will go. Let’s see if he is the “honorable” man his people constantly remind us he is.

    • Josh Rogers

      So you define honorable as endorsing someone who differs widely from your views on very key issues? I think most would actually term that to be dishonorable and dishonest – but you’re the evangelical right so you tell me what’s wrong and right since I can’t be trusted to make my own choices

    • onceproudamerican

      You are kidding right? It’s not Ron Paul I support, it’s strict obedience to the Constitution, and the rule of law. If we obey the Constitution 80% the Federal Government disappears!!

  • Anonymous

    The Paulies in my area have been suggesting that Dems and others switch to the GOP temporarily solely to vote for Ron Paul to get him nominated, then switch back and vote for Obe-bama next fall! They cited an article recommending in the the HuffPo. How many conservatives do you know that read the HuffPo? They plan to use him as spoiler. It’s their strategy!

  • He did not. Ron Paul supporters don’t vote for mainstream republicans.

  • Anonymous

    screw the GOP. you will all get your NWO that you continue to vote for and i will never vote for the lesser of two evils again.


  • If the GOP were serious about beating BO in November, it would put all its backing with Ron Paul. He is the only one who can beat BO and if he loses the nomination, it is curtains for the GOP nominee.

    • Mark, the GOP are not going to support a candidate who’s foreign policy is just as bad, just as extreme as Obama’s.

      • At least, Paul’s foreign policy doesn’t kill people unless it has to.

  • Barbara Espinosa

    Romney couldn’t beat McCain–McCain couldn’t beat Obama Why think Romney can beat Obama
    Only three winners of Iowa Caucus have gone to be President. Jimmy Carter, GW Bush and Obama…

  • Ron Paul is a Libertarian, not a conservative. Conservatives and Libertarians agree that the size and scope of government must be cut, but they disagree on three things. Conservatives believe that the government must be cut in an orderly fashion to allow the the economy to adjust, legalizing drugs goes too far, and America’s defense requires some military forces to be deployed outside of US borders. Conservatives and Libertarians could do much to accomplish common goals, but I fear that the Libertarians would rather see Obama reelected than team up with conservatives to get much of what they want accomplished. Personal reverence for Ron Paul, and an “all or nothing” attitude could very well get Libertarians nothing while it gets Obama reelected. It is better to compromise than to get nothing at all!

    • Josh Rogers

      If you believe that there is much difference between establishment Republicans and Democrats you’re fooling yourself. Take an honest look at the major domestic and foreign policies of GW and Obama – very very similar.

      • Anonymous

        Bush 43 and Obama are clones when it comes to the two things that destroyed the United States: (a) our failure to repel the invasion by Mexico (which lowers wages for service jobs and bankrupts our social programs); and (b) “free trade” with low-wage countries (which has exported more than 50% of our manufacturing jobs).

        • Josh Rogers

          I would disagree with both of those points – If you truly believe in free markets you would as well

          • Free trade still needs a fair playing field to work. That’s why tariffs are used. If we placed tariffs on all goods imported from countries with underpaid labor forces, it would stimulate growth of the manufacturing sector here.

            • Josh Rogers

              No – it would cause consumers to pay more for goods while certain politically connected manufacturers are allowed to stagnate and not required to innovate. The statists have been trying what you are suggesting for years and it hasn’t worked.

        • It’s not just service jobs. During the construction boom, I witnessed contractors hiring illegal aliens to do construction. Those were good-paying jobs that at one time went to Americans.

          When I moved here, the stereotype was that all the drywallers were bikers. Harley riding bearded bikers. Cut to a few years later, and the drywallers are all illegal Mexicans who are working for a fraction of what the bikers would. The illegal Mexicans lived 10 or more to a house so their living expenses were cheap.

    • Anonymous

      I am a Libertarian at Heart who has voted Republican since Reagan. After the insults for being for Paul I will just vote for Gary Johnson. The GOP does not need my help to nose dive in to oblivion.

      • YODA777

        I am with you cap, except that I have always been a Republican. Since I have been called a nonpatriot and not a decent American, I will not be voting for the Republican nominee if it is not Ron Paul. I no longer watch Fox News and will get my news off of the internet going forward. The way that Ron Paul has been treated by the establishment has left a bad taste in my mouth. I will never vote for a demorat, ever; however, the more I look at it the more I do not see either the demorats or the Republicans talking about balancing the budget. All I see is cutting the growth of spending, not actual cuts. Gary Johnson will make the required cuts and will get my vote.

        • YODA777

          UPdate: there is one thing that would allow me to vote Republican this time around: Make Rand Paul the VP candidate, otherwise, you are not getting my vote.

    • But why compromise when Obama vs any Repub but Paul means, More War, More bailouts, more debt, and a declining economy. You get the same policies regardless of what party gets into the White House, just the rhetoric changes.

      • Joey, do you realize that if we can get EVERY AMERICAN out to vote in 2012, we can vote the ENTIRE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OUT in one election?

        That’s how you make change, you vote them OUT.

    • Anonymous

      Conservatives and libertarians have been compromising for years. All it’s gotten America is more neoconservative and progressive big government warfare-welfare state programs while continuing our descent into oblivion.

      Whether the Obamessiah gets reelected, or neoconservative sock puppet like “Flip-flop” Romney or “Bomb-bomb Iran” Gingrich gets elected, the country is screwed. There’s basically no difference beside emphasizing either the welfare (Democrats) or warfare (Republican) sides. The two parties have become just the two wings of a new national bird…the vulture fighting over our carcass.

    • onceproudamerican

      Then why does he have the most conservative voting record of ANYONE in congress since 1937?:

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul cannot beat Obama and will not be the Republican candidate.
    If he tries a third party run then he’s nothing more than a back stabbing con man.

    • Anonymous

      I will not vote for Romney, period.

      Ron Paul was my last choice. If he doesn’t run, i simply will not vote.

      I would rather have a democrat in office, destroying the nation in their name, than a rino doing exactly the same thing in *my* name.

      I’m through compromising my conservative principles just so we can have a candidate that the left likes.

      Screw that. I’m done.

    • Anonymous

      I heard that same kind of garbage in 2008, when the South Carolina GOP kept Ron Paul out of the South Carolina debate, Fox News kept Ron Paul out of the New Hampshire debate, Nevada and Washington shut down their votes to keep Ron Paul from placing second and the McCain GOP convention refused to offer Ron Paul a speaking slot or even to count his votes. Ron Paul owes the GOP NOTHING.

      Mitt Romney cannot beat Obama, despite what the lying media says. By the way, CNN’s Entrance Poll showed Ron Paul winning with 24% of the vote to Romney’s 23% and Rick Santorum’s 18%. This sounds suspiciously like the exit polls in 2004 showing John Kerry winning, but “irregularities” in big Democratic counties in Ohio gave the election to George W. Bush.

  • Oh stop it. Destructive foreign policy is dropping bombs on people. Ron Paul wants to put an end to that. As far as antisemitism, not giving Israel money (that we have to barrow under our current Federal Reserve System) is not antisemitism. Or to put it in other terms, just cause I won’t give you five bucks doesn’t mean I don’t like you.

  • Anonymous

    Hey they are Dems Or Liberatarians who Republican’s Stupidly let vote in their primary elections.All are Nieve and lack a rational thought process…Cumbia ,Love ,Peace and Lets everyone get along !! Hopfully when the drugs wear off or they loose the 13 year old mentality they will become Productive Citizens…But I doubt it..So for Now Wipe them off your boots the stench of them is killing me!

    • Anonymous

      We need a second party.

    • Anonymous

      Your mis-spellings of the words, “naive”, “kumbaya”, “lose”, and “stench”, tell us a lot about your own level of education and/or intellect. It’s no surprise that you do not support Doctor Paul.

    • Anonymous

      Libertarians, naive, Kumbaya, let’s, Hopefully, lose, stench. Also, lose the caps on stupidly, naive, love, peace, productive, citizens, now and wipe.

      You’re welcome.

      Not usually an A-Hole spell-checker, but when you use such vitriol it must be done. 😉

  • SANTORUM is looking pretty impressive. At this point, I support anyone but OBAMA.

    • Josh Rogers

      We should have a reality show where Santorum and Obama compete to see who can raise the debt more and start more wars. Maybe give them and month and then tally and choose the president? I honestly don’t know who would win, but at least gays wouldn’t get married, since that is clearly the most important consideration.

      • Anonymous

        No, a Ron Paul nomination means I’ll either sit out or vote Obama, holding my nose. Paul’s a hateful freak.

        • Anonymous

          voting for obama gives you away as the troll you are, not that the name leaves any doubt. …

          A conservative might sit out, but they would never vote to do harm.

          • Anonymous

            Obama would do less harm than Paul.

        • Josh Rogers

          Unclear as to what your basis is for that statement, but I’ve found it to be a very minorly held position – Ron Paul polls quite well vs. Obama in a general election.

        • You are the most hateful person I’ve seen here. How many babies have you delivered for free?

          • Anonymous

            None. Made a couple, tho. But ended up costing me plenty :/ Besides, you a political ally of the neo-nazis, 911 truthers, jihadis and jewish conspiracy theorists. So, take a look at yourself.

    • onceproudamerican

      You mean Rick -I made the most corrupt list in 2006- Santorum looks impressive? Impressivly Neo-con-ish!

  • Please…For your Party (which I am apart of)…SHUT UP AND GO AWAY!

    • I don’t think he is in the same party with you.

  • there is zero percent that us ron paul supporters will support the gop nominee other than paul as well!!!

    • then you hand it to Obama-grow up- you don’t always get what you want in life and you have to start somewhere…

      • Josh Rogers

        Cheryl – we’ve seen how voting for the establishment republican works out. No thanks, it’s no different than an Obama. Good for them that they have you fooled though.

        • It’s a game-I don’t like it but that IS the way politics works-America didn’t get to where she is overnight and she won’t get out of it with one election but you HAVE to begin somewhere…can’t you find something positive about all of them to choose whomever OVER Obama?

          • Josh Rogers

            Not really – please help me if you can.

            • That is just foolish if you equate those running in the primary as equal to all that Obama represents-are you really truly that extreme in your thinking?

        • You haven’t had an establishment GOP President since Nixon, Josh. Could it have something to do with people refusing to vote if their candidate does not win the nomination? Could that be why we are going in circles and not uniting, not accomplishing anything?

          Any candidate who would allow his supporters to talk that way is not my candidate. sorry. His is as much of a divider as Obama. I’m looking for a stateman.

      • baba

        Sorry, I just can’t support any of these other candidates because they are so hungry for war. Fiscally, they couldn’t be any worse than Obama, but they likely wouldn’t be any better. If Dr Paul doesn’t get the nomination, Obama wins.

        • So you’ll opt out for “destroy what’s left of the country?”

          • Anonymous

            You keep acting like there is an option. Tell us which of the other candidates has lifted a finger for individual liberty and allegiance to the Constitution. That is what Paul supporters are demanding, and it is a straw man argument to insist it is only “my way or the highway.” It is fidelity to the social contract of the founders’ Constitution, or all bets are off. A puppet of New World Order oligarchy – party or no party – is unacceptable, as it is one more step toward tyranny.

          • If I “opt out” it is because the candidate does not speak for me. It is a country that I spent 23 years of my life defending in the military and quite frankly, I have earned the right to vote or not vote for whomever I so desire and for whatever reasons. If the GOP selects a RINO candidate and they lose, blame the GOP. It is interesting that when J.F.K. was president, the Democrats of the time were more conservative than the GOP of today.

      • Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Will I vote for Rick “I hate gay people and want to bomb Iran” Santorum or Mitt “I change my positions when the wind blows” Romney? Nope. Neither of them is an improvement over Obama.

        • There is NO PERFECT POLITICIAN-you are not going to agree with everything about anyone-but I am certain you can list many things about O that you don’t agree with-he needs to go! And the politicians running in the Republican field are NOT EVIL-this is an extreme view and incorrect and it is misleading you.

        • Mike, you are not a Republican. Did you know that? Someone is evil because they don’t believe in gay marriage? Isn’t that a little hypocritical?

      • We’ve never gotten anything close to what we want. We always settle for a progressive elitist masquerading as a conservative.

        • Maybe…but I don’t want another 4 years with Obama-he offers NO HOPE and that to me is worse than anything said about any of the candidates that are running in the Republican party!

          • I question the wisdom of supporting anyone but the incumbent. IIRC, the conservatives’ opinion of Richard Nixon on the eve of the 1968 election was, “Well, he’s not a conservative, but he’s a step in the right direction.” That didn’t work out too well.

            My fear is that all of these candidates except Ron Paul (and maybe Huntsman) like the idea of a big government, so long as they’re heading it up. Gingrich has definitely made statements that suggest he thinks that and the way that Romney ran MA makes me think that he’d do the same to the country. That’s all fine and dandy for awhile (maybe), but what happens to the country if we get another far lefty like when the big government elitist Republican leaves after having further strengthened the powers of the presidency?

  • Anonymous

    Romney remains a member of the Mormon cult. It is not the same as Christianity. It is a cult that uses enough Christian vocabulary to confuse people.

    As a member of this cult, he is not qualified to be president of the United States. Full stop.

    • I agree. People like to say that a candidate’s religion should have no bearing, but what if a Scientologist ran? The “Galactic Overlord Xenu blew up his enemies in volcanoes with hydrogen bombs and their spirits possessed the cavemen and gave us all our bad feelings” story is no wackier than the “Jesus came to America, Joseph Smith found golden plates that only he could read with a magic stone in a hat and black people are cursed by God” story.

      Mormonism is pretty nutty. Any religion that teaches your ultimate reward as a man is to be a god on your own planet with a multitude of celestial wives is way outside the mainstream.

      • Our Presidents don’t run the country according to their faith-they may be encouraged by their faith in one way or another but though I totatlly disagree with Mormonism I disagree much more as to the direction Obama is taking America!

  • Mark Levin should be boycotted by all Ron Paul supporters. He’s a shrill, nasty, little shrimp of a man.

  • well said mike, maybe they should stop acting like Obama lite

  • When Sarah Palin speaks, people listen…

    Michele Bachmann at 6%… and with her campaign coffers too empty… Palin is speaking honestly and without animus, with political insight and reality.

    This is not Bachman’s time.

    Our Republic, NOT just the Republican Party, needs Bachmann in the House of Representatives.


  • Newt Gingrich is not a Republican, he is a socialist/fascist. Too many Republicans (sic) have ZERO understanding of politics and think that simply placing an “R” by ones name makes them a Republican. By that definition, if Obama placed an “R” by his name these same Republicans (sic) would support him. I’m thinking that the best thing that can happen to America is the death of the GOP and its replacement with a political party that supports republicanism. The GOP needs to understand that the only person who can defeat BO is Ron Paul. A vote for anyone else is a vote for Obama.

    Gingrich’s Contract ON America was horrible. It was unconstitutional and pure evil. Everyone who supported it was wicked.

    • Anonymous

      The difference between Paulbots and humans is you people are hate-filled insaniacs.
      Now slither away!

    • Mark, I know that you are not a Republican.

  • None Ofyurbizness

    This is complete fear mongering. On the contrary, you and people like you emasculate the rise of the Nazi party with all the wars.
    You get to use Neville, then you get to be countered with Hitler, fear farmer.

    “The Sky Is Falling!”

