Ron Paul Supporter on Limblow Show

[nw_hunter]

This caller on the Limbaugh show has old EL-Rushblow on the ropes. He tries to Bully mic. her, but she's having none of it.I'm surprised they let her on, and I bet the screener caught hell for it In typical Rush fashion, he calls her a Democrat when she disagrees with him, and he has no other response.

These Neo-Cons hate it that the Republican voters are starting to wake up and take back the Republican party from them.You want to know what's wrong with the Republican party today? Look no farther than this clown and his ILK posing as conservative.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnmcmhjhTuQ&feature=related

[magooch]

Rush--a neocon?  Get real.

[blind ear]

No, Rush is just a CON. ear

[Dixie Dude]

I think most republicans can accept making drugs legal and taxing them.  They can accept closing down the Energy, Education, EPA, and Commerce departments.  Not and no longer needed.  Most can accept cutting welfare, food stamps, foreign aid, and spending for the arts.  Where it scares most, is his lack of details on his foreign policy.  He sounds like he is an isolationist.  We are a superpower whether we like it or not.  We inherited that from WWII.  How can we back out?  Has he said how we are going to back down from foreign intervention. 
 
Closing unnecessary bases like in Germany is ok.  We at least need to keep the navy large and operational.  Aircraft carriers can reach about 600-1000 miles inland from the sea.  With cruise missles on crusiers or reactivated battleships or from subs, we can reach 2500 miles inland with a nuke tip.  With conventional, we can reach about 1500 miles.  90% of the worlds people live within 300 miles from any sea that is approachable by our navy.  We need to activate or build more military bases on the southern border and bring the army home. 
 
What about the economy, how does he plan to bring factories home? 

[bilmac]

Pauls position on foreign affairs is worse than Obama's Didn't we learn from the history of WW-II. The world will be a different place if fundamentalist muslims get an A bomb.

[Gary G]

What about the economy, how does he plan to bring factories home? 

Capital (jobs) always flees a more restrictive environment to a more free environment. This has always been the case. Regulations, high taxes, employment restrictions, central planning represent the restrictive environment. Ron Paul's policy of less government will change that.

Pauls position on foreign affairs is worse than Obama's Didn't we learn from the history of WW-II.

Most people only know the government produced history of WWII. Read this: http://www.amazon.com/Century-War-John-V-Denson/dp/1933550066 or google the congressional record, minority report. It was a war that the US did not have to be in. If we had stayed out it would have soon been over and we would not have had the cold war.

He sounds like he is an isolationist.

War is a form of isolationism. Ron Paul advocates free trade with all nations as long as it is possible. This is the opposite of isolationism. The theme is that ideas of liberty are spread by trade with other nations. This has always been the case.
People that say he is an isolationist have been listening to the attack dogs, Limbaugh and others.

[BUGEYE]

Pauls position on foreign affairs is worse than Obama's Didn't we learn from the history of WW-II. The world will be a different place if fundamentalist muslims get an A bomb.

If we had stayed out of the war, hitler would have devoured europe and the middle east.
if iran gets the bomb, they will devour the middle east and then start on europe.
it don't look good for us if they succeed.
in short, you're exactly right.

[Dixie Dude]

I agree on some.  If we had stayed out of WWI, Germany would have won, or at least had a cease fire with England and France.  Russia might still have gone communist, but Germany had occupied Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belorus, and the Ukraine.  They would have gotten their independence.  Germany had a Parliment in WWI, and was democratic.  They wouldn't have gone into a depression in 1924 trying to pay back war debt to the Allies, thus kept their economy in tact and Hitler would have never come to power.  The Austria-Hungarian Empire would still exist.  Turkey would probably still have Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and maybe Kuwait.  Palestine and Jordan would exist independent of Turkey, if the cease fire started after England liberated Arabia, Palestine and Jordan, Kuwait might have been liberated.  Lots of ifs. 
 
In WWII, had England had a Cease Fire treaty with Germany before we got involved, and before they invaded Russia, we might not have gotten involved.  Had we not cut off scrap iron shipments to Japan, they might not have attacked us, and eventually conquered China. They might have made a deal with Germany who occupied the Netherlands and northern France at the time, to take control of Vietnam and Indonesia without a fight.   

[Casull]

Ron Paul's policy of less government will change that.

