Gotta love those establishment republicans. If Ron Paul wins in Iowa "it's irrelevant", and it wouldn't represent the actual will of the voters. How do they get away with quotes like that?
Another Ron Paul thread? Must we?
Gee, I wonder why no on cares enough about the other creeps to start more threads about them.
What an asshole. First he plays a clip of O'Rielly saying one thing then he makes up shit and acts like that is what O'Riely said.
Besides all that was on O'Rielly' part was giving Romney some talking points to counter.
Exactly. O'Reilly was playing 'devil's advocate.'
I guess they lack the fanatical enthusiasm of the revolutionaries.
Yes. People who aren't cult members don't act like cult members.
There is nothing fanatical about Ron Paul's support; it's just that the other candidates couldn't get that kind of support so they are jealous and cry and wine about Paul and call him and his supporters names. Typical grade school tactics.
That's all you need to know about them to know how irrelevant they are.
Quit kidding yourselves. I know plenty of people who support Paul but won't even talk about him publicly because of assholes like you.
You all like to malign him and his views and make up complete bullshit. I love how the MSM are running scared now talking about how irrelevant the Iowa caucuses are becoming -- well, duh!
Get ready, you statist motherfuckers! Your life support machine is getting ready to be unplugged. You assholes cannot rip us off anymore.
Leave Ron Paul alone!
TB, Sorry I called you an asshole. Your not an asshole you're an irrelevant, condescending prick.
And besides, Ron Paul can defend himself. I prefer you leave his supporters alone.
This campaign has never been about Ron Paul, the man, but rather the ideas he has been defending for the last 4 decades.
You cannot say anything like that about the rest of the idiotic bunch who are only running because they want to rule us.
The funny thing is you cannot even argue against his ideas and have to resort to making fun of him and his supporters. Go right ahead. We are going to have the last laugh.
I can just see the headlines now:
Ron Paul supporters mourn the death of their beloved leader who has died at the age of 76. There are concerns over the succession process and his son Rand continuing with his anti-Western policies.
Ron Paul, North Korea and the Iowa GOP Caucus:
I ask myself, "who would our founding fathers be most likely to support?"
How again is NK having allegedly aquired long range WMD relevant?
Why should they attack the US, again?
Because they're COMPLETELY INSANE, like the Mullahs, right?
Sooo many question marks.
I guess that's why most GOP candidates tend to give hand out vague, dramatic speeches and let the good ole rattlesabre give the proper answer.
Not Ron Paul. Pauls' philosophy isn't derived from the same stuff from that of the Founders - his is more in line with continental radicalism that found its way into, for example, Ayn Rand.
And, as one writer put it, Paul is a "blame America first" Republican, much like there was (and is) a breed of "blame America first" Democrats. The Founding Fathers with a "blame America first" mentality? Not so much.
This is what OÂ´Reilly said. from 11 min onward.
Nothing was taken out of context.
Also, if he said it he really did not mean it?
Well, they hardly had time to do something blameworthy, so. no room for blame, but this is neither the foreign policy of Washington nor Jefferson.
Jefferson chased Barbary pirates halfway across the globe.
And in any event, this is a strawman - I never said Washington or Jefferson would support our current foreign policy. That isn't directly the issue. But, handedly, neither were "blame America first" isolationists like the creepy Dr. Paul. Jefferson, for example, wanted to provide support to the French Revolution (interventionist!) and also pursued westward expansion of the US - hardly the stuff of "mind our own business, all we do is cause terrorism" thinking.