Bill Kristol Wants Ron Paul​ Out Of The GOP

[InTheLight]

You support the scoundrel, Newt?

No, I like Santorum. I'm simply saying don't count him out just because he's not as organized as Romney or Paul. Both those guys ran in 2008 and already have organizations to draw upon. Newt and Santorum had to start from scratch.

I will vote for Romney or Santorum or Paul, but would never vote for Newt.

I could vote for any of those guys, considering the opponent. I'd vote for SpongeBob Squarepants if he's running against Obama.

 

[Ruiz]

No, I like Santorum. I'm simply saying don't count him out just because he's not as organized as Romney or Paul. Both those guys ran in 2008 and already have organizations to draw upon. Newt and Santorum had to start from scratch.



I could vote for any of those guys, considering the opponent. I'd vote for SpongeBob Squarepants if he's running against Obama.

I like Santorum, but he cannot win and his last place finish Saturday will end his ambitions. Hopefully he will not sell out like Perry and endorse Newt.

Yes, Paul did run in 2008, but even in 2008 he had a 50 state strategy and ground game.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I like Santorum, but he cannot win and his last place finish Saturday will end his ambitions. Hopefully he will not sell out like Perry and endorse Newt.

Yes, Paul did run in 2008, but even in 2008 he had a 50 state strategy and ground game.

At least you know what your gettin with Newt & he is a hole lot smarter then these other knuckleheads.

 

[Ruiz]

At least you know what your gettin with Newt & he is a hole lot smarter then these other knuckleheads.

He is a whole lot more immoral... and you don't know what you are getting. There were many times when he had said he would help conservatives then he would back stab us hours later. The problem with Newt, you never know what you are getting with him. Ron Paul has been consistent for his entire life.

As well, he may be smart, I do not doubt that. However, I think some of the worst rulers were also smart. He is a staunch immoralist. If character matters, Newt is below zero.

 

[Havensdad]

He is a whole lot more immoral... and you don't know what you are getting. There were many times when he had said he would help conservatives then he would back stab us hours later. The problem with Newt, you never know what you are getting with him. Ron Paul has been consistent for his entire life.

As well, he may be smart, I do not doubt that. However, I think some of the worst rulers were also smart. He is a staunch immoralist. If character matters, Newt is below zero.

Yeah, but its still head and shoulders above Romney. You say the one person you won't vote for is Newt...the one person I won't vote for is Romney! His positions are identical to Obama. At least we might believe that Gingrich will accomplish SOME conservative action, just to stroke his ego!

 

[Ruiz]

Yeah, but its still head and shoulders above Romney. You say the one person you won't vote for is Newt...the one person I won't vote for is Romney! His positions are identical to Obama. At least we might believe that Gingrich will accomplish SOME conservative action, just to stroke his ego!

Have you studied Mitt's positions? Economically, when the economic disaster hit, Romney had a radically more conservative solution than Newt, Bush and, Obama. Obama was Bush on steroids and Newt was more radically left than Bush. Romney actually understood the need to get rid of the mal-investment. While I disagreed with Romney's approach, I preferred his method far beyond any of the others. If we had taken Romney's solution, economists have said we would be better off today... if they would have taken the Austrian Economic solution the economists say we would be far better off than all the above solutions.

To me, Newt is a liberal and so is Mitt. Yet, to compare Mitt to being an Obama clone is ignorant. Mitt is different than Obama just as Newt is different than Obama or Bush. However, all of them are liberal and useless.

A vote for Newt is a vote for a return to the Teddy Roosevelt and FDR principles, liberalism. Newt does not hide his desire for this type of governance. A month ago I mentioned it and was blasted on this board but recently Newt again mentions these men again as his inspiration for politics and governance. He loves liberalism....

No, I won't vote for Newt because he is extremely immoral and a back stabber of us conservatives. He did this in '97 and '98, he will do it again. I don't like Mitt at all, but he doesn't set us up to destroy us like Newt infamously has done.

 

[glfredrick]

First, any candidate who gains the nomination will find that he or she has all the resources necessary to fight the battle against Obama.

Second, once a candidate is nominated after the primary season they gain the WHOLE support of the Party (save for dissidents who toss their votes aside).

Third, we can "pre-select" a candidate now before the primary season really even gets under way (Romney) or we can watch and wait to see what happens as the primaries gain steam.

Fourth, watch Santorum... He actually seems to have won Ohio after the certification and that will give him a bump. No one was going to win in New Hampshire except Romney -- that was a given -- it is his back yard and the moderates there would select none other, but the distaste for him elsewhere will be telling. They refused him 4 years ago and will again GIVEN A TRUE CHOICE (of which Paul is not). In a sense, Santorum is akin to introducing Palin after the Convention, only he actually gets some time to run first, and he does not come with some of the baggage that Palin brought to the table. As soon as voters actually realize his true conservatism his stock should rise (and once he gains a few PACs that will help as well).