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul and his hordes of racist teabggers has been bringing shame, disgrace and divisionto the great Republican Party, culminating in the loss of the Senate during 2010 election.

    The sooner these bunch of extremists are purged from the party, the better it will be for everybody.

    • More like you’re trying to purge the constitution and free market from not only your party but from the country. Enjoy your tyranny you trotskyite!

      • Josh Rogers

        Right on. These guys seem to have no clue that they have become and support exactly what they profess to hate: big government statists who don’t believe in the free market

    • You mean the better it will be for everybody so the Republicans can complete their transition into full blown Democrats? If us “extremist” people who believe in the constitution are gone, then there is no separation of the parties.

    • maybe you can explain why the active duty military donate more to Ron Paul than all of the other candidates COMBINED?

      How many years did you serve with us “extremists”?

    • onceproudamerican

      and the Founding Father’s were not considered ‘extremists’ & ‘terrorists’ by the Crown?

  • Right on Sarah! Ron Paul’s message is resonating with voters. Americans want to be DONE with politics as usual. Romney and Santorum are both left of center. Ron Paul is the far right candidate that the people want. We want radical change back to the Constitution that this country has gotten so far away from.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul is an antismite because he does not want to fight all Israel’s wars with American blood and treasure, and does not want to leave our foreign policy to the Israely lobby!

    • Anonymous

      Jewish conspiracy stuff is anti-semitic, so yeah. Even though I assume you were being sarcastic.

      • Anonymous

        Is it antisemitic to ask how many Jews are in congress compared to the general population and how much the israel lobby influences US foreign policy. These are not conspiracy theories – just facts. Fact is that there are many voices in US who are eager to attack any country that the Israely lobby considers a threat to Israel.

        • Anonymous

          Yes, it is anti-semitic to assert that Jews control Congress, have dual loyalties, and are using the U.S. for nefarious goals. very much so.

  • Anonymous

    I wouldn’t go so far as wanting to vote for Ron Paul as a third party candidate but as a Libertarian, nobody likes being called a “Kook” by the Right Wing for believing in peace, liberty, the Constitution and the individual pursuit of happiness. It makes one think that the GOP is out of step with the American public in regards to our never ending wars and unbelievable spending on social programs which, I might add, the GOP has gone along with in the not so distant past, clapping along while GW Bush expanded Medicare and bailed out the banks.

    Palin makes a point. If Ron Paul should be driven by the all day every day media assault to choose a third party run, many will support him and he should at least have a seat at the table when it comes to planning the future of America.

    • He gets called a kook when he gets to foreign policy. He’s fine up to that point. And he is not the only candidate who believes in peace. Is the GOP out of touch? Completely.

      Paul has already earned his seat at the table just by being there.

      • And yet the most hawkish of the GOP candidates, Rick “frothy” Santorum didn’t serve his country. Probably a good thing, because that guy has the look of a butter bar who would be fragged by his own men.

      • Anonymous

        History will tell just how kooky non-intervention and free trade is. It’s difficult to destroy a trading partner. It’s also hard to make a case for Isolationism if you’re trading with a country.

        Ron Paul is not anti-war, he’s against war for the wrong reasons. He’s against the War Power’s act which grants the US President the power to order troops into any situation he deems fit, bypassing the Constitutional mandate that only Congress can declare war. This is the most abused statute in modern times.

        There is a difference bewteen defense and militarism. We have become an imperial militaristic state and we’re paying the penalty.

        We were attacked in WWII and we were attacked on 9/11. What other wars were necessary, accomplished anything or were useful to us in the long run?

  • Atta girl, Sarah. 🙂

  • It blows my mind the irrational thinking some of the commenters here are participating in. If voting for Ron Paul causes America to lose its free elections, then the problem with America was not the candidates or the elections in the first place.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul looks and sounds like a pedophile.

    • Your name says it all.

      • Anonymous

        Glad you can read. That’s something you should be proud of.

    • I think you misspelled Rick Santorum.

  • Anonymous

    Among caucus attendees for Paul only 2% said they were for him because he could beat Obama. That should tell you who has stuffed the ballot box. Paul is Operation Chaos meant by Democrats to make the Tea Party look like the idiot leftists kooks who support him. This evil old fool with a bunch of self centered Occupy followers is a total embarrassment – enough to humiliate his son I would think.

    • Josh Rogers

      I think that voting for someone based on who they can beat rather than what they believe in is quite pathetic actually. But I guess there’s not much point in mentioning that since you are calling someone an “evil old fool”

  • Sarah, how can we avoid another President even more liberal than G W Bush in Mitt Romney? How would a Romney administration ever correct an out of control federal leviathan running amok and indenturing future generations of young Americans into debt servitude for a 100 years?

  • Anonymous

    It’s too late they already have. They’ll probably love another 4 years of Obama.

  • Oh well, Ron Paul had a good run. His supporters will sit out the election or vote Johnson. Either way, looks like Obama 2, Obamacare, QE3, NDAA, SOPA and Operation Enduring Iranian/Syrian/Pakistani/Somali/Yemeni Freedom is a go.

    • And none of this would continue under Romney/Gingrich/Perry, et. al? Please, quit kidding yourself.

      • Josh Rogers

        I think that’s what he’s saying chief…

  • Anonymous

    If this is actually what she meant (headline) she is gone, dead politically. It is a stupid thing to say, the paulbots are lunatics just like Paul.

  • Anonymous

    The election is now over. Ob*ma wins in a landslide.
    The Tea Party, Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura and Donald Trump, plus others, will create an entirely new political party in 2013. The RINOs will be all that is left of the dying Republicans.

  • Anonymous

    I will not vote for Romney, period.

    Ron Paul was my last choice. If he doesn’t run, i simply will not vote.

    I would rather have a democrat in office, destroying the nation in their name, than a rino doing exactly the same thing in *my* name.

    I’m through compromising my conservative principles just so we can have a candidate that the left likes.

    Screw that. I’m done.

    • Anonymous

      Well said…my sentiments exactly. My nose still hurts 3 years after holding it so tight in order to vote for neocon John “Bomb-bomb Iran” McCain that I don’t think I can hold it again in order to vote for the final candidate the neocon controlled GOP nominates. The only thing that made 2008 palatable was Palin in the second spot — I was hoping “Bomb-Bomb” McCain would win and then drop dead from his lack of a functioning brain, leaving Palin as President.

  • Anonymous

    Palin is wrong. Embracing the antisemitic, racist, conspiracy deluded 9/11 truther Ron Paul and his suicidal foreign and national defense policies will enhance Barack Obama’s chance of re-election

  • The Tundra Tootsie should go back to riding her snow machines, yah hey der

    • Why because a Ghetto Pimp says so. North American Pavement Ape hates Sarah, will wonders never cease. Come up with something like, her policies would be dangerous for American interests; then explain why. Tundra Tootsie!!!

      • You Tex are all hat and no cattle. I’ve read enough and watched enough of Ron Paul and his anti Israel garbage to last a lifetime. My guess is that he is a major embarrassment to his son, Rand. You notice you never see the two together. He is also a fraud when it comes to earmarks. And of course there is his associatioin with the 9-11 truthers as if sucking up to Iran is not bad enough. Palin should know better.

  • Barrett B

    What people don’t realize is it’s not just a race against Obama. The country will be in just as bad shape if we elect another corporate stooge like Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich. It’ll be more of the same – unnecessary war, corporate corruption and greed, bank bailouts, loss of personal freedoms, continued degradation of the environment, and corruption. Ron Paul is the only candidate with the balls to run on a platform based on what the country needs to succeed, not just to get elected.
    It’s Ron Paul or nobody. Have people forgotten that WE decide who gets elected?
    So vote with what you know is right. Vote for Ron Paul.

  • Dr. Paul basically shot himself in the foot (or worse) by trying to insist that there was something wrong with killing the terrorist who had effectively renounced his US citizenship and was attacking us. This is a real shame, as his positions on domestic issues are quite good. Let’s hope he influences the other candidates to be bolder with their plans for cutting government, but does nothing to split the vote and help Obama win and continue his efforts to destroy the USA.

    The US government is in a position very much like a person or couple with a job, but massive debt which far exceeds their assets, and their ability to pay. We’ve compromised with the leftists since FDR, giving their socialsim and big government way to much time to show that it is good or bad. It is time to stop the experiment and the rush to bankruptcy by cutting out the Departments of Labor, Energy (atomic to Defense), Education, Agriculture, Housing & Urban Development, Health and Human Services, and Environmental Protection. All either do nothing useful, or have tried and failed to perform functions best left to state or local government, or non-government organizations and individuals. We should also end all support of the UN, as none of what we have spent there has benefited us. Finally, we should bring our forces home from Korea, Germany, and Japan, as those nations would be quite capable of defending themselves after a brief (one or two years) transition period.

    • Josh Rogers

      Yep he did all that stuff. That’s what they told me too. We could save a lot of time by stopping with all these expensive trials and just asking the cops who’s guilty. Your mindset is frightening and it’s saddening to me that you don’t realize it.

      • I agree, Josh. Yet, we’re supposed to be the “bots”? Ron Paul supporters are the only ones not willing to roll over and be good little “sheeple”… regardless of the party.

        • Josh Rogers

          But even if things don’t work out in this election, we should have a lot of respect for what Dr. Paul and others have done. We’ve started a movement, and it’s only going to grow. Even just a few years ago, his views were not even openly considered by most. We’ve all been programmed to believe that we have to have statism, control and war. I’ve had my eyes opened, so many others have and will in the future. Liberty will win.

    • Anonymous

      al-Awlaki’s 16 year old US born son was killed the following day by a drone. It’s not about HIM specifically, it’s about all of us. It starts like that. Obama just signed NDAA, which means YOU could be considered a terrorist and detained without trial for however long the government feels like.

      • Josh Rogers

        Hey no worries – if you didn’t do anything wrong you don’t have anything to be worried about right? You people are such fools if this doesn’t alarm you. And the worst part is that now either party will do these things if they are concealed behind “defense”

    • “Obama signed the NDAA and its indefinite detention provisions into law (a law which Paul vehemently opposed); the ACLU statement — explaining that “President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law” and ‘Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today'”.

  • Anonymous

    Oh it is a bigger problem. No one is paying attention to the end of the Constitution or the country. Obama demanded he have the right to jail American citizens indefinitely for any reason (the wording he insisted on) in the defense bill signed New Years Eve. That is totalitarian rule with a complicit Congress. But all the Paulbot leftists who don’t give a hoot about beating Obama are saying the country should go down the tubes if we don’t elect Paul ? Excuse me – you are Occupy anarchist anti-America.

  • Anonymous

    I agree. Ron Paul is attracting people to politics who do not, historically speaking, vote.

    Don’t ignore that. Embrace it.

  • Anonymous

    These are the facts: according to Rasmussen polling, Ron Paul has only 13% GOP support, but has 26% Dem support. These same Dems who registered as Republican to vote for Ron Paul today in Iowa are going to turn around and vote for Obama in the general election come November. As Limbaugh stated, the Dems are engaging in their own version of “Operation Chaos”. Simply put, Paul’s top-tier placement is in fact, a charade…something the media will not reveal as they would love nothing better than having a cranky, paranoid conspiracy theorist run against their wunder-boy in the general election.

    And as an aside, Paul’s deliberate avoidance to definitively state that he will NOT run Third Party speaks volumes about his self-serving ego and character. He should have stated long ago that he will not run Third Party in order to assuage any GOP electorate fear but instead, he’s feeding on it by allowing continued, worried speculation among the members of his own party to run rampant – knowing full well that the GOP electorate does not want him to run TP as it will guarantee Obama’s second term. The man is a real ass-hat, to put it mildly.

    • Josh Rogers

      Yeah – he owes it to the republicans to support someone who is in no way representative of his viewpoints or that of his supporters? Sounds like you are the establishment ass hat to me

      • Anonymous

        Accidentally “liked” when I meant reply, Rogers. No doubt, you’re referring to the support Ron Paul extended to that vicious, anti-American, racist Cynthia McKinney, whom he openly supported while remaining silent on McCain’s nomination during the 2008 election. Ron Paul is no conservative – he’s the GOP’s version of Dennis Kucinich, who happens to be a 9/11 Truther and another person Paul vigorously defends – which perfectly explains why Paul has openly supported Kucinich’s calls for an investigation into what “actually” occurred on 9/11.

        • K-Bob

          If you hit the “like” button again, it removes your prior click.

        • Josh Rogers

          He never supported McKinney – she merely was a signatory (not sure if there was signing or just agreement but you get the idea) to a 4 point agreement. I believe he endorsed Chuck Baldwin for president rather than McCain – something I fully agree and agreed with. Here’s a link to the agreement text:

        • Josh Rogers

          Please let me know if you disagree with any of the 4 points.

    • Well if Limbaugh says it it must be gospel. He’s an entertainer! He will say whatever he’s scripted to say.

  • A Kazen

    Have you watched the debates? The rest of the field is practically competing for who can be the first to bomb iran and who can torture the most muslims…yup, they sure want to end the war.

    • Anonymous

      Oh, come on.

      • Josh Rogers

        Thors – you should probably lay out your issue. So far you really just seem like a troll. What is it you don’t like?

        • Anonymous

          I am a troll. I’m ThorsTheTroll. But it don’t mean I ain’t got nuthin’ to say. Try actually reading the comments.

          • Josh Rogers

            I am. You just say things like he’s evil or scary… Not really very descriptive and smells troll-esque. You don’t like the foreign policy I’m guessing?

            • Anonymous

              Show me where I said he’s evil or scary. Go on, liar.

              • Josh Rogers

                Well I guess just paraphrasing – but here’s an example

                No, a Ron Paul nomination means I’ll either sit out or vote Obama, holding my nose. Paul’s a hateful freak.

                • Anonymous

                  You saying he’s not? Buncha evidence says he is. It’s got his name on it.

                • Josh Rogers

                  Those newsletters? It came up quite a while ago – and in 08 – and has been addressed multiple times. I admit it’s not the most satisfying answer but nothing else in his voting record or public life indicates that those few statements are representative of his beliefs, so I’m willing to accept that answer. Likely similar to how you’ve treated some of the extremists in Obama’s past.

                • Anonymous

                  So you admit the answers are not satisfying? Why won’t he reveal who wrote, if in fact he didn’t? Why does he surround himself with racists and give them authority to control his message? Will he return all the money he made off those racist rants? Etc.

                • Josh Rogers

                  They are a few lines within thousands and thousands – so by no means “surrounded with racists”. My understanding is that Lew Rockwell didn’t write them, but someone close to him, who is deceased did. See – not totally satisfying. But as I’ve said, based on the available dataset, I’m willing to believe Dr. Paul’s position on this. Letting this somewhat minor issue result in you supporting another statist who will continue us on our road to no privacy, war and killing, and debt is a tragedy in my mind.

                  Regarding your second point, he’s noted a few times that he sees no reason to return money to people like that as he would rather use their money for his purposes than return it to them and allow them to use it for their evil purposes. Seems reasonable to me. ALso, very difficult to know who every single person who donates to you is and to police their views.

                • baba

                  Even more evidence says he isn’t.

                • Anonymous

                  Like the fact he delivered black babies? Sorry, that’s not proof. He would’ve lost his license if he didn’t

    • baba

      You nailed it. Anyone but RP is a vote for more war.