 
 
Ron Paul's "policy" will change NOTHING.  What the RP followers don't seem to understand is that, if by some chance he were elected, the best that can happen is nothing (which is not necessarily a bad thing).  RP, to my knowledge, has never been able to garner even one Republican co-sponser to any of his proposed legislation.  Ever.  This is not an attack on his beliefs, some of which I share and others that I don't, but on his abilities as a politician.  He cannot attract support of his fellow Republicans, and surely won't draw support from the democrats.  Unlike Reagan, he is not charismatic, and I doubt he will draw the general populace to support his ideas and put pressure on the legislature to enact it.  If elected, he will be forced to "adjust" his ideas to get passage of anything, or he will be Don Quixote, tilting at windmills.

[BUGEYE]

Ron Paul's policy of less government will change that.

 
 
Ron Paul's "policy" will change NOTHING.  What the RP followers don't seem to understand is that, if by some chance he were elected, the best that can happen is nothing (which is not necessarily a bad thing).  RP, to my knowledge, has never been able to garner even one Republican co-sponser to any of his proposed legislation.  Ever.  This is not an attack on his beliefs, some of which I share and others that I don't, but on his abilities as a politician.  He cannot attract support of his fellow Republicans, and surely won't draw support from the democrats.  Unlike Reagan, he is not charismatic, and I doubt he will draw the general populace to support his ideas and put pressure on the legislature to enact it.  If elected, he will be forced to "adjust" his ideas to get passage of anything, or he will be Don Quixote, tilting at windmills.

this is my feelings also.  most of the media is calling his good showing a "protest vote"
I'm not sure I understand how that works.

[Gary G]

Ron Paul's policy of less government will change that.

 
 
Ron Paul's "policy" will change NOTHING.  What the RP followers don't seem to understand is that, if by some chance he were elected, the best that can happen is nothing (which is not necessarily a bad thing).  RP, to my knowledge, has never been able to garner even one Republican co-sponser to any of his proposed legislation.  Ever.  This is not an attack on his beliefs, some of which I share and others that I don't, but on his abilities as a politician.  He cannot attract support of his fellow Republicans, and surely won't draw support from the democrats.  Unlike Reagan, he is not charismatic, and I doubt he will draw the general populace to support his ideas and put pressure on the legislature to enact it.  If elected, he will be forced to "adjust" his ideas to get passage of anything, or he will be Don Quixote, tilting at windmills.

Maybe you have not thought of two powerful actions that he would have at his discretion.
1. Let's not forget that he would have veto power.
2. He would also have direct communication with the American people to make his case. People power can have an effect on politicians.

[Casull]

Maybe you have not thought of two powerful actions that he would have at his discretion.
1. Let's not forget that he would have veto power.
2. He would also have direct communication with the American people to make his case. People power can have an effect on politicians.

 
 
You apparently didn't read my post very well.
 
1.  I said the best that can happen is nothing (veto power); and
2.  He doesn't have the charisma of Reagan to draw the "people power".

[nw_hunter]

Ron Paul's policy of less government will change that.

 
 
Ron Paul's "policy" will change NOTHING.  What the RP followers don't seem to understand is that, if by some chance he were elected, the best that can happen is nothing (which is not necessarily a bad thing).  RP, to my knowledge, has never been able to garner even one Republican co-sponser to any of his proposed legislation.  Ever.  This is not an attack on his beliefs, some of which I share and others that I don't, but on his abilities as a politician.  He cannot attract support of his fellow Republicans, and surely won't draw support from the democrats.  Unlike Reagan, he is not charismatic, and I doubt he will draw the general populace to support his ideas and put pressure on the legislature to enact it.  If elected, he will be forced to "adjust" his ideas to get passage of anything, or he will be Don Quixote, tilting at windmills.

Paul has made it quite plain he plans on doing nothing as President that would be contrary to the Constitution.You can rest assured when he says he will bring our troops home from foreign soil it will happen with Paul. Some on here talked about the money it generated being in a foreign country. (Generates for who?)When I was stationed in Germany in the 60's, the people working on base at the PX and other places were German.Some of the units even had German KP workers. It has cost the American tax payer huge sums of money to keep up our presence in other country's.There are many other things a President can do to lift the country up or bring it down.We give Bush credit for the Department Of Homeland Security don't we?And the start of bailouts. Obama was given credit by the Liberals as snuffing out Osama.Republicans credit him for the cost of gas at the pumps.

As far as Paul not able to garner support for his Bills introduced........Just that fact alone makes him head and shoulders above his opponents. However! He has had sponsors for some of his bills. The Audit The Fed Bill being one of them.(HR459) He had 191 sponsors on that one. Michele Bachmann being one of them.