Fifth, we have to get beyond the national media chosing the candidate for us. Romney's meme, supported FULLY by the national media is that "he is the destined candidate." Hogwash!

 

[carpro]

Can't wait for the Virginia primary. It's winner take all and since only Romney and Paul are on the ballot we will really be able to see the depth of Romney's support vs. Paul's support. I'd say if Paul does not 30-35% level when he's up against only one other opponent, he ought to quit the race. But no, like 2008 he'll probably stay in it well past the mathematical point where someone else has the needed number of delegates wrapped up to win the nomination.

Virginia is an open primary state.

It won't tell you what you want to know. In an effort to help Obama win a second term, Democrats will come out to vote for Paul in large numbers.

 

[saturneptune]

I left the Republican Party years ago, mostly thanks to Bush. I think everyone should leave the party.

Your timing was better than mine. I left it after McCain ran. I guess everyone has a different tolerance. I now belong to the Constitution Party. 2008 is the last time I am voting for a liberal Republican. Bush, Bush, and McCain, how much can a voter take? The Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for the present state of their party. They obviously learned nothing, as look at character of the two who will get the nomination. I guess the ultimate slap in the face would be a Romney-Gingrich ticket.

 

[Havensdad]

Virginia is an open primary state.

It won't tell you what you want to know. In an effort to help Obama win a second term, Democrats will come out to vote for Paul in large numbers.

Actually polls have shown that they come out for Romney nearly as strongly. In Iowa, for example, Paul got 40 percent of the independent/ democrat leaning vote, while Romney got 36 percent.

The difference, of course, is that their are large numbers of democrats who are actually planning on voting for Paul in the general election, while the Romney voters, like the liberal media, are just seeking someone who is easily beatable by Obama, and cannot question Obama on the issues (cause he supported those same things; ie government healthcare, abortion, etc.).

 

[carpro]

Actually polls have shown that they come out for Romney nearly as strongly. In Iowa, for example, Paul got 40 percent of the independent/ democrat leaning vote, while Romney got 36 percent.

The difference, of course, is that their are large numbers of democrats who are actually planning on voting for Paul in the general election...

:laugh: And I have some swampland in Louisiana with oil on it to sell for $2 an acre.

 

[Havensdad]

:laugh: And I have some swampland in Louisiana with oil on it to sell for $2 an acre.

Apparently the you don't like facts, so I am not sure I trust you on that..

 

[poncho]

Apparently the you don't like facts, so I am not sure I trust you on that..

Carpro's fact not be so far off. There was quite a bit of swampland there with oil on it, it was drowned in it actually. The price of 2 dollars an acre does seem a bit low but then considering the cost of cleaning up all the oil 2 bucks an acre might be fair market value today.

Why do you waste your time on these neocons anyway Havensdad? Big lawless government and endless killing is all they crave. I've said it before and still stand by it the poor deluded third rate neocon war junkies we have here only care about the law when it can be used to further their agenda of control.

It's been years since PNAC's frontman G.W. Bush neoconned us all and they still haven't realized what happened. What makes you think you can help them understand what history, common sense and a mountain of documented evidence can not? I admire your efforts and all but it'll do no good. These folks are just too far gone.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Why do you waste your time on these neocons anyway Havensdad?

Because every once in a while, one gets converted. :smilewinkgrin:

It's worth the fight.

 

[poncho]

Because every once in a while, one gets converted. :smilewinkgrin:

It's worth the fight.

Well, I'm about worn out having to debunk the same stupid arguments over and over. Like this here, I'll just call em Mandy's "facts".

You do understand the no one wants the terrorists within the borders of the US Right?

Evidently this fact isn't fact at all otherwise our borders would have been secured 9/12/01. Leaving them unsecure is an open invitation for terrorists to reside within our borders.

Terrorists do not need to be tried in American courts.

Mandy could be right about this. Considering the real fact that our government looks at all of us as terrorists in waiting.

They need to be tried in Military Tribunals.

Mandy just doesn't get it at all. By defending such unconstitutional extra legal "laws" and actions by our government she is condemning not only herself but the rest of us as well to the same treatment as the prisoners in Gitmo.

Here are some facts.

Real facts this time or more of your pretend facts Mandy?

The terrorists were caught in action on the battle field working to kill our troops. That is all the fact we need.

Just as I thought pretend facts again. Look up the real facts. Not all of those captured on the battle field were terrorists. It look as though the majority were just poor souls their Afghan brothers handed over to us for the bounty.

If you want to sympathize with terrorists that's fine but doing that does not make Bush guilty of anything.

Standing up for basic human rights and human dignity is not sympathizing with terrorists. Actually it's upholding the law both domestic and international. But that's the problem isn't it the law doesn't allow for one man to be judge and jury over millions of people.

Of course by your logic Obama should be impeached right now. More fringe ideology that has nothing to do with the constitution.

Tell it straight Mandy you hate the constitution because it does not allow one man to be judge and jury over millions on his say so alone.

You want a dictator not a president. Stop pretending otherwise.