      • Anonymous

        If Ron Paul is elected, it will mean a nuclear arms race in the middle east. Think it doesn’t affect us?

        • As opposed to what?

          “[Obama] has created what The Washington Post just dubbed “a vast drone/killing operation,” all behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy and without a shred of oversight.”

          • Anonymous

            Are the black helicopters hovering over your trailer?

            • Sure, I get that. Because my comment refers to drones I’m a skinny hillbilly living in a trailer.

              • Anonymous

                I didn’t assume you were skinny.

        • Are the Tin Cave Boogeymen hiding under your bed ?

          • Anonymous

            No, is there a Jew hiding in your closet?

            • Nope just my Shotgun.

              • Anonymous

                Me too.

        • The race you allege will happen has already been won. Israel already has enough nukes to defend themselves and should do so if they need to. Ron Paul supported Israel’s bombing of Iraq in the 80’s while other republicans condemned them.

          • Anonymous

            First of all, the Middle East is not just about Israel. The daily flow of oil out of the Middle East is about the world economy and, therefore, is about world peace. Second, that Israel has “enough nukes to defend themselves” is a false and hollow position belying a truly grotesque anti-semitism underlying its core. Once upon a time “Mutually Assured Destruction” was enough to keep Soviet expansion through all out war in check. Things are just a little different now. Does any truly aware person actually believe that “Mutually Assured Destruction” would keep radical Islam from attempting to wipe Israel off the face of the earth? If you do, I’ve got 72 virgins I’d like to sell you.
            Would Ron Paul support Israel bombing Iran to rid them of their nuclear weapons aspirations today? If so, would such a bombing be effective? And, would Israel be able to keep the Straits of Hormuz open and protect oil shipments elsewhere in the Middle East at the same time?

          • Anonymous

            The race I’m referring to is among the Arab states and Iran. That arms race is getting underway because of Iranian aggression. Look it up.

  • Billy Shepard

    Im a lifelong Democrat who switched parties just to vote for Ron Paul and I will vote for him or not at all

    • Anonymous

      I’m a Republican who will vote for Democrat for the first time in decades if Ron Paul is the nominee.

      • baba

        I’ll be voting libertarian if Dr Paul is not the candidate.

      • Alexis Rose

        As we knew your kind – enemies of America – intended to do all along. The final act of the dying, neo-con Wilsonian Right will be to prove all their detractors correct.

        • Anonymous

          No, i have no intention of voting for Obama, UNLESS Ron Paul is the nominee. So, it wasn’t all along.

      • You, ThorsTheTroll,
        you are a liar. turn off the glowing box, read a book, not one glen b recommends, and you may understand the false right/left “game” that you are being played.

        • Anonymous

          Lying about what? You’re the one whose politics align with the Neo-nazis, 911 truthers, jihadis and believers in the jewish conspiracy. take a good look at yourself.

      • “[Obama] has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. “

      • Obama is running the same policies Republican Bush did.
        So it would be no sacrifice for you to do so.

        • Anonymous

          Any president will eventually conclude they have to deal with potential attacks before they reach our shores. Obama has figured that out. It took him a while, tho.

          • BS
            He followed Bush’s traitorous lead day two of his presidency.

  • Santorum is attracting the Evangelical vote that would’ve gone to Herman Cain. The Evangelicals will not vote for Romney, because he’s a Mormon. Santorum has the “bomb Iran” supporters and the Evangelicals. Scary, scary, scary. Apparently the Ron Paul ads exposing him as supporting Obamacare and being less than 100 percent on gun control didn’t make a big impression on the Evangelicals.

    • Anonymous

      Pauliacs and Obamamites are both islam’s supine stooges…disgusting!

  • I wont vote for the Bush 2.0 dunderhead, or the RINO flip flopper. Looks like it’s Obama 2012.

  • Anonymous

    The need to nominate Paul. Otherwise Obama will win again.

  • Anonymous

    As far as the Income Tax and the Fed Act, they weren’t passed Constitutionally anyways. Truthfully if it goes against the Constitution then it doesn’t have to be obeyed anyhow. At the very least RP wouldn’t be using the War Powers Act to attack other countries that have done nothing to us the way Obama and Bush have.

  • Ron Paul predicted the economic collapse in 2002. He deserves respect for that. Just search in youtube: “Tom Woods, Austrian Business Cycle Theory”

  • She’s absolutely right. But guess what, Ron Paul supporters are gone after it’s over. There’s not a snowballs chance in hell that Paul supporters would support any warmongers, establishment cronies or keynesians. It blows me away that the GOP has failed to see this. I’m actually looking forward to the neocons crying about RP making a 3rd party run and how he’ll siphon votes away. Guess what? Anyone but Paul is a 2nd term for Obama. There is NO WAY America is going to vote for more war in 2012. I’m looking forward to dumping my Republican affiliation soon and I’M FAR FROM ALONE. Sarah Palin is absolutely right but most RP supporters want absolutely nothing to do with the GOP.

    • Anonymous

      You are too stupid to see that “Pauliacs” are really Soros operatives, you moron!

  • Well it’s Ron Paul or Obama take your pick GOP.

  • Anonymous

    If you think this means Sarah Palin supports Ron Paul, you know nothing about Sarah Palin. She wants to fold Paul supporters into the mainstream Republican party to beat Obama.

    • Josh Rogers

      That is exactly right – similar to the GOP trying to coopt the Tea Party movement

  • Alexis Rose

    Either Ron Paul wins the nomination, or he will run an independent campaign. In the latter scenario, the GOP candidate comes in 3rd. There are simply not enough non-Democrats who support big government to keep the GOP candidate viable in that scenario, and Ron Paul has a base of support far wider than those voting in the GOP primaries. If the ship is going down – as it will under any other realistically possible President – it may as well be Obama who takes the blame for it.

  • Anonymous

    A vote for anyone other than ron paul is a vote for the status quo
    mitt romney invented obama care
    rick santorum would have us in 5 wars at the same time
    newt gingrich absolutely no morals
    all 3 of them will spend us into bankruptcy
    say goodbye to the once great republic

  • Here is what I do not get… the Republicans say Paul is electable. Then they say we need the candidate who knows what he is talking about and is supported by the most independents… Well Paul has more independent support than anyone… There is a logical fallacy in here somewhere and I cannot figure out where. Can you?

  • Oh Sarah, why don’t you stay quit?

  • Anonymous

    I agree, but at the same time I’d like to see them fail on their own after all the ignorance they’ve displayed about Paul and his supporters.

    • Paul has done a lot of good. Never forget that. That’s not the problem. The problem is that we must support the nominee this time or we risk losing this country.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s one instance where Sarah is full of sunshine.

    (Edited to comply with Scoop’s policy about excessive vulgarity)

    • Really! Who are you and why is she full of it?

    • K-Bob

      Scoop doesn’t expect everyone to be a saint, but a passing mention of excrement is not the same as making it the entire point of the comment.

  • Anonymous

    He STARTED the TEA Party genius.

  • Anonymous

    Why should a 1930″s “America First” isolationist and blame Israel/U.S. for Islamic extremism not be marginalized?

    Sarah should think this out.

    • “[Obama] has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.”

  • Anonymous

    Yes that would be a Paul supporter a Spell Checker Ya gotta be pretty anal to go there ….And YOU are !!

  • Anonymous

    He STARTED the TEA Party.

    • Anonymous

      CNBC’s Rick Santelli?

      • Alexis Rose

        Neither one actually, it was started by an anonymous poster on the Market Ticker forum. Santelli commendably picked it up a few days later and ran with it.

        • Anonymous

          You mean the anonymous poster that no one ever heard of or know who it is? Sure.

          • Like your sorry ass is not.

            • Anonymous


          • K-Bob

            It was Frankie the Jammer, in the study, with the corkscrew.

        • Correct.

  • Anonymous

    The comments about Ron Paul’s fiscal policy are the first smart thing that I have heard from her.

    • BigBoa

      BS! You guys have been bashing her right along with the rest….

      Or are you now admitting the “evil globablists” actually support Ron Paul?

  • onceproudamerican

    He can veto all unconstitutional bills and spending which will severely curtail the amount of damage that can be done to America while he is in the White house.

  • Anonymous

    We need a Party That doesn’t let StowawaysVote where the Cruise Ship Goes !! Any Party that lets Dems and Liberatarians vote in a Primary for who They will run …Is Crazy !! Actually Any Party that lets those 2 groups Vote at ALL …IS!!!

  • All a Romney Administration will do is keep us treading water for four years until the Democrats are able to field another ambitious socialist to continue the degradation of the American culture/economy. Those are four years that will be passed on to the next generation. For me, it’s either Paul or Obama. Either-or.

  • These Neo-con, establishment republicans are no smarter then the Obamabot liberals. They eagerly swallow whatever propoganda the mainstream conservative media spews in their direction. Thinking for themselves, researching and understanding the facts are beyond them. Fortunately, they are a dying breed, and, if the republican party doesnt adapt and embrace the libertarian ideals that the Paul supporters and the youth of the right embrace, the republican party will die with them. Hopefully its Before the economy collapses.

    • Yep I agree. They abandoned everything they once stood for.

    • Anonymous

      VADE RETRO, OBAMBAM…you and all the pauliacs are O’Bummer’s stooges!

  • Anonymous

    Don’t marginalize Ron Paul? Bachmann should drop out? Who are you? And what did you do with Sarah?

    • Anonymous

      The Mafia think everybody has a price…

  • Anonymous

    The GOP won’t marginalize Ron Paul. He is doing plenty well marginalizing himself with his fruitcake foreign policy outlook. Any candidate who thinks Lincoln was wrong about preserving the union and in what he did to preserve the union is on the lunatic margin. Any candidate who would dismantle Pax Americana and withdraw our military reach from the shipping lanes of the Middle East ceding control of Middle East oil to Iran is on the lunatic margin. I had once thought, “anybody but Obama.” After having examined Ron Paul and his philosophical stance on America’s place in the world, I now think “anybody but Paul, first… then anybody but Obama.”

  • Bradley Allen

    I havent even read the article or watched the video of Sarah Palin, Republican VP candidate in 2008. I agree so much with the headline that the GOP better not marginalize Ron Paul supporters… there is no emoticon I know of to express it.

    I have not seen the energetic support for Ron Paul since Reagan. This suggests many people see something they agree with strongly. My observation is that its a return to the founding fathers constitution in a real and authentic way, big spending cuts, big changes in how things are done. For 8 years the liberal left has been bashing GW Bush and the GOP on the economy, every day, every minute on some cable show was an attack on the economy by the democrat/left as if they wanted the economy to fail just so they could blame Bush. If they were in charge the economy would be great and the world would love us. We have had 4 years worth of the left’s way to solve things and the economy is… etc. Ron Paul supporters want to energetically change the mindset of what led to economic failure because when things are great people do not turnout much in an election. I get they are saying the insider GOP types just capitulate with the left, far too many times.

    • Anonymous

      Energetic pauliac support? Like the nazis get, like the commies get, like the muslim head cutters get…yes, thanks but no thanks!

  • baba

    If Dr Paul isn’t the candidate, then vote Libertarian. At least you can keep your conscience clean that way. I’ll be voting Libertarian if Dr Paul isn’t the republican candidate.

  • She’s right on regarding Dr.Paul, and she’s wise to state it. I’m actually quite surprised this NeoCON z10n1st made the (sage) comment.

    • BigBoa

      Forget it pal. You Paul-bots have been right on board the Palin bashing wagon so f off. You can’t now claim ANYTHING she says as being legitimate…… Unless you’re going to admit the “evil globalists” now support Ron Paul…. God,,, the hypocrisy. You guys really are marxists in disguise. A poor disguise at that….

    • Anonymous

      She got bought out, perhaps?

  • I was a very big fan of Palin. I was hoping that she would run for president. Now, she is starting to get on my nerve. If she loves this country so much as she says then why isn’t she running ? I hope she will run.If not, then just go away instead of disappointing her loyal followers.We are tired of all words and no action.

  • In terms of electability, consider this:

    M-I-double tizzle will lose to Obama in Michigan and Massachusetts, and Santorum will lose to Obama in Pennsylvania. Huntsman would lose to Obama in China. Paul would make Obama compete in every blue state on the map.

  • And since the entire House of Representatives is up for reelection this year, it is possible, though not probable, to vote them all out.

    That’s how you make change.

  • mark harkay

    Can you Paul supporters explain how it is that Ron Paul’s district gets earmarks even though he votes no against the bills containing those earmarks?
    How do those earmarks get into the bill in the first place?

    That sneaky little liar puts earmarks into bills that he opposes and that he knows will pass without his vote.
    Having your cake (saying you are against earmarks) and eating it too (getting the earmark without voting for it)

    Such a man of principle ///////////

    • He puts them there. It would be irresponsible of him Not to fight to get back Some of the money the federal government steals from his constituents.
      Paul wants a balanced budget so their will be No room for earmarks, and the feds will take Less money from us.

    • onceproudamerican

      He is representing his district by putting in what his constituents want, and not voting for them out of principle. What is hard to understand about that?

      There shouldn’t be any earmarks, but as long as there are his constituents deserve a return on their tax dollars.

    • Mark, it’s a non-issue. it’s big media talking point.

      Each representative is elected to act on the narrow interests of his or her constituents. If a representative does not participate in the appropriations (spending bills) process others will. WORSE, if no representatives participate in the process then the funds GO TO THE EXECUTIVE. That means the executive will have full discretion to do whatever they want. So, if Ron Paul’s constituents MUST pay taxes it is his elected responsibility to claw back what he can.

      Ron Paul 2012

    • BigBoa

      Paul supporters should have bumper stickers that read…

      “Ask me about term limits”

      They talk about him being “anti-establishment” and he’s served HOW many terms? HOW MANY years?

  • Anonymous

    No Paul, than NO GOP. The GOP will pay (as well as everyone else) with an Obama re-elect. Nobody can be trusted with the new NDA Act, especially GOPbots like Romstopholis and Scrotorum. Don’t blame Paul, blame the GOP for Obama 2012.

    • BigBoa

      What a tool….

      EVERYBODY will “pay” if O’Bozo remains in office, you knumbskull.

      • Anonymous

        Numbskull? Bonehead is more like it!

  • Anonymous

    RP has something to say on monetary and government excess. Where the Tin foil hat comes on is his massive isolationism as if this is going to turn Islamic fanatics into peace loving Unicorns.

    Grow a pair or a brain, it doesn’t work this way. Nor does reversing 125 years of Progressive expectations with a five point cold turkey plan for the globe and eliminating fiat money overnight. There are about 600 trillion in fiat assets and debts, about 6x current world income. Let’s not even discuss the Ponzi pension schemes. How do you go to a hard currency (gold) in a situation like that? World stock equity would go to zero and most of the debt default. No Fed to print patches.

    What does private confidence do in that situation? A new car might cost $500 but are we talking about $30 a week wages? Please explain the deflationary transition to me.

    You really think this world is ready for that? Any mortgage would put most values underwater. Incomes collapse. Please explain?

    • Anonymous

      You are hitting the nail right squarely on the head, cwon!
      The most likely result of the deflation Paul would seek to institutionalize would be massive economic and social dislocations in the U.S. and worldwide. This would make vast populations ripe for the pickings of demagogic militarists. Major wars, which we have been enormously successful in preventing over the last 65 years, would be the inevitable outcome.