Some of his bills included one to withdraw from the United Nations. Most conservative voters I know would agree with that one. Most of their Republican and Democrat Reps. didn't.

How about his Bills to do away with more bloated unconstitutional agencies like OSHA?
That big brother......Occupational Safety & Health Adm.

How about a bill to Withdraw from the WTO World Trade Organization? Most of my Republican friends would agree with him on that one!

Or the Internal Revenue Service?...............I think even professed Liberals would like to see more of their own money. The list of bills he penned made very good sense, but the lack of support clearly points out the need to clean the HOUSE!

As far as Paul not being charismatic..........Here's a man, who with all the negative BS against him from his own Republican party and media (This we know is true) has been able to enlist enough support to place him near the front leader. Does this sound like a man with NO charisma? This is ONE republican he has support from, and by the look of things I'm not alone.

[Casull]

nw_hunter, as I said in my post, I am not attacking RP's ideas.  I do agree with many of them.  If you'll re-read, I was talking about how ineffective I believe he would be.  As for his support, I don't see how it can be a result of his charisma, since he has little or none.  The support is for his ideas.

[Gary G]

Charisma hum, maybe it is in the eye of the beholders: 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/103551.html

[Casull]

Charisma hum, maybe it is in the eye of the beholders

 
 
Well, I'd say you got that one right.

[nw_hunter]

Charisma hum, maybe it is in the eye of the beholders: 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/103551.html

That's the point I was trying to make with a fellow poster lol! On a scale of 1-10 I'm not sure how much he has, but it's evident it's enough.

[osokusmc]

nw_hunter, as I said in my post, I am not attacking RP's ideas.  I do agree with many of them.  If you'll re-read, I was talking about how ineffective I believe he would be.  As for his support, I don't see how it can be a result of his charisma, since he has little or none.  The support is for his ideas.

By that same logic, we have nothing to fear from obrahma.  If a President is really that powerless, what'll it hurt to have another four of the current President?  If RP were elected President it would indicate that he has enough pull to accomplish a few things.  If he did nothing but veto everything that comes across his desk and sign pardons all day, it would be a huge improvement over what we've had the last several administrations.  I'll take substance over charisma any day.

[Gary G]

Hey NW, did you hear that Ron came in second in the NH democratic primary also.
Not only was he second in the Republican primary, he also was second in the democratic primary; write in votes.
Maybe the charisma is wide spread.

[Casull]

You fellows have fun with your circle.  We'll see who was correct after the dust settles. 

[Doublebass73]

nw_hunter, as I said in my post, I am not attacking RP's ideas.  I do agree with many of them.  If you'll re-read, I was talking about how ineffective I believe he would be.  As for his support, I don't see how it can be a result of his charisma, since he has little or none.  The support is for his ideas.

By that same logic, we have nothing to fear from obrahma.  If a President is really that powerless, what'll it hurt to have another four of the current President?  If RP were elected President it would indicate that he has enough pull to accomplish a few things.  If he did nothing but veto everything that comes across his desk and sign pardons all day, it would be a huge improvement over what we've had the last several administrations.  I'll take substance over charisma any day.

Good points in this post.

Would we rather have Mitt, who will play nice with our liberal congress and cost us a lot more money in the end or Ron Paul, who will veto everything that comes across his desk?

[BUGEYE]

Is anyone going to explain what a protest vote is?

[Gary G]

Is anyone going to explain what a protest vote is?

It's the Ron Paul Revolution!

[BUGEYE]

Is anyone going to explain what a protest vote is?

It's the Ron Paul Revolution!

why do they call it a protest vote?  I thought it was just folks voting for him because they liked him.

[Dixie Dude]

Paul, by using executive orders, firing people, putting a hiring freeze on Federal employees, can cut some, but not all.  He can veto, but will probably be overrode.  He might be able to shut down various departments, like Energy, Commerce, Education, and especially EPA.  It will however, probably make Dems' and Rep's work together to provide legislation that could override a veto.  This may can help bring some serious cuts to the budget.  Shutting down bases in countries we are at peace with, like Germany is a good thing.  Using the Army less, and the Navy and Air Force more, might be easier than troops on the ground.  Getting rid of the Federal Reserve might take some doing. 

