Complaints Flood CNN After Beck Smears Ron Paul Supporters As Terrorists

Sounds reasonable to me. :thumbs:

Maybe, also, arrogant brats?

 

I don't understand why Paul should leave the GOP. Okay, so he's no friend to the Pro-life movement and he's not been consistently conservative on many other issues. He still is an important voice and he needs to be heard.

 

because he is a libertarian and not a Republican. Of course the same sentiment gose out to a few others as well.

 

The trend has been for the Democratic and Republican Parties to lose those identifying themselves as Democrats or Republicans and for the number of self-identified independents to increase. I think this will pretty much solidify going forward as basically 1/3 identifying themselves as Democrats, 1/3 as Republicans, and 1/3 as independents.

 

Without libertarian Republicans the GOP cannot win national elections, just as without the moveon.org types the Democrats cannot win national elections.

I know, 2 Timothy2:1-4, that you probably won't agree, at least with the first part. However, that is okay, brother.

 

I believe your second statement would be provable.

I doubt your first would be, unless you are willing to ascribe the description of libertarian to many people that would not describe themselves as such.

I may be wrong, but I believe true libertatians are relatively small in number, while the radical nutball moveon base of the democrat party is relatively large.

 

Your comparison between Liberatarians and movon.org falls short of equality. The average conservative on the street doesn't think about liberarianism. In fact most probably do not know much about that philosophy. Liberatarians are so small in number they do not add up to much influence. And the social philosophy among Libertarians is contradictory to conservative values. Their influence is of no value and consequence to the GOP. The radical outcry of libertarians has only recently come to existance largely under Ron Paul. Not that he instigates the radicalism of Liberarians but they certainly place themselves under his banner. And he does little to seperate himself from them so he is culpable in their radical and visceral behavior.

On the Democrat side of things their radical and visceral behavior has been in existence for some time. And their influence is of a great consequence to the dems. Tehy are widely known among the average Democrat and even carries some amount of influence in that party even though not all their ideas are bought into.

So the comparison is not a valid one. But in recent times the behavior of the radicals from moveon.org and media matters has certainly influenced libertarians. It is hard to tell the two apart these days with their irresponsible rhetoric, and calls for ungodly social behavior.

 

If this was the 1948 election, no doubt in my mind you would have voted for Dewey over Truman.

 

The GOP in Indianapolis just scored a major victory in winning the Mayor's office in a big city. The Republican Greg Ballard had 51% of the votes. The Libertarian Party had less than 4,000 votes and seems to have hurt the Democrats more than anyone else. The conclusion is that the GOP does just fine without the Libertarians. (By the way, the Libertarians fielded almost a million votes agains Reagan in 1980 but he still won just fine without them.)

 

On both foreign policy and domestic social issues (live and let live), Ron Paul sounds like a liberal Democrat, as was pointed out on the Beck program.

 

I too am getting older I was around during the 60's and remember Horowitz,all I said was that he is no conservative. He is a neoconunist,a patsy ,a good soldier of the left even when they call themselves conservatives.I am a true conservative
believe it or not.Sometimes I even sould liberal to myself,he is doing the bidding of the socialist's in washington from both sides of the isle.Let us not forget where they want us to go,controlled,politically correct think like we want you to think,not for yourself mind numbed,dumbed down servants,only serve them not GOD.
The church is sleeping and it is time to wake the church up. Do you agree?disagree?

 

If you are a true conservative, as you say that you are, Mr. Better, why are you supporting a live and let live candidate for President of the USA and one who agrees with the flag burners on foreign policy?

 

I think you should admt that I have a point, instead of blaming the media.

 

Poncho, you are with the flag-burners on foreign policy as far as I can tell from what you write. Evidently, you agree with the Democrats that we should just accept that the Arabs don't like us and are going to blow us up from time to time for buying so much oil from them and that we only make things worse by trying to stop them from doing that.

Ron Paul is not even going to win his home state of Texas in the primary. He is a non-starter. The problem with him is that his ideas are unpopular. He is live and let live on social issues and he is with the leftists on the war against terror.

Believe me if we retreat from Iraq or if we somehow manage to lose this war, the Arabs will bring the war to our nation and they will attack us all over the Middle East. Iran will produce the atomic bomb if we are defeated in Iraq or if we retreat there. This is a serious dirty war with no end in sight at the moment.

As for the charge that Bush spent a lot of money, it is more correct constitutionally to say that Congress spent a lot of money since they have the power of the purse.

Also, Bush faced a divided GOP. The most glaring example of this division of GOP is that Ron Paul has voted against Bush and the military many, many times.