    • Anonymous

      so you think that bombing every other country on the map will turn them into peace loving people? do you want to beat them into submission? is that it? good luck with that

    • Anonymous

      Reality and the pauliacs are two rails that never meet, just like reality is foreign to nazis, communists and muslims.

  • Anonymous

    I appreciate that Palin recognized that many Americans are war-weary, and even more obvious…WE ARE BROKE!!

  • I supported Sarah Palin, think she would make an outstanding president and wish she had run, but she’s dead wrong on this one.The GOP needs to marginalize a great many of Ron Paul’s supporters because they’re isolationists, truthers and in more than a few cases,outright racists and anti-semites.

    Impossible for us to look at the Lefty lunatics in the Democrat party and point fingers if we have people like these in our own tent.

    Not only that, but I have it from a very reliable source that Ron Paul is getting money and logistical support from the Obama campaign, with the idea that he’ll go third party and suck up just enough votes to let Obama slither back into the Oval Office for another term.

    It figures, doesn’t it?

    • Josh Rogers

      Sarah Palin doesn’t have any actual political philosophy or ideology. To my mind she is nothing more than a celebrity.

      PS – I have it from very reliable sources that Santorum is bigfoot and prays to Satan at night. See how i did that? Easy isn’t it.

    • Anonymous

      you have obviously been drinking the kool aid… the machine has you hook line and sinker

    • BigBoa

      The mighty Boa wouldn’t be at all surprised to find this to be true. In fact, it would probably be more shocking to find out it wasn’t.

      People seem to not understand that, for instance, in Iowa, marxists can register as GOP, vote for who they most want to see run against O’Bozo, then turn around in November and vote for O’Bozo. Any talk of “defections” from voting for O’Bozo is sheer lunacy. One thing the marxists ALWAYS do, and that is stick together. We’ll know for sure eventually because O’Bozo probably promised some cab seat or something to Paul. After he steals the election, he’ll announce he is putting Paul in charge of some dept or commission or some other bs….

    • Anonymous

      Absolutely…if she keep at it for the pauliac lunacy, I will have to change my avatar!

      • nevermind i saw all your activity. your a paid troll provatuer.

  • Anonymous

    A vote for anyone other than ron paul is a vote for the status quo
    mitt romney invented obama care
    rick santorum would have us in 5 wars at the same time
    newt gingrich absolutely no morals
    all 3 of them will spend us into bankruptcy
    say goodbye to the once great republic

  • baba

    Not arguing with you on this, I’ve just never heard about this. Can you provide an example?

  • Ron Paul may not be the clear frontrunner, but I think he has many supporters on both sides of the isle.

  • Paul is not going to run a 3rd ticket. Moreover, I wouldn’t mind seeing Paul win. It would be nice for the republican editorial columns to stop pretending that Paul can’t win a national election. I think the only thing holding him back is those darn republican editorial columns pulling for Romney as the only viable candidate – ‘go stuff yourselves’.

  • baba

    Vote Libertarian if that turns out to be the case. No sense helping Obama.

  • Heathen Holiday Gliebe

    This is pure evidence that these elections are rigged, the votes were counted in a “secret location” for fear of OWS protestors? The American mainstream televised Media is owned by an ethnic monopoly that follows an monopoly religion, with a clear-cut agenda to get the puppet in who most kisses Israel’s a$$. THAT is why they keep harping on the “Foreign policy” issue. If you don’t get RON PAUL in, expect WORLD WAR III, (with China and Russia dropping nukes on you because you just had to go attack Iran for NO reason), BANKRUPTCY, FAMINE, NO MORE GUNS, NO FREE SPEECH, and TOTAL ENSLAVEMENT. RON PAUL is your last chance before the final fall of America into a sick, jobless, broke Third World Country-turned into one world government… that was raped and pillaged by Zionist World Bankers so they can get their anti-heterosexual White people rocks off with their mentally ill quest of global domination. HANUKKAH is your new, most important holiday. Hope you like gefilte fish and keep eating those GMOS laced with MSG!!!!! See ya in the hospitals!

    • Josh Rogers

      Is there any basis for what you’re saying? Assuming you are actually a Ron Paul supporter and not some a-hole troll, you give a bad name to those of us who believe in freedom and liberty

    • Anonymous

      Typical nazi pauliac filth..

      • dude what non sense you spout. how old are you 12?

  • baba

    Clearly these people so opposed to RP just don’t bother to take the time to read anything from his campaign, or to think for themselves for that matter.

  • If I were elected president, I would appoint Ron Paul Secretary of the Treasury and assign him the task of eliminating the Fed. I would appoint Newt Gingrich Secretary of Reorganization, and task him with the wholesale elimination of the departments of Energy, Education, and Transportation. Additionally I would task him with rolling Agriculture into Interior, Homeland Defense into Defense, HHSA & Hud & Labor into a tiny basement office in Pierre, South Dakota. I would put Rick Santorum in charge of immigration, and task him with ridding the country of ALL current illegals. I would have Eric Holder arrested by the new Attorney General, Joe Arpaio, and charged with MURDER.

  • Anonymous

    I almost pity all of you poor, unaware, misguided, uneducated, illiterate, unread, braindead and ding-batted sheople. Do you not know that ‘the powers that be’ (the puppetmasters) which operate in secret from behind the curtain are the ones who control the outcome of this charade we call our “election process”? Both parties (Democratic & Republican) are in fact owned and controlled by these unseen puppetmasters and it is these controllers who will ultimately benefit in the end, not you and I, so don’t be deceived. If you own both parties, does it really matter which party is in charge? No, it does not, because your bidding (your agenda) will be carried out regardless. You and I are only allowed to “elect” a president, we are in no way allowed to actually “select” one. You & I will simply be “electing” which airhead we want in charge of the corporation, aka…The United States Of America.
    America was lost in 1913 . . . . Now go do your homework.

    • Anonymous

      1912. and Ronald Reagan.

  • BigBoa

    No doubt the Paul-bots will condemn Miss Palin for making this statement. God knows they’ve done plenty to bash her and claim she’s part of the big “conspiracy”…. Any move on their part to now claim she has legitimacy will just go further to show what buffoons many of them are…..

    • Anonymous

      What do you expect, the pauliacs are registered demon-rats…but I dont like her comment there…is she losing it? Pauliacs are far worse than the Obamunists…

  • You sound naive. We have no business engaging in military conflicts (not wars) all over the globe. Bring most of the troops home, build a strong military here at a fraction of the cost (in lives, dollars, and prestige), and stay very engaged diplomatically — that’s what Paul is advocating. You, on the other hand, want to see the US spread out all over the globe, bleeding lives and money … for what?

    We have some very pressing priorities at home, in case you haven’t noticed, and the current Prez can’t get more than one thing right a year, making things much worse as he bumbles along whistling Socialist theme music. Paul understands what is wrong, as do some of the other candidates, but he’s willing to do something about it rather than cow-tow to the old guard liberal GOP.

    Wake up man, and stop padding your family’s resume.

    • baba

      I think that most of the people supporting all this continued warfare must not have anyone they care about in the military and most certainly they are not in the military. The military overwhelmingly supports Dr Paul.

  • Gliebe: Inane. I like Ron Paul, but YOU are crazy!

  • Anonymous

    Looks elderly..

  • Anonymous

    Someone in the serious Republican establishment needs to confront Mr. Paul and call him for what he really is: A nut cake isolationist who thinks that the Pacific and Atlantic oceans will protect us from an increasingly violent and determined Muslim grab for world domination. Ya- pull the blanket over your head, the boogy man will go away. This is exactly the mind set that allowed Mr Hitler his early successes and the 50 million dead of WWII.
    You know what is more frightening than Mr. Paul are the loons that believe his warped view of reality. What the hell do they feed the mid westerners that breeds such idiocy?

    Hope NH erases him from the slate.

    R Martin
    California conservative.

    • Josh Rogers

      R Martin,

      What would you advocate? It appears that your position is that any nation that contains muslims should be invaded and occupied by the US. Is that correct? Please let me know how that is not “nut cake”. Please stop and think about what you are saying and why you are saying it. Do you view muslims as a bigger threat than our debt or our ever growing state powers?

    • Anonymous

      oh…to not be in favor of never ending war is now called isolationism…. with kool aid drinkers like this republic is surely doomed

    • Anonymous

      There’s a terrorist under your bed.


    • Anonymous

      What’s interesting about your statement is that if you look back at real history, you’ll find that the reason so many of these Muslim countries have the will, knowledge, weapons, as well as the technology to pose such threats is because our government gave it to them. I thought it ironic as I watched footage of the Iranians flying their war helicopters around the Gulf trying to intimidate US ships, that they were flying US-made helicopters.

      They also have US-made transport helicopters, hundreds of US-made howitzers, US-made surface-to-air missiles, not to mention and few hundred US-made tanks. They’ve even taken to making copies of what we’ve given them as well as taking the technology and advancing it further.

      Pretty much the same can be said of most countries that were given military equipment courtesy of the US taxpayer, with that same equipment being used or threatened to be used against us. And each time that happens, other anti-US countries go in and provide the same kind of “support” in-kind.

      All courtesy of so-called mainstrem Dem and Repub presidents, with the US taxpayer footing the bill. Sorry, but we need to fix the crumbling infrastructure of our own country before we continue going in and telling others how to run theirs. It’s no wonder many of them look at our own decay and laugh. Now which candidates are addressing such issues again?

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul has proven over the years that he and his supporters are nothing but a bunch of racist neo-nazis, lunatic trufers, anti-semitic negationists and corrupt supporters of conquering Islam.

    By the way, they are like the ACORN crooks, a bunch of sleazy registered democrats, 90% of them retards!

    • Blood_Trail

      Nice try, troll. Why not try doing your own thinking for once in your life, eh? Now go crawl back into your hole where parroting your favorite neo-con, neo-nazi talkshow hosts, such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, O’reilly and the likes, reigns supreme.

    • Josh Rogers

      And 86% of all statistics are made up! See what I did there?

    • Anonymous

      You are dumb all day.

    • Anonymous

      Now clean that flopsweat off of your keyboard.

    • Anonymous

      My, what an sad, angry person, you are. All I have seen is you hurling pathetic accusations and nasty names. Grow up and educate yourself, for God’s sake.

      • Anonymous

        I’m about to conclude this one is a plant of some type… let’s say “shrubbery” or some such.

  • How many of Paul’s supporters do you think voted for McCain in 2008 after he wasn’t even given a chance to speak at the convention. Very few and will be worse in 2012 if as Palin says the GOP continues to marginalize Paul. She knows.

    • Anonymous

      Why would they vote Republican? All Pauliacs are registered democrats!!!
      Ever seen a stinking hippie filth vote?

      • Anonymous

        So they can’t really split the vote?

        Think much?

      • That’s news to me. I’ve been a registered Republican since I was 18. I voted for Bush and McCain. But I’m not going to settle for voting for the progressive elitist Republicans that mindless idiots like you force on us every election any more. I woke up. Doesn’t seem like you ever will, but here’s hoping.

  • 1/4 of the children are homeless? that’s rubbish, I agree with most of your other remarks, but that’s plain B.S…

  • RP had an outstanding showing tonight – considering the entire GOP dismissed him, most talk show hosts dismissed him, and the media in general dismissed him. Well done fellow Americans, you make me proud.

    People who have actually looked at how the CIA and others have caused our current problems with Iran, get why the warhawk mentality spouted by the rest of the GOP candidates actually does cause more problems that it solves. We cannot solve all problems by being the world police force – nor can we afford to when we borrow almost 50% of the money we spend on it. It it not isolationism – it is simply a realization that what we are doing has not worked, and what we have done is pushing Iran to become yet another N Korea – the last thing we need.

    In a nutshell – if your don’t want to get stung by bees, don’t kick the hive.

    • Josh Rogers

      Even if Dr. Paul doesn’t get the nomination, he’s helped to start a movement – and we are all a part of it. We are opening more and more eyes and I am hopeful for the future. Well said Bryan.

      • Anonymous

        Yes perhaps Paul will start a movement. A nice name would be the Neo Kamikazis. Their slogan could be: If you can’t win make sure you destroy all on your way out.
        I don’t recall writing that all Muslim nations should be occupied. Who in their right mind would want the responsibiity to feed and discipline these people?

        • Josh Rogers

          Not sure if I understand the motto. Is that some sort of reference to not supporting the eventual republican nominee or something else?

          Well please enlighten me on what you advocate – you noted that we need to be protected from an “increasingly violent and determined Muslim grab for world domination”. How should we do that? Is there any role in trying to understand what is causing this (and if you’ve even characterized it correctly)? Or should we just assume they hate us cause we are free (which makes a lot of sense, as it appeals to our vanity – but doesn’t really tie into reality)

    • Anonymous

      Ron paul is a treasonous flake in the pay of Islam…only degenerate hippie trufers will vote for him. Nazi Ronpaul is even more deadly for America than the communist O’Bummer

      • Anonymous


        • Anonymous

          Says the guy spouting new and absurd conspiracy theories.

      • Josh Rogers

        Treasonous in what way?

        What makes him a Nazi?

        Obama appears to be much more of a corporatist in the mold of GW than a communist….

        Thanks for spewing poo – now try to actually think a bit and make a salient argument

      • Anonymous

        Ron Paul= Republican Patriot

        • K-Bob

          This thread is getting out of hand, and you’ve crossed over the Godwin threshold.

          Everyone: Knock off the Nazi comparisons, stop the anti-Jewish ranting, stop the namecalling, and keep it civil. No more warnings.

          • Josh Rogers

            Good call K-Bob – although doesn’t it always

      • Anonymous

        I am not a degenerate. That would make me a Democrat (think Bawney or Slick Willy). I am not a hippie. Again…Dem. “Trufer”? Yeah, I’d like a large serving of some truth. It would be a welcome change, from politics as usual. THAT makes me a voter who is tired of the same old same old, politically.

    • Anonymous

      Fair count “UNDISCLOSED” location. Politicians don’t lie? Think Vietnam Gulf War Iraq war Obama Egypt Libya bailout Contra etc.

      • Anonymous

        Moon landing was fake too, amiright?

  • Anonymous

    Lets see. They called us nuts. Dick Morris called us, even us Veterans; UNpatriotic if we vote for Ron Paul. Then the GOP machine pulled out every dirty trick including paying faux Democrats to scare hell out of Iowans. Then after all that Doctor Paul is still winning until votes are counted in a “”UNdisclosed”” location.

    Work with us? C’mon Ron run as a small i independent.

    • Anonymous

      Oh yes, it’s all a grand conspiracy. Paul was TOTALLY winning all the time! I guess Occupy Wall Street must be in cahoots, since they’re the ones with their planned disruptions who forced the vote counting into “hiding.”

      You’re insane. And you demonstrate perfectly WHY people call you nuts. You’re an embarrassment to all intellectually honest Ron Paul supporters.

  • Anonymous

    Audit the fed, support HR 459 Paul

  • Anonymous

    don’t worry sarah. if ron paul doesn’t get the nomination they won’t support any establishment candidate. We will write ron paul in!!