[Doublebass73]

Paul, by using executive orders, firing people, putting a hiring freeze on Federal employees, can cut some, but not all.  He can veto, but will probably be overrode.  He might be able to shut down various departments, like Energy, Commerce, Education, and especially EPA.  It will however, probably make Dems' and Rep's work together to provide legislation that could override a veto.  This may can help bring some serious cuts to the budget.  Shutting down bases in countries we are at peace with, like Germany is a good thing.  Using the Army less, and the Navy and Air Force more, might be easier than troops on the ground.  Getting rid of the Federal Reserve might take some doing.

He definitely wouldn't be able to cut everything that he wants to but can you imagine how great it would be if he could get rid of the EPA alone?

[Gary G]

Is anyone going to explain what a protest vote is?

It's the Ron Paul Revolution!

why do they call it a protest vote?  I thought it was just folks voting for him because they liked him.

It's because they value the message of liberty and prosperity more than that of the leviathan induced coercion and poverty. It is a protest of the Leviathan state.

[scootrd]

But you got to remember one thing...Rush gets his fat checks from Clear Channel, and the Mitt Romney Syndicate owns Clear Channel...!
 
..TM7

YEP... TO FIND THE TRUTH NOWADAYS ONE MUST ONLY FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIN


Thomas Jefferson and Ron Paul have it right

"peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
- Thomas Jefferson

Non-interventionism,
The diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense, has had a long history in the United States. Realism or political realism prioritizes national interest and security over ideology . 

Our military presence in these countries is what pissed them off to begin with.

Ron Paul has it correct.
 
Poor Rush has been going nuts nowadays .. his whole itty bitty world has been threatened, turned upside down, and thrown into a tizzy. Poor slob doesnt know what end is up .. course he never did cause he could never take his head out of his own Arse.  Republican establishment  status QUO RINO Mouthpiece.  He wants Mitt cause under Mitts published tax policy He will retain his $$$ and get huge huge tax breaks. (course Mitts policy does not help the middle class feel free to go read it.  Mitt backers should so at least know what they are truly voting for. Give ya hint = more status quo and your taxes will increase. I'm not saying who to vote for but at least read what each candidate proposes for middle class Americans before you cast your vote.  Knowledge is Power.

[jimster]

The republicans have no choice but to discredit Ron Paul and label him a "liberal".  That's because republicans are highjacking the word conservative the same as democrats highjacked the word "liberal".   Reps are not conservative anymore than Dem's are really liberal, and liberal used to be associated with the word conservative before people started highjacking terms and changing them around. Conservative does not mean you go to war all the time and butt in and take over, and liberal does not mean progressive socialism.  Ron Paul has pointed this out a couple times, but seems neither the Dem's or reps want to hear it, they both are threatened under Paul's idea of a smaller more efficient and less corrupt government.  That's my take on it.  Politics is a word game, has been since before I was born,  the closest thing you'll get to conservative would be a true libertarian in my view, less intrusive government means less involvement in foreign wars as well, hell the real reason we will go to war with Iran is because they, like some others, are talking about changing their currency...it's probably just that simple.  Money is the root of all of it, and nobody is saying that Ron Paul has no flaws, everyone does, it's just he is the closest thing we need, and the fix to this mess ain't real popular, it means people will do without for a stretch.   I don't know why people are so afraid of Ron Paul, he would at least not interfere with the public or private affairs of people and get involved much less at the executive level of passing things.  That's sounds good right now. 

[scootrd]

The republicans have no choice but to discredit Ron Paul and label him a "liberal".  That's because republicans are highjacking the word conservative the same as democrats highjacked the word "liberal".   Reps are not conservative anymore than Dem's are really liberal, and liberal used to be associated with the word conservative before people started highjacking terms and changing them around. Conservative does not mean you go to war all the time and butt in and take over, and liberal does not mean progressive socialism.  Ron Paul has pointed this out a couple times, but seems neither the Dem's or reps want to hear it, they both are threatened under Paul's idea of a smaller more efficient and less corrupt government.  That's my take on it.  Politics is a word game, has been since before I was born,  the closest thing you'll get to conservative would be a true libertarian in my view, less intrusive government means less involvement in foreign wars as well, hell the real reason we will go to war with Iran is because they, like some others, are talking about changing their currency...it's probably just that simple.  Money is the root of all of it, and nobody is saying that Ron Paul has no flaws, everyone does, it's just he is the closest thing we need, and the fix to this mess ain't real popular, it means people will do without for a stretch.   I don't know why people are so afraid of Ron Paul, he would at least not interfere with the public or private affairs of people and get involved much less at the executive level of passing things.  That's sounds good right now. 

I agree