  • Anonymous

    Ron kooky Paul is the left of the left. Why does he run as a Republican? He is a liberal to the 1000th. power. He is more liberal than Barney Frank. They should run together as a third party. The things that come out of Ron’s mouth make Jimmy Carter look like Patton 🙂 And, wasn’t the Mexican – American war ab intervention by our forefathers? And, how did the marines and navy come to be? Please this man is a kook ! period. By the way, the FRB has been audited since it was founded every year. kooks. Ron Paul fairy tales for the feeble grey matter of most his followers. That’s right I said it 🙂 And, the military isn’t a pleasure cruise and a place to cash fat checks and eat steaks.

    • Josh Rogers

      How do you define liberal? Do you mean that he believes in free markets and limited government, personal responsibility and liberty? If so, you are correct.

    • People like you are why we laugh uncontrollably when a neocon references the constitution or capitalism.

      • Anonymous

        Whoever laughs last, laughs the best !

        • Josh Rogers

          I laugh at you and your blind closed mind

      • Anonymous

        “Neocon” is a term primarily used by non-conservative hacks who want to claim the term “conservative” for themselves, even though actual conservatives far outnumber them and have had the label far longer.

        Yes, “neoconservative” is an actual political term with real meaning, but the way it’s used today, especially on blogs and in Internet comments, is as an intellectually dishonest straw man and little more. By current usage, “neocon” isn’t even a proper label any more. It’s just a slur.

        • It refers to those in the republican party that follow the trotskyite philosophy of permanent revolution/war in order to keep up the slavish worship of the state along with left wing socialist redistribution programs. It defines most of those in the Republican party today.

          That’s why that even though we have far more Republican administrations for the last 40 years but the spending and deficit continue to grow out of control. If they were capitalists we wouldn’t be in this situation. But idiots can be always be fooled to vote for them because of the constant banging of the war drum like I mentioned before.

    • Anonymous

      And ! He has been in government for what 38 years or more and talks about term limits. And he packs his bills with PORK and then votes no, knowing it’s going to pass. Please let me have some of what you all smoke and drink. Talk about your kool aid on steroids. Yumm hahahahahahaha

    • Anonymous

      Ron Paul has no liberal positions. Wanting to bring the troops home and save the republic is a common sense position.

      • Anonymous

        “save the republic”

        Paulbot having an imaginary interview with their Savior:
        Paulbot: “Gee, Mr. Paul? What’s your policy on saving the Republic?”
        Paul: “Well, I’m for it.”
        Imaginary Romney in Paulbot’s brain: “AND I’M AGAINST IT!!”


    • Anonymous

      So defending a newly-annexed US state counts as intervention? It sounds like a legal defense, to me. But, then again, you think that being liberal means standing for sound fiscal policy, personal responsibility and liberty, and smaller, limited government. You’re just the perfect useful idiot, who will march right of a cliff, and cheer others doing the same, as you’re falling.
      And, just so you know, both the Navy and Marines pre-date the Declaration of Independence.

  • Anonymous

    Gov. Palin is quite correct. As usual.

  • No Republican will vote for Obama over Ron Paul. And Ron Paul will cull a large number of Democrats and Independents to his side. Ron Paul vs Obama? Ron Paul by a landslide. One problem – the establishment Republicans want war and will do anything to prevent Ron Paul from getting the nomination.

    • ekim0411

      Well put.

    • Anonymous

      So, when you get bombed or terrorized or worse, you and Ron can put up the white flag. I’m sure our forefathers would have stood silent as the price of gas goes to 50 dollars a gallon, as they are blackmailed by foreign powers. Besides they didn’t go to Tripoli and burned it to the grown over a matter of money only. Not lives just money, blackmail from pirates. Ron and he’s followers live on what planet?

      • Anonymous

        It’s called Earth. You should check it out.

        You are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than in a terrorist attack. Should we be bombing the men in blue?

        • K-Bob

          Besides that being a non sequitur, we don’t bomb people carrying out lawful activities.

          • Josh Rogers

            K-Bob- I think you’re missing the point, he’s suggesting that the actual threat from terrorism has been greatly overblown –

            • K-Bob

              I understood the point. I totally disagree, but that’s another story I won’t waste time with.

              • Josh Rogers

                Well if you have other data please share it. You seem akin to someone who is terrified of flying not realizing that they are 100’s of time more at risk driving to the airport. The risks to our liberties and our lives are due to our reactions to your perceived threats – the Patriot act and the NDAA have done more to alter this country than 9/11 ever will

                • Anonymous

                  Go watch some MEMRI TV. Maybe that’ll give you a clue about the reality of the world we live in.

                • K-Bob

                  I know the relative risks of most everyday things just fine, thanks. So do most people. It doesn’t help your cause to relate them to terrorists anymore than relating drownings to auto accidents would make people want to swim to work.

      • Anonymous

        Fred Murrah building was blown up by Saddam’s Mukabarat…you seen Clintoon put up the white flag…There will be a lot of blown buildings in the USA before someone string up the old retard President Ron Paul!

    • Anonymous

      Establishment Republicans DO NOT WANT WAR! That is such nonsense!
      Establishment Republicans want peace every bit as much as the most fervent peacenik. The difference is that Republicans know history, know that not every international actor is rational, and that peace does not just happen. Pax Americana has been extraordinarily effective at maintaining world peace. Ron Paul is someone who sees Lincoln as a monster and would dismantle the U.S. military to the point of abject ineffectiveness.

  • Jimmie Smith

    as far as i”m concerned… anybody… but pres. obama…

    • Josh Rogers

      What’s the difference between someone like Santorum and Obama? Not what they say, but what they will actually do? I don’t think very much other than perhaps social issues.

      • Anonymous

        Oh yeah, they’re practically carbon copies of each other other than a few social issues. /sarc

        “I don’t think very much”
        You can say that again.

    • Anonymous

      If we get Santorum or Romney, we get at least four years of the other side of the same political coin as Obama. How long are we willing to flip the same coin, before we all realise that it’s a rigged game…heads, they win…tails, we lose.

      • Anonymous

        And what “coin” is this? The political spectrum? Yes, that’s right. The GOP is on the Right. That’s the OPPOSITE side of the Left. Following along? The Right side of the coin is what we need, genius. And last I checked, the GOP doesn’t really like the Dems, and especially vice versa given how vile and frankly evil (full of lies, class warfare, dividing the country with hatred, etc.) the Dems’ attacks on Republicans are. Call it a “coin” all you want. It’s not some crazy conspiracy to keep one of the two parties in control. And even if it were, handing a victory over to the WORSE side of the coin won’t help, you idiots.

  • Anonymous

    The 4th Amendment: Rights of search and seizure – destroyed by the Patriot Act.

    The 7th Amendment: Rights of due process/trial by jury – destroyed by the newest version of the National Defense Authorization Act.

    The 10th Amendment: Rights of the States under Constitution – basically disregarded by the federal government for a long time (Obamacare being one of the most recent flagrant violations).

    I could go on but if these don’t mean anything to you then what’s the point?

    The Iranian threat is a joke compared to the dismantling of our Constitutional liberties by our own politicians. Is it any surprise that guns sales have hit record highs?

    Vote Ron Paul or don’t complain when the rest of your freedoms are taken from you.

    • Anonymous

      thanks for reminding me what I forgot to do today, I meant to order more ammo online.

  • Anonymous

    1.) Obama’s association with nut jobs is politically toxic, problem is that McCain was such a bad candidate and circumstances for the GOP were also so bad it didn’t make enough of a difference. Also the Media will cover for Democrats, being a Republican means spotting your opponent 10 shots. Its totally unfair but its the way it is.

    2.) You are correct on 2.), but if Iran got the bomb, you can be sure there will be a multitude of conventional wars in the middle east involving Israel. Israel will win all of them (if she loses she won’t exist). When Israel gains the upper hand, Iran will threaten Nuclear war. This was the model during the 60’s and 70’s except the nuclear power was Russia. The affects of these wars will destabilize the region and cause spikes in energy prices. Fair or unfair, make no mistake…our retreat from the global stage will not help us economically, any costs savings with isolationism will be more than offset by economic troubles caused by the lack of a big stick. Keep in mind the economic post WWII boom was in part because of the power we gained after the 2nd World War.

    3.) You are the reason why the left will take over this country. Ron Paul supporters need to take a punch. In fact I would say Paul has had little scrutiny – only after he emerged has he started to. Guess what so did Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann and Romney. Ron Paul supporters are soft! Look Paul has radical views as compared to the field, views which on an international front sound like liberal democrats…do you really expect the GOP to not attack them. Paul’s newsletter published stuff that isn’t going to win many converts…Paul made money on these newsletters. Even if he didn’t write them, he is either the stupidest man in politics (e.g. letting someone publish under your name) OR he is not being truthful. I suspect the latter. Once again these are the facts. So go vote for Obama, hopefully you aren’t in VA, OH, FL, IN, NC, NH or

    • Anonymous

      Keep cheerleading for the status-quo.

      • Anonymous

        Getting Obama out isn’t the status-quo, idiot. “Oh, but it’s the two-party system, blah blah!” Ron Paul’s IN the two-party system, genius. And if he goes 3rd party, what good is that going to do? Oh, that’s right — letting Obama win. Last I checked, not only is Obama in the two-party system, he’s the CURRENT President, and he’s HORRIFIC, far worse than Romney or Santorum, etc. You’re cheerleading for insanity.

    • Anonymous

      Paul claim his newsletters where written by neo-nazis and he never read them!

  • After the way the rest of the republican party has treated Ron Paul supporters, who can blame them if they go so far as to vote Obama. Besides, what’s really the difference between Mittens and Obama? Skin tone?

    • Anonymous

      Pauliacs, by all the surveys, are new age hippies that never voted or is they did voted democrats because most pauliacs are registered democrats!

      • Anonymous

        I actually “liked” this one, and will do my best to c/p your “intelligent reply” around the web, as an example of one unhinged. Please try to control your state of abject fear, as all it does is cause the rest of us Men and Women to laugh.

    • Anonymous

      Paulbots are spammers and zealots. You’re cultists. You deserve to be attacked in some fashion. You are an embarrassment to the actually intellectually honest Ron Paul supporters.

  • Ron Paul is not going to run as an independent for no other reason than he’s not going to put his son, Sen Rand Paul, in a position to either endorse his father thus allowing Obama 4 more years or not supporting his father and go with the Republican candidate. Also, unlike Mitt Romney, Ron Paul does care about America and is not going to let his personal ambitions trump the overall good of the party and the country.

    • Anonymous

      “unlike Mitt Romney, Ron Paul does care about America ”
      Screw you. You condescending Ron Paul zombie pricks are disgusting, hateful little cretins. You are an embarrassment to all rational, civil-minded Ron Paul supporters.

  • landofaahs

    Sarah, they are not smart enough to see that. They call Ron Paul a racist and his supporters racist. Then down the road they will ask for their “racist” vote and offer the “racist” Paul a position in the administration. Frankly as a long time Republican and a supporter of Paul, I’ve about had enough of their politics as usual to the point I’m about ready to go to the Constitution Party. I guess republicans are a lot like democrats. They only agree with the constitution when it agrees with them.

  • Anonymous

    I totally agree, we DO NOT need to run down a Republican. I also agree with RP for the most part on quite a few issues, however I do NOT see how a legitimate concern and pursuit of and for Liberty (the most important thing there is), will be supported…. ….by retracting the US Military from the world?

    I do NOT understand that argument.

    The usual deflection seems to be one of three pseudo-args:

    1. “Well…. you won’t spend as much and THEREFORE… you’ll conserve wealth and the finances will work out better, and by extension America will be safer from the real threats,… inflation, etc, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah…”

    2. “Well…. they all hate us and THAT is because we are out there antagonizing them and if we WERE NOT OUT THERE…, they wouldn’t hate us and things will work out better.”

    3. “Well…. if we pull all the way back to America the way the Founders would want us to do, we would be more in line with their vision (and therefore Loyal to them), and we can always park Hull-Down behind broad oceans, wait for them at the shore-line, AND… if they get too close or too uppity, we’ll just nuke them.”

    To wit I would reply:

    Answer 1. We spent 70.4% of the GDP on WWII. We bought bonds, we gave to charity, we gave away property, we gave away hours of our lives, and, we gave 426K+ lives. In short… we did WHATEVER WE HAD TO DO in order to win. We did that because LIBERTY was at stake. We KNEW we had to do it because not only was our Liberty at stake, but in fact, the Liberty of the world and the lives of millions and millions of people at stake. Did we whine about the cost? I’m sure some squeaked a little bit, but all knew the TRUTH… we would pay whatever the price, in both Treasure and unfortunately, in blood and grief as well. Money can NOT be the reason for handing the World over to the bad guys.

    Answer 2. This is the SAME answer the Collectivist cabal uses to talk their way to victory?!?!? Talk them into quitting and pulling back so… WE CAN FILL IN BEHIND THEM!!!! YAHOOO!!!!! Why would ANYONE in their right mind want to help that cabal win?!!?!? That is crazy! Don’t help them take over the world, STOP THEM from doing it! They want it, why do you think that is? So they can strangle the CRAP out the west until their 5th columns can undermine and conquer the bourgeoisie and compel a surrender from within. HELLO!?!!?!?

    Answer 3. OMG… The Founders (Dear God, you alone know the sincerity with which I truly love them and their work),… did NOT know about nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. They did not know about biological weapons. They didn’t know about a lot of the things that make this bone-headed strategy void upon submission. No DEFENSE… EVER worked alone. Not one! You can not counter-punch your way to victory. They other guys simply stops for while, rests up, and comes at you again smarter and better prepared to meet your defense. THAT… is why Prison doesn’t work!?!?! HELLO? There are very few castles in Europe, when this idea was in it’s heyday, that did not eventually get sacked and over-run, its inhabitance slaughtered or hauled off into slavery. That idea, build an Atlantic Wall and wait for them to arrive, will FAIL… EVERY… TIME… There is an axiom that all soldiers know, “If you can be seen, you can be hit”. If you fail to understand it, you are dead. You can not HIDE a whole country. You can not MOVE and Country. You can not WALL off a Country with a curtain wall made of stone, steel, tank ditches, motes, alligators, or… rockets. That is a FOOL’S ERRAND… Isolationism, in 1935, may have worked. I don’t think so myself, but granting the possibility that it could have keep America out and that we might have been more in line with the Founding, and that it would have cost less, and that it wasn’t our business until Yamamoto made it our business, is at least plausible in that time period. I think it would have been disastrous for the world, in that without and Arsenal and the men to employ it, evil would have had SEVERAL more years to develop it’s nuclear weapons program and coupled with it’s ballistic missile program would have likely had PLENTY of time to field a war winning weapon perfectly capable of ending American resistance once if was brought close enough. War,… has a shelf life, and a timetable, and you had better understand that, and you had better cross the finish line first, cause second… is death or servitude. Granted that isolationism was plausible, I would submit it was totally unwise in retrospect and that having selected IT instead of the path chosen, most of us would not be here today, certainly not America. So… how is that you’re figuring now, in the full light of THAT experience, when it had the slimmest chance of succeeding, that it will work this time? IT WILL NOT WORK THIS TIME EITHER?!?!!?!? FOOLS! In that instance, we the West, worked with the Collectivist to defeat our common enemy. They had a nearly inexhaustible pool of man-power they were perfectly willing to grind into oblivion in order to save the Soviet system (evil working against evil). With the help of the West, and a nearly inexhaustible flow of weapons and materials, the menace had little or no chance unless a game-changing weapon could be developed. That is why it was important to keep on them until victory, so that they could never reach that point. GOT IT?

    Now, what is it going to be this time?

    It will be the endless manpower of the East, combined with Islamists 5th columns, and a resurgent Collectivist economy on the upswing now that they have had the chance to rebuild, retool, and retrench after near collapse in the 80s. We’ve been sending them money and aid and allowing them to grow because WE WANT IT FOR LESS….. all the while, we are shrinking, divided, and infiltrated to the extent that they have one of THEIRS in our Whitehouse?!?!!? It’s not going to be like the last time. WE are going to be outnumbered. WE are going to be out produced. WE are going to be divided. WE have populations that are dropping. WE have home grown movements that DON’T believe in America, that are essentially a European Collectivist Vanguard. They don’t see themselves as invaders or disloyal, they see themselves as the smart ones that are progressing our backwards Hillbilly butts into the future, want it or not.

    And you…… think we are going to be able to sit on the beaches waiting to repulse an invasion with small arms and your tri-quarter hats lobbing copies of the Constitution at them?!?!?!?

    RP is wrong about this, and if you believe that your frustration and your loyalty are going to force a SINGLE personality to rectification, you’re wrong too.
    Isolationism…. will not work this time, any more than it would have the last time.

    We don’t need to beat RP up, but we don’t need to accept this disaster either.


    PS BTW, Jefferson didn’t pull back in Tripoli, he sent the Navy and the Marine Corp to sink, shell, shoot, and stab the SOBs until they understood our position. Not once, but twice. Do you think Jefferson and Madison misunderstood the Constitution? Semper Fi.

    • Josh Rogers

      Ok – a bit more briefly:

      1. Your response assumes that we are in a similar situation to WWII – fighting against enemies who have attacked us and threatened our liberties. I would argue that our current situation is nothing like this (Iraq = Japan? Hardly) and only serves to enrich certain interests (Boeing, Blackwater, etc)

      2. Who is them? All muslims? You appear to be overstating the threat and applying a crusades mentality.

      3. Attacking the pirates with the military is similar to what Ron Paul advocated when he voted to go after Osama Bin Laden. As I recall, Jefferson didn’t go off invading random countries on the way to the battle. Non-interventionism calls for only intervening in such circumstances.

      • Anonymous

        Nothing you said can square with the known, documented, historical facts about the intel (intel that all of the West agreed upon) and previous history in regards to Iraq and Saddam . Your arguments require the same sort of revisionist history combined with 20/20 hindsight that the Left uses. Moreover, your characterizations (“invading random countries”) are asinine, the words of a tool, a self-blinding hack, a history revisionist, a deluded, hateful LIAR – just like Leftist trolls. That’s why conservatives don’t see Paulbots as conservative. Because they’re not. And despite their being way better than the Left on many issues, and better than much of the GOP, even, in other areas… they’re just as bad as the Left when it comes to making crap up, if not worse.

        • Josh Rogers

          There is nothing revisionist about it – the fact is that we should learn from that debacle and not go to war so easily. I don’t doubt that you and many others thought that Iraq had WMDs.

      • Anonymous

        Would you argue Iran isn’t attacking us?

        Iraq under Saddam and all those he was working with were… “on our side”? Wha???? You mean that if it’s not a declared, Marquee of Queensbury event, it’s not real? 911 wasn’t an attack? The Tehran embassy invasion wasn’t an attack? The Khorbar Towers weren’t bombed?

        What, do they need to hit you in the head personally with a brick before it’s an attack? You need to have an official “War” called before the bullet would actually do anything?

        So… if they run the stop sign, and you’re killed even though you have the legal right-of-way, but they go to jail for it, its all better?

        Yish….. Maybe you should send them a Certified letter asking them politely to, ya know, make it official so we can Officially respond. You think that would serve there agenda?

        As for the Corporatist angle, have you ever read the 1934 NAZI Party platform, try 11-14 on for size:
        11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

        12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

        13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

        14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

        What would you have done? Machines and materials donated to the effort? Or… the effort stopped altogether? No, let me guess….

        Right, war is always about the money, never about the consequences of loosing to the wrong group. BTW, you think the Islamist aren’t trying to take freedom away? Have your ready UBL’s treatise? I doubt it? Have you read the Muslim Brotherhoods charter? I doubt it? Have you read Hezbollah’s charter? How about Hamas? So… easy for you, when you’re far away. Not so much when they’re in your face and want you on your knees praying to THEIR God, or else… Read those thing and tell me once again that we aren’t fighting for Freedom.

        As for Jefferson, you’re right. He didn’t invade random Countries, he invaded SPECIFIC ones. Those that were giving us misery and grief, JUST LIKE WE ARE DOING! Iraq was not “random”?!?! Afghanistan was not “random”??? Name ONE “random” (we took a spinner, flicked it, and it came up… XYZ) country? One?

    • Anonymous

      you speak as though the status quo is working… hey dummy we’re nearing the end of our once great republic because of these non stop wars and occupations

      • Anonymous

        No I speak as if there are MORE than TWO choices. It’s not RP or… Death!!?!? That is almost always a ruse to get those that aren’t quite sharp enough to reject the framing they are given and to think for themselves. I’m NOT going to accept either/or with OUR Republic at stake.

        If RP is nominated, he may be able to win, but I doubt it. The Press has a say, and though RP’s folks will reject it, the rest of the electorate is not quite that wild-eyed,… idiot.

        WE HAVE TO WIN THIS ONE…. so having a bunch of Leftist help the GOP self-select a loss, is their only hope. I’m not going to help them destroy the Republic, I’m going to choose the best chance to win.

        As I said, RP has some good ideas, but retracting the US from the World is EXACTLY what the Left has wanted all along, I’m not going to help them do that.

    • Josh Rogers

      Honestly – how did it become a reasonable, even the required, position that we must have bases in every nation, offend the sovereignty of all nations, spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined, and support dictators in the name of democracy? That is what is crazy. Step back and think about it – the blow back concept is very reasonable and is supported by history. Recognizing this is in no way akin to “isolationishm” or making friends with Hitler.

      • Anonymous

        Every place we have gone, has an SOFA. A legally binding, negotiated agreement between the host nation THAT INVITED US… and ourselves. Except those that have been wagging undeclared wars against us. THOSE, we’ve taken down and began to set back up are because the option to leave them at war, declared or NOT… meant death for Americans, Westerners, and the locals trapped beneath their dominion.

        You say it’s “Crazy”, you say:

        CHARGE: We must have bases in every nation?
        ANSWER: We don’t, and we won’t, only those that have invited us to keep OTHERS that are far, far worse at bay. And if we’re asked to go, we do. Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and others. You’ve probably never lived anywhere else and so you don’t know anything else. But when you live right next to a County that has invaded before and has enslaved half world, murdering any one that gets in the way, you might think differently about an American kid standing atop the wall EVERY NIGHT so that you can sleep safely. The sad part is, you have that now and apparently don’t recognize it’s benefit.

        CHARGE: offend the sovereignty of all nations
        ANSWER. If we offend sovereignty, why have a legal construct that governs the terms of the agreement? Why not just STOMP them into the dirt and move in? The answer is, your professor is an idiot, and so is the one that wrote the text book. We ENFORCE sovereignty, that is why Europe is still there today. That is why Mexico is not US territory after their defeat. That is why Kuwait is still Kuwait. AND… many others. The funny part is that, when people talk about American sovereignty, the point seems less important, only when it’s used as a foil for some other dubious ruse is that trotted out. One other thing, the bad guys don’t believe in it at all. Maybe you should talk to them about that before complaining about supposed American offences?

        CHARGE: spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined
        ANSWER: And more if necessary. War, isn’t a “Win”, “Place”, or “Show” game. It’s win or loose, you’re alive and free, or you’re dead or enslaved. What wouldn’t you pay to be alive and free? $10K, would that be too much to live in freedom? What about $100K, would that be too much? Or, maybe you want a FAIR war, where they are allowed to kill as many Americans/Westerners as we kill of them? How would that have worked with Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Saddam? You think they would be willing to trade one for one? Who would decide who lives and who dies? The more we spend on things that work and make us potent and unassailable, the less wars that will be started in the first place, that seems to me to be well worth the price, whatever it might be.

        CHARGE: support dictators in the name of democracy?
        ANSWER: One, we’re a Republic, not a democracy, aside from that nuance I would point out we aren’t using the “name of Democracy” as if it were a foil of some kind. We are defending a democratically selected Republic against a world that does not want them out of the fear their OWN people might get hungry for their OWN Liberty and he in America we have an example of one that work fairly well, not perfect but well enough that THOUSANDS of people come here of their own will to be apart of what we have. It’s not my bias, it’s their choices that and their beliefs that make it true. You say we “support dictator”, yet we destroy them QUITE regularly? Who do you account for that if the implication you’re trying to make were true? Hmmm? In fact, name another Country that has destroyed MORE dictator and freed MORE human being than we have? Just one will do? In those case where we have, say Stalin who systematically murdered 30M or more mostly at random, for example? Would you say that…. we adored him and agreed with his actions and methods? So much so… that we copied him?

        I would suggest that you think a bit deeper and refrain from regurgitating the playbook of the 5th columnist. Also, read up on Whittaker Chambers, he was a Soviet agent that used many of the same kinds of foils, diversions, charges, and agitation propaganda as you have, but he woke up in time to realize he was helping a Society that was busy trying to take of the world and kill anyone that got in their way.

        If you STILL think that is us,… you have larger issues to work on.

        Oh, and BTW, “Blowback” is just a theoretical excuse for convincing the naive to stand down and go home so the bad guys can have their way with the world. Forget it, nothing doin…..

        • Alexis Rose

          I’m sure you’d “invite” me into your home if I held a gun to your head too

          Only an idiot kicks a beehive repeatedly then doesn’t have a clue why he is getting stung.

        • Josh Rogers

          Well first off – let me say your answers and thoughtfulness are refreshing – as is the lack of any ad-hominem attacks.

          Regarding your points: Often these Statusof Forces Agreements are developed with the new government after we’ve overthrown the previous one. It’s a bit disingenous to act as if this really represents the “host nation” – it seems more likely to represent the fact that the government that we’ve installed would like us to stay to ensure that they are left in power. Look at the corruption and undermining of rights in Afghanistan under Karzai…. Additionally, even if the government of the “host nation” wants us there, it seems a far cry from the people wanting us there, especially in a crushing dictatorship like Saudi Arabia. Do you mean to imply that the Saudi Arabian people are happy we are in their nation?

          Your second point: Yes I have been overseas – have lived in multiple continents and currently live in South America – although I hardly see how that is relevant. I don’t sleep more safely at night because we have troops stationed in the Phillipines. Maybe my history is lacking, but I think our continuing involvement there largely stems from Teddy Roosevelt activities rather than WWII Japanese era activities. I don’t see any reason why subsidizing the defense of such nations makes us safer. Do you suggest that we should remain in any place around the world that is geographically close to a former communist, nazi, fascist country? How long should we stay? Would 1000 years be long enough?

          Regarding your next point, I think I’ve addressed this in my initial response. What do you mean regarding Mexico’s defeat? I must be missing something there.

          Regarding spending: You are entirely missing my point. I’m arguing that we spend insane amounts of money on defense. In fact, we seem to be fighting the last war (the Cold War) with large standing armies and large bases. If our enemy truly are small, unassociated peoples, then intelligence is much more important than large tank brigades. The talk of being dead vs alive is just hyperbole and you know it.

          We commonly refer to democracy rather than a republic, think of wilson’s war to make the world safe for democracy. I’m highlighting the apparent hypocrisy in much of what we do – being allies with the Saudis, supporting dictatorships in Pakistan and Egypt while we talk of bringing democracy to Iraq (bringing down a dictator that we financed). It seems that the largest number of people have probably been freed during the fall of the USSR and the eventual fall of Communism in China. In both cases, I would submit that these nations are falling due to the unsustainability of their systems – even a cursory knowledge of the late 80s-90’s Soviet economy will make this clear. There is no doubt that our military has removed dictators from the world but there is also no doubt that we have installed them in many cases as well. I much prefer the notion that citizens of foreign nations are allowed to elect their own leaders – be they socialists, capitalists, etc without our interference.

          I’m not familiar with the 5th Columnist – maybe you can provide more information. It’s not obvious to me how an american spy recanting his ways is evidence that we should station troops world wide and topple governments as we see fit. Obviously no country is purely good or bad as we both know – and understanding that we’ve made foreign policy mistakes and foolish decisiions does not make me unAmerican or unpatriotic (hopefully you can agree on that).

          That might be your opinion on blowback, but it’s not supported by anything. The CIA teaches it and it makes very good sense considering human nature and the desire for peoples to be free.

          America is that shining city on the hill – I hope we can all remember why before we head farther down the road to empire folly.

          • Anonymous

            In the following cases, Japan, Germany, and Italy, we have SOFAs. Those were “new” Governments we worked with on SOFA. We destroyed the old ones, for cause, and I will stake my life on the notion that they were destroyed with moral Justification. In those cases, we made “agreements” with the new governments that are still in place today.

            In all other cases (please name any exceptions, I may be missing one or two) we have agreements with those that invited us to stay, ESPECIALLY during the Cold War, when it meant life or death, or slavery for the host. If it were a disingenuous claim, and it’s REALLY just a ruse to get in the and take what we want, THEN… why do we leave when asked? Why are we still in Japan and Germany? Why? Those two were over a long time ago, and we did, with certainty destroy the old order and had a major roll in constructing the new order. Are they puppets? Are we exploiting their resources or do we buy their products? Are we manipulating their governments from behind the curtain or are the elections real and the governments genuinely appreciative of US presence?

            I don’t think that is disingenuous. I think the implication you posit NEEDs to be true for the goal of the cabal and it’s followers and dups to be realized. Without America in the ROK would the DPRK have invaded again? Would the people of the ROK be better off under Kim Il and his Prince?

            We left the Philippines BECAUSE we were asked to do so by their elected government, regardless of the wisdom of the maneuver. NOW, a rising China is starting to push it’s neighbors around, INCLUDING VietNam a Communist County itself with whom we have fought that South might be free, who did they come to for help a few months ago? The US, the evil, raping, stealing, manipulative USA? That is who they invite to dinner, to discuss ways in which we might cooperate in keeping EVEN THEM free from China’s influence and threats?

            That would require reading the wrong books, and believing them. They call on us, BECAUSE we will go home when asked and because, we will help them with our lives and our treasure in defending themselves, even former enemies, if they want the help.

            I think we help when asked, we go home when asked, and think that is a genuine American trait.

            As far as the schism that may or may not exist between a given people and it’s OWN government, I would ask you about that, OK,… what are we supposed to do? Force a popular vote? How would that have worked out with Saddam? We worked with Stalin, he murdered 30M human beings, should we have sat on the sidelines and waited for the dust to clear? What group of PEOPLE… suffering beneath the boot of a dictator and tyrant, WOULDN’T want the US in there to help them???

            This is Sen Church’s old arguments, the CIA is compelled NOT to work with ANYONE, except those that are pure and clean, then we won’t have dirty hands, cause hey(!)… that really looks bad. We must have a purity test before we can defend ourselves from the bad guys? Will the bad guys reciprocate for us, maybe we should make a treaty with them to be sure we are ONLY working with the good guys and we’ll never ever try to undermine the bad ones, or deal with governments that have their own problem, for example The United States. We don’t have and corruption? We don’t have problems from time to time?

            My point is this, Sen. Church was wrong, if we ONLY deal with Polly Purebread and Dudly Doright, we won’t have anyone inside the bad guy’s house that can tell us what is going on in there, when it’s going to happen, where it’s going to be staged and we’ll be caught with our shorts down again and somebody will blow up a building or two sending innocent people to their deaths BECAUSE…..

            Some people want to claim “clean hands”. Ok, fair enough, I don’t like living is a dirty house either, but the next time the bodies are falling from the 110th floor and splattering into 1” chunks on the pavement below, YOU get to go to the relatives houses and break the bad news, you get to look them in the eyes as the fear and pain of the truth begins to dawn on their conscience, that THEIR child, their siblings, their mothers and fathers are not going to come home tonight, or ever again.

            Then, after that special moment has ended, you can justify it with THEM…. by explaining your reasons for not allowing America to deal with the jerks, the scumbags, the AHs, the murderous animals, and yes… the dictators too. So, if you’ll take that job, delivering the bad news and then clearly explaining to them your reasons for not dealing with DirtBagX so we don’t track some mud back in the house, I’ll stand down and never again will we work with the Stalins, or the Maos, or the Shaws, or the Saddams against the other evildoers in the hopes that one day we might undo them ALL using them one against another and setting them up as bait and the fodder against each other instead of sending little Mikey down the street somewhere and risk his young neck for our vanity and pride.

            I’ve made my choice, and I’m asking you to reconsider yours. Is Mikey’s LIFE, worth a Nations pride? Or, should we suck it up and try to understand the World for what it is?

            With regard to the Philippines example, the answer is yes. You ARE safer, as are the Pilipinos, and everyone else when the bad guys aren’t allowed to sack and take over a yet another country, especially a Western country. The more they have, the worse it is for EVERY free person. It’s tremendously bad for those subjected, but it is ultimately bad for the whole world if the bad guys get stronger. They must not be allowed to knock off whole countries, and we are strong enough to stop them, and most importantly, to intimidate them into a non-active state. That is what the US military overseas provides, a shield against the tyranny and despotism thrust upon the Western world, stopping their offencive opperations, and THEN… THEY are relegated to a Defense with which they can, as I have said, NEVER WIN.

            HISTORY LESSON: The United States defeated Mexico in the Mexican-America War of 1846. A subsequent treaty, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, was signed and in exchange for not making ALL of Mexico, new American States, we agreed to Peace on the condition that it was over for good as long as the new boarder was minded well (a 50/50 split), kept intact, and those portions of the USA we now call California, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and Texas are forevermore the United States. (very interesting reading)


            My point is, we gave it back and didn’t really have to, we compromised and settled the issue, hopefully for good. My further point is what did Stalin give back after the war, that he wasn’t FORCED to give by the US and our Allies?

            We aren’t the bad guys, THEY are.

            With regard to Republic/Democracy, I don’t think that way. Wilson wasn’t a very good President, in fact, he was a racist and fan of eugenics. He also was no friend of liberty. I consider him bereft of morality and ethics.


            I believe in a Republic, a Democracy is a mob waiting to be manipulated by demagogues. A democracy doesn’t necessarily acknowledge the rights of the individual, merely whatever the mobs says, goes. A Republic on the other hand is built around laws, not personalities. It is not whatever the mob says it is, the mob may elect its Representatives and officers to carry out the laws. THOSE people then carryout what the laws say must be done, and are mindful of the dangers of passions pushing the mob. A Republic, is better. A mob gets its way regardless of who gets hurt or why, they want wha they want, a Republic offers a check on that passion. In a Republic the elected office makes a descision we may not like based on our passions of the moment, BUT… the offercer can STILL say “No, were not doing that, it’s violative of the individual”. We mob can then THROW that officer out, and electa a new new on that claims that will do what the mob wants, but when the descision needs to be made, THEY TOO can say NO, I’m not going to do that. This ball is in my court and I’m not going to scew these other people in exchange for this office, perks or no….. that can go on until the mob’s passion is weakend or until enough bad men are elected and will vote to screw over the target of the mob hatred. The Republic IS better, it’s not just a term of art.

            Your claim that Communism is inherently flawed and would fall of it’s own accord, it not correct. Yes, they are flawed, to be sure, but without pressure, without a defense against the targets they would choose, they may last a lot longer than you think. How many would you be willing to see made low and miserable in the mean time? 1M? 10M? 100M? If the goal is to help human beings, how long would we be willing to wait and how many would we allow to fall through the cracks before applying a remedy? If you were in their shoes, how many lifetimes are you willing to expend waiting for a remedy to arive?

            You also have missed the main effect that America has on these places, we provide HOPE. The people crushed by those systems always hope to be rescued and so they continue on and wait for the chance to become free. They hope we will help, and they KNOW that the example we provide works a lot better, and so not all is hopeless and lost with no where to turn, there is ALWAYS America there and waiting. That is WHY America is the target, and once destroyed, there is nothing to stop them from taking the whole do the world. Communism waivers because it’s flawed, but it falls… because it’s PUSHED! And that is a great thing that all people subjected to it, hope for.

            5th Columns:
            This is the WAY in which the Communist usually operate, they send these amongst the target and then wait for the pot to boil, America has a bunch of them….


            And, to close, SOFA, aren’t an “empire”. It’s taught this way in the schools, but that is so the pupil will eventually turn on the mechanism that keeps the bad guys from winning! In an empire (it’s not a term of art), the colonizing power MAKES all the decisions. They run things from behind the scenes and for their own benefit.

            America does not operate and empire and never will. SOFAs don’t an empire make, we don’t select the political parties in countries where we have SOFA, we don’t operate their police departments, we don’t run their ministries, we don’t control their Press. What we do have, is a base or two, we abide by THEIR laws and usually their customs, and we do what we are there to do… that’s NOT an empire, that…. is a blessing for those facing the swords of despotism.

            I had to skip a few things, it’s WAY late now… but I think that covers most of it…

            Except one thing you mentioned: Patriotism can be measured in many ways, it may call one to do unpopular things from time to time, you may even have to do distasteful things, things you would not ordinarily do and that you may never wish to do again,… its often concealed in the mist and there for you to see only in the darkest hour, but I like to think of it this way; if you want America to win on behalf of Humanity, and you do things and support things that genuinely pursue that end, you are Patriot; if you want to pull it down, if the others are better, if they make more since to you, if America is an impediment to the good and not a facilitator of it, and the best way to deal with that in one’s mind is to tear it down and start over again because all you can see are the bad things or the inconsistency, or hypocrisies which some may claim even eloquently, and you want to replace this Ideal the with something that is easier and more controllable by the few, then I would say not.

            So, the question is really for you to answer, not for me, it’s not in our heads… it’s in each person’s heart and that is where you’ll have to look. I have my answer, I know what I want, I want America for all of humanity to enjoy, and I’m willing to risk my life again so that others can have it and so that I can have it, and I won’t give it up or accept anything less.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t think Jefferson set up permanent bases in Libya, once or twice.

      • Anonymous

        And,… how would this be relevant?

      • Anonymous

        If you think Jefferson didn’t set up what could be called “permanent” bases of any sort in foreign lands during the war against the Barbary Pirates, you’re incredibly ignorant of both history and war in general.

        • Josh Rogers

          Maybe he’s referring to empire building – “permanent” – he may be a fool but it appears that you can’t read his entire short post?

          • Anonymous

            I’m not short, in ANY respect…. but thanks for noticing…

    • Anonymous

      This is not a world war, yet.

      Is Canada isolationist?

      • Anonymous

        NYC is bathed in blood, dust, and debris (twice). Iraq the same? England the same? Spain the same? Indonesia…. the same? If the MSM and the Congress fail to use the term “World War”, we’re not in a World War?

        If BHO fails to use the term Jihadist, there aren’t any?

        I don’t know what would have to happen for you to understand the world as it is, but…. you might want to give it a try. It’s fairly important.

        Also, RP is not Canadian. And, RP I suspect (in fairness, I won’t assert, I only suspect) is an Isolationist by any name you might choose. I don’t think that will ever work, I think retraction is a HUGE mistake.

        And, I also doubt he can be elected, but he might be able to make it, it’s hard to say.

        If he wins the nomination, I’ll vote for him. But I think it would be better if he didn’t due to the fact that (all the other things being fairly acceptable), this one thing is not. It’s a mistake.

    • SR

      How long have you served as a military strategist?

      Are you a volunteer?

      You speak of RP’s foreign policy as if there are no military brass that agree with him. You might want to do a little more research.

      • Anonymous

        It doesn’t matter who agrees or disagrees, what matters is what is right and what is wrong for the United States at the head of the Western world. I don’t need the endorsment of this one or that one to know retracting is the wrong way to go.

        If the money is an issue, find more money.

        If the bad guys don’t like us, too bad. We’re here to stay and we’re going to win, THEY need to get used to that or it will only destroy them and that for which they BELIEVE they are fighting.

        And, if waiting for the bad guys to fall, or to quit, from behind ramparts of stone and earth ACTUALLY worked, I would be all in favor. The problem is, it doesn’t, never has, and never will because the bad guys are smart too, unfortunately,… they are also BAD… that’s why they’re the bad guys.

        I didn’t make the rules, I just try to understand them quickly enough that the Good Guys will always have the upper hand.

        PS No, I’m not a strategist, or a volunteer, but… I did sleep at the Holiday Inn last night….

  • I find it very scary that this many people voted for Romney. Romney gets most of his contributions from Goldman Sachs and other large financial institutions (the same ones that put Obama into power). Romney is nothing more than a richer and whiter Obama.

    His net worth is 250 Million (not counting stock options and favors). He thought a gallon of milk cost $1.50 when asked the other day. Romney is incredibly out of touch with the average American, yet people still vote for him.. I guess people want more massive BANK BAILOUTS. I guess people don’t want to do any research, but instead vote for who the msm tells them to. I guess people want a candidate that will stomp the lower and middle class into dust.

    Please I beg you. If you believe in freedom and this great nation you must research Ron Paul and convert 50 friends. This isn’t just enough either. You have to register republican and vote in the primaries. Its easy to say you support Paul and freedom on the internet, but that’s useless if you don’t vote. Please get the word out. The majority of Americans would support Paul if they knew the truth. SPREAD FREEDOM. SPREAD THE TRUTH. VOTE PAUL 2012!

    • Anonymous

      I never knew that President = King ! I thought we were a Republic and that there is a Senate and a House ! Even if this kook were to win in his fairy tale land and world he lives in, what makes you think he will be the king? It is you who are ill informed and need to do research in history. And, what is wrong with American Interests such as a broker like Goldman? You all seem to have negatives views of all American interests. Where does that come from? We used to wage wars over American interests at one time.

      • Anonymous

        How much more Chinese money will we need?

      • SR

        You can’t even begin to move Congress without a president that is focused on the right things.

        Nobody is asking for a king. We are asking for leadership that is not in bed with all the bad actors that are running this country into the ground.

    • Anonymous

      What about the hundreds of trillions the muslims stole from us and are using to put either the O’Bummer or the pauliac in charge?

      Both are vile mercenaries in the pay of conquering Islam!

  • Tw

    If Ron Paul does not become president, you can pretty much kiss the USA goodbye. Open your eyes and ears, we are screwed unless there are drastic changes.

    • Anonymous

      Yes and the world is flat. The USA isn’t going anywhere. We are the USA ! The people are the country.

      • Anonymous

        Thanks. That should fill some hungry bellies.

    • Anonymous

      The changes pauliacs want is to put the muslim terrorists in charge…happening soon in zeropa…guess what’s in the White House?

    • Anonymous

      Your Lord and Savior Ron Paul is not going to be President no matter how many times you bow your head and pray to him.

      Seriously, you people are cultists. You are embarrasment to intelligent Ron Paul supporters.

  • So you post a link to make your point and then claim its irrelevant? Guess you are in charge of determining who and what an establishment republican is, lol.

  • Anonymous

    If the media weren’t shameless, they might feel embarrassed for openly rooting against Ron Paul and his message to follow the constitution.

    • Anonymous

      Ronpauliac is as much a constitutionalist as O’Bummer…fact that’s what Hussein was bragging he was in the first time!

      • Anonymous

        On the contrary, Obama fully recognizes the constitution as being an obstacle to big government interference that it’s intended to be. Whereas Ron Paul sees the constitution as our protection from big government interference that it’s intended to be. Ask Santorum, he’ll fill you in on Ron Paul’s good ideas on the constitution.

  • Anonymous

    You have one chance to save a dying Republic, and it’s a slim one at that. That chance has a name, and it’s not Romney.

    • Anonymous

      And, we never came out of the depression or ww1 or ww2, etc. The world and America has ended how many times already? All is lost !

      • Anonymous

        As I understand it, we haven’t rescinded martial law since 1860, and “congress” to this day serves at the pleasure of the pres… weren’t you saying something about pres = king before? Try reading the Federalist and anti-Federalists papers, arguments for and against a stronger central gov, and the unpaid debts that gave rise to it.
        George speaking about “these dis-united States…”, and their wholesale breaking of contracts/conventions and international agreements.

        • Anonymous

          “As I understand it, [insane lunacy]”
          Well, that explains a lot. You don’t understand much of anything.

          • Anonymous

            If it were but a bit more “snarky”, you would have gotten a “like” from self.

        • Anonymous

          Although between Shrub and O’Bummer, they have both acted to effectively do away with Posse Comitatus so that, once again, active military are able to be used to act against the will of the public. Isn’t that wonderful? Personally, I’m kind of tired of only having the choice to vote for one cartoon character or another.

          And again I ask: Seriously? Are these really the best choices that we can find in this country?

    • Anonymous

      And Ronpauliac is synonym with O’Bummer the Kenyan Keynesian Kannibal…

      • Anonymous

        I like that… “Ronpauliac”, although it doesn’t have the same ring as “Paulinista”. Go back to using that one, ok?

  • All the hate and calling RP supporters idiots, stupid, crazy, wacko, nutjobs, evil, racist, Jew haters, dope heads, OWSers, Paultard, and neocons every time they commented certainly makes it obvious the GOP has already marginalized RP supporters! We have, collectively, told them that they said it once so shut up and only if you support someone other than Paul can you comment. We have told them over and over they are not “one of us” and then we expect them to be all warm and fuzzy and vote for our guy in the general election. And we will blame them for splitting the ticket and giving Obama the win. Splitting the ticket has already taken place.

    • Anonymous


    • K-Bob

      …so shut up and only if you support someone other than Paul can you comment.

      I was wondering why we never get any pro-RonPaul comments anymore. They must all have been banned or something.

      • Anonymous

        You’re being sarcastic, right? Ron Paul spammers are the most common type of political spammer. Honest RP supporters should be ashamed or your fellow supporters’ actions.

        • K-Bob

          I always get a kick out of people in the USA who play the old “act like we’re being prevented from speaking out” card. Timely’s was a minor use of it, so I was just messing around. It’s not as silly as when the #OWS folks claim they are being stifled and prevented from speaking out. This, after being left alone for months to do and say nearly any crazy thing they want, while costing the taxpayers millions of dollars.

    • Anonymous

      Marginalized? Why YOU dont quit insulting our intelligence and admit YOU never voted but for the demon-rats?
      YOU said:
      ¨[Quote]idiots, stupid, crazy, wacko, nutjobs, evil, racist, Jew haters, dope heads, OWSers, Paultard?[/quote]

      But…but…THAT’S WHAT YOU ARE!!!

  • Anonymous

    How does endless war around the globe with no war-declaration and no victory help the average US citizen and tax payer? You people are just not mentally ready for Ron Paul, still stuck thinking that the US is invading other countries in the name of freedom and democracy. Hah. Tell that to the Syrians.

    • Anonymous

      It is unfortunate that folks make charges without checking the record.

      Iraq: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991
      Ron Paul was not in Congress. Did not vote on the Resolution. A copy of the authorization can be found here:

      Afghanistan: Authorization of the use of Military Force of 2001
      Ron Paul voted in favor of the Resolution.
      A copy of the authorization can be found here:

      Iraq: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
      Ron Paul voted against the Resolution.
      A copy of the authorization can be found here:

      One can agree or disagree with the resolutions and the ensuing operations, but the record is clear that President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush sought and obtained authorization from Congress before using military force. Further, the spending to conduct the ensuing operations was authorized by Congress.

      What about President Obama?

      He authorized the use of military force against Libya without authorization from Congress.

      That’s right, it was a Democratic President who authorized the use of military force without first seeking and obtaining a resolution from Congress.

      So, if people want to take about “wars” without authorization, it is a Democratic President who is pursuing that approach.

  • SR

    What an embarrassing, antiquated system the Federal Reserve is.

    For a country that prides itself on being able to build vastly complicated, responsive systems that deliver a high degree of value to users, there is absolutely no reason for us to be stuck living under this out-dated 1913 monstrosity that funnel’s all of our nation’s hope and prosperity into the bottomless pockets of blue blooded bankster thugs.

    End the Fed.

    Choose Ron Paul.

    • Anonymous

      Here we go again, the fed established the FRB and Ron isn’t going to be KING ! It will take more than this quack to end the FRB and you want to replace it with what? Anarchists?

      • Josh Rogers

        A free market system? Maybe like what we had before the fed was established?

      • Anonymous

        Replace it with nothing. We already have a congress and a treasury.

        No need for a middle man.

      • SR

        It takes a serious lack of imagination to think that if granted the freedom to do so, Americans wouldn’t be able to come up with a better monetary system than exists now.

        Your question is absurd as asking how one would create Google before it was ever invented. It’s not something hashed out in a few paragraphs, but from thoughtful and innovative analysis of emergent processes.

      • Josh Rogers

        But obviously it’s totally sane to think that one person can figure out what the money supply should be considering the millions of inputs and variables in a modern economy….

      • Anonymous

        No, dear, with the free market. The same thing that worked fine before the FED.

      • Anonymous

        Considering the trillions already piled on my back (apparently you have no responsibility to pay a dime… getting welfare?), anarchy might not be that bad.

        • Anonymous

          What an idiotic post. Anarchy isn’t sustainable. Whoever’s the best organized, has the weapons, etc., forms the government in that case. Might as well just hand it over to some wannabe new-age Soviets and warlords, let them work out the exact borders of their new territory. The fact you’d even post something so stupid … well, no wonder you’re a Paulbot. (Honestly, no insult to ALL Ron Paul supporters, but you’ve got a serious, serious problem with zombies in your ranks.)

          • Anonymous

            And your correct “system” is sustainable? Are you kidding?

    • Anonymous

      Why dont you move to Somalia or Equador where there is no state, no law, no money and no nothing…dont worry for Ronpauliac, he’s got all these payoffs from O’Bambam…

      • SR

        Because that makes any sense at all.

        I’m saying loosen the law to allow for improvements in the system..

        …and you’re saying love it the way it is or get the hell out?

        Mind you, this is a system that is piling trillions of dollars in debt on every last one of us. From individuals, to companies, to the country itself… everyone & everything is drowning in their debt– $60 trillion of it!! $15 trillion of it belongs to the feds, and another $45 trillion or so is tied up in businesses and the real estate market.

        If you want a prosperous economy, if you want your children to have better lives than you, then perhaps it is time to cast aside this mode of thinking that rules out competitive reform of the monetary system.

        • Anonymous

          Castro just fired one million civil servants…A COMMUNIST!!!
          But he had the sense of keeping his guns so as not to swing from the nearest branch.
          Ronpaul want to surrender to conquering islam!
          No matter if he is right on internal policy, the traitor need to hang!

          • Josh Rogers

            You are a troll. We are all aware of it. Good night and get some hobbies.

      • Anonymous


        I’ve been going down this list of comments and you don’t seem to mention who you are supporting, just that you are obviously extremely anti-Paul. So who are you supporting, why, and where is all this information on O’Bummer paying off Paul that you keep talking about? I’d love to read through it.

        • Anonymous

          I say we wind this troll up and watch it spin, what say ye? lol

        • Anonymous

          Just read the pauliac’s writings of this last ten years…fit right in with the Aryan Nation’s gang of thugs. No wonder leftists back him up.
          Santorum will rally, I hope. Just wish Palin get some guts and indicate support for the only one worth backing up.

          • Anonymous

            So, no facts, just more pointless, vague blatherings? OK…question answered.

            Unlike Paul’s amazingly consistent platform, the only thing I see out of other candidates is that they lean in whatever direction the wind’s blowing. That was obvious after the first Iowa debate when they ALL jumped on Paul’s platform. Where were they before that? Blowing in the wind like weeds.

            Without fiscal responsibility first, foremost and always, all you have is – hmm…exactly what we have now. Go figure. I once went to go look for Santorum’s platform, but all I could find looked like a menu in a Chinese restaurant – 1 from column A, 1 from column B, etc… Just more of the above. Weeds in the wind.

  • Anonymous

    Hmmm ….. What is the difference in power between a lone state rep and Commander in Chief?

    He spent all of those years in congress doing exactly what he was supposed to do …. vote ‘NO’ to all of this bigger and bigger government. The same big government crap that got us in this sorry state.

    The Welfare/Warfare state is dying.

  • Josiah Paulsrud

    i agree that paul won’t support eventual candidate, whoever it is, and if he decides to run as an independent, obama will for sure get reelected. it will be ross perot all over again. if paul does that, he truly may not care about america like he says, because anyone of these remaining candidates is 100 times better than obama, even if they have their flaws…

    • Anonymous

      GOP deserves to lose given that their establishment candidates are all so horribly weak and unprincipled. At least Obama stands for socialism, what does Romney stand for? Nothing. I will not vote for Romney even if Obama wins another go-round. Then maybe the dimwits in the GOP will put up a real candidate and get serious about ending the ever-growing failed federal bureaucracy.

      • Anonymous

        Why dont you admit you have voted demon-rat all your life as 90% of all pauliacs do!

      • Anonymous

        Spoken like an arrogant, self-entitled, whiny little punk. “It’s my way, or else! Screw the other voters! Screw the rest of the country! I’d rather the country go straight to Hell than not put in our Lord and Savior, Ron Paul!”

      • Anonymous

        If Obama wins another go-round we won’t have a country left to save. Obamacare will be set in stone, and the road to socialism/communism will be a one-way street. I love Ron Paul and agree with almost all of his ideas and I will vote for him in the primary. However, if he loses the primary I will support whoever is running against Obama. We have to repeal Obamacare at all costs.

        • You are dead on with this…Whichever candidate wins the nomination. I WILL SUPPORT THEM…Its to the point I would vote for Mickey Mouse before Obama.

  • Anonymous

    Like that is a bad thing. How do you expect the government to control the price of drugs if they do not have drug laws. How are the global banks going to make hundreds of BILLIONS in laundered drug money if there are not drug laws.
    Get real! We, um, they need drug laws.

    • Anonymous

      Why? You dont want a line for a dollar? Visit where it’s available, the perfect libertarian country of Somalia…no government, no taxes, no laws, no nothing!!! Just the barrels of guns!(pointing at you!)
      Somalia, the Pauliac’s heaven!

  • I must have missed the congressional declarations of war in Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Libya, etc. They’re voting to fund undeclared wars. I find that strange.

    • Anonymous

      They voted to let the Presidents do what they want, almost. Where have you been?

    • Anonymous

      It helps to get the facts correct.

      Iraq: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991
      Ron Paul was not in Congress. Did not vote on the Resolution. A copy of the authorization can be found here:

      Afghanistan: Authorization of the use of Military Force of 2001
      Ron Paul voted in favor of the Resolution.
      A copy of the authorization can be found here:

      Iraq: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
      Ron Paul voted against the Resolution.
      A copy of the authorization can be found here:

      One can agree or disagree with the resolutions, but the record is clear that President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush sought and obtained authorization from Congress before using military force. Further, the spending to conduct the ensuing operations was authorized by Congress

      What about President Obama?

      He authorized the use of military force against Libya without authorization from Congress.

      That’s right, it was a Democratic President who authorized the use of military force without first seeking and obtaining a resolution from Congress.

    • Anonymous

      Congress authorized those actions. What Congress DIDN’T authorize were Obama’s excursions in Libya, etc.

  • Anonymous

    Someone stuff a sock in that ignorant Palin’s mouth. She is disgusting. Who cares what a quitter thinks or says?

    • Anonymous

      Palin Derangement Syndrome strikes again.

    • K-Bob

      Apparently, you.

  • Cindy Lu

    WTF? I always knew she was an opportunist-whichever way the wind blows as long as it blows money her way

    She looks a little puffy and tired in that screenshot-I won’t watch the video

    If you supported her you have my sympathies-I could have as well

    dont you feel shortchanged?

    Saying kind words about Paul and Trump? That is so cheap-but I am not surprised

    Santorum/West 2012

    • Anonymous

      Classic example of how some conservatives continue to get it wrong.

    • Anonymous

      apparently you have forgotten whose endorsement was the Gold Standard in the 2010 primaries and mid-terms

  • michael yu

    There is no chance in hell I will vote for Romney.

  • Anonymous

    I see O’Bambam put his billions of illegal Saudi oil money to use, flooding all the republican boards with his muslim stooges, the lunatic pauliacs and their nonsensical surrender to conquering Islam! He even seem to have purchased his arch ennemy Sarah Palin, who is urging surrender now to Bambam’s pauliac puppets!

    • Anonymous


      • Anonymous


  • Anonymous

    I’ll stick with the soldiers.

    Amateur Hour Is Over!
    Ron Paul 2012

    • Anonymous

      Bing! There it is.

      • Anonymous

        Start praying to Mecca!

  • Jim Botts

    That was painful to watch, and I say that as someone who was really pulling for her in 2008.

    She’s never going to amount to a hill of beans until she becomes a statesman.

    • Anonymous

      I get it. It is horrible to want to unite the Republican party while broadening the base, even though you disagree with some of Ron Paul’s foreign policy positions. How silly of Governor Palin. /sarc

  • She’s one smart cookie.

  • Anonymous

    What’s most important to me is the illegal issue.

    It’s not jobs, economy, debt or deficit…
    It’s not Iran or the foreign policy but they are a close second.

    Immigration will make or destroy this country.

    Bachmann and Romney or the only two candidates that say no amnesty and no benefits for illegals. All the others say once the border is secure they will support amnesty.

    Obama must not get a second term because he will not have to answer to voters again.
    He will destroy this country more then he already has.

    Mitt Romney/Allen West/2012

  • Anonymous

    most intelligent thing she’s ever said…

  • Anonymous

    Go to and ck out the most wanted.
    Then tell me imigration is not number one issue.

    Romney said no amnesty and no benefits for illegals.

  • Anonymous

    Congress. THAT is where the real fight is, and that is why Palin sat this round out for the presidency. There is too much work to do getting the right Congress people elected this year, and Palin is going to be on the forefront of that movement. If we rein in Congress, we begin to rein in Washington. Pay close attention to whom Palin endorses, support them, and vote them in. THAT is how Washington is going to be won back by the PEOPLE.

    I believe Palin is “setting Washington up” for a 2016 presidential run. It will take more than one election cycle to reform Congress, and she’s smart to recognize that and focus on it – from the sidelines, without a title. Who else can do that? She will lead the way and wield influence in the Congressional races of 2012 and 2014, as she did in 2010. Then, in 2016, she can run confidently, knowing there are allies in Congress who share her vision, will support her and endorse her for president. This will be a ground-up, grassroots effort. What better person than Sarah to lead the way? I feel confident and secure in her vision and ability to unite the people for a cause we will ALL benefit from.

  • Anonymous

    Ms. Palin is right: the supporters of Ron Paul will determine whether Obama will have an easy road to reelection or if he will be challenged. However, given her strong views and expectations for the race, why didn’t she choose to run for President? I am going to chalk it up to cowardice: she was afraid of the public scrutiny and the possibility of a second rejection. While I wasn’t a supporter of Michelle Bachmann, I do think her willingness to stand on the national stage makes her far more credible than Sarah Palin will ever be.

    • Anonymous

      Oh please.

    • Anonymous

      Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson are big disappointments.
      Just hope she does not veer right into the hitlerian pauliac swamp.

      Remember Nixon, sucking up to your enemies will leave you with no friend.

      • LadyLiberty2000

        I see I’m not the first person to question your motives, but I ask in all sincerity – what is your point here? I see you holding some contradictory positions. You like LiJenn’s comment clearly slamming Palin and then further down you like overthecoastline’s supportive of Palin comment. A little consistency would go a long way.

      • Alexis Rose

        Fred Thompson was a sucker trap designed to prevent sheep-for-brains camp followers like yourself from consolidating around a genuine conservative, so that McCain could grab the nomination and deliberately take a dive in the election.

        You voted for someone who refused to even criticize Obama, because he agreed with him on every issue of substance.

        You should love Obama. He bombs, bombs, bombs. He wrote off the last of your rights just a few days ago – why, that should have you positively partying, after all your support year after year for the fascist Patriot Act. He puts together massive new government entitlement programs just like your hero George Bush, and the person who you are now told is your hero Rick Santorum.

        You will conveniently forget that Santorum threw Pat Toomey under the bus in favor of Arlen Specter, beat your atrophied chest, and proclaim yourself a “conservative”. You support treasonous acts that undermine the foundation of liberty and call yourself a “patriot”. You gossip and lie and covet and call yourself God-fearing.

        What you should really be calling yourself is a psychiatrist. Now go run back to the only place you’re comfortable, where anyone who holds any opinion not approved by the powers that be gets banned in a flash.

        I know you better than I would ever have liked to. You are a shame to the human race that in over 10 years of pounding out ignorance and arrogance on that keyboard you’ve never ONCE taken a good hard look at yourself.

  • Anonymous

    Ladies and Gentlemen, my new books came in the mail (Law of Nation, et al), and I have but 5 minutes more to post here.
    Been reading the comments (of course) and as a “Paulinista”/”Pauliac”/”anarchist/”hippie”/”warmonger”/”what haven’t I been referred to as?”, have found a rich source for amusement and very little substance… unless you consider out right fear and cowardice to be “substance”.

    I shut this down for the night with much humor and little rancor. I realize that “they know not what they do”.