Ron Paul Third Quarter Fundraising

Why are the more main stream Republicans so worried about Paul? He's only polling 1 percent, but he certainly has the establishment shaken up. I think about half the traffic on the WWW would go away if Paul left the race. Why are conservatives writing so much stuff about Paul?
 
Why are conservatives writing so much stuff about Paul?

We are just making sure the electorate doesnt confuse us with cultists:D

WAs Rule of Life 666 (a)

Blind unquestioning adherence to a person or idea is incompatible with the right of freedom, to the extent that freedom is actually a right.

WildreallybadheadacheAlaska TM
 
Rephrasing WA,
Blind unquestioning rejection of a person or idea is incompatible with the right of freedom, to the extent that freedom is actually a right.

I know, it doesn't make much sense, but then, neither did the original.:p
 
Why are the more main stream Republicans so worried about Paul? He's only polling 6 (corrected) percent, but he certainly has the establishment shaken up. I think about half the traffic on the WWW would go away if Paul left the race. Why are conservatives writing so much stuff about Paul?
That's because the RINO's on this forum are beginning to poop yellow again over Paul's successes.

It's going to get worse for them, not better.
 
I would still like a serious answer to my question.

Why do Republicans fear Ron Paul, given that he is polling very low in the polls? Republicans seem to spending a great deal of their time working against him, and I don't see why they think he is a threat, if they really believe he has almost no support?
 
Blind unquestioning rejection of a person or idea is incompatible with the right of freedom, to the extent that freedom is actually a right.

No blind rejection on my part...I have specific articulable reasons which have been enunciated time and time again and don't bear repeating.

Why do Republicans fear Ron Paul, given that he is polling very low in the polls? Republicans seem to spending a great deal of their time working against him, and I don't see why they think he is a threat, if they really believe he has almost no support?

Speaking for myself (and I am a registered Indpendent I think), I travel to a lot of forums and ignore Paulite prostelityzing (cant even spell it!)...here however, since this is a gun forum, I like to make sure that lurkers realize that most gun owners are not wild eyed cultists...(lets call them "Kucinichites of the Right")...most of us are pretty mainstream folks.....

WildsolurkerspleasedontfeargunownersAlaska ™
 
So, from WA, it's
No blind rejection on my part...I have specific articulable reasons which have been enunciated time and time again and don't bear repeating.

But for RP supporters, it's
Blind unquestioning adherence to a person or idea is incompatible with the right of freedom, to the extent that freedom is actually a right.

How very dismissive and intellectually superior of you.
Actually, I could say to you (again borrowing your phrasing), No blind unquestioning adherence on my part...I have specific articulable reasons which have been enunciated time and time again and don't bear repeating.
 
Ron Paul's voting record to obtain his share of port is well-documented: (snip shrimp stuff)

I refer you to the words of Dr. Paul himself:

Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds – their tax dollars – than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.

source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul392.html
 
That just means that Ron Paul is sticking his hand in the pork barrel like all of the other politicians, about 400 million times. Big spender of free tax dollars for private shrimp corporations.

And where's the constitutional authority for congress to give federal funds to private corporations? It's unconstitutional, but Paul does it anyway -- because everyone else does it.

Actually, I don't have a problem with that, and I don't think that earmarks are unconstitutional. But Paul's not some kind of special, super-duper-constitutionally-and-morally-superior candidate. He plays the system just like all of the other politicians do.
 
Big spender of free tax dollars for private shrimp corporations.
This statement indicates you don't know what corporations are, which negates all the statements you've made on this issue.

Let me inform you on certain issues, briefly. First of all, corporations are government created entities that are public, not private. Second, in this specific instance, the industry is heavily regulated by the government both as to season, place of catch, and food quality. An event, in this case a devastating hurricane, that ruins their catch season is in fact a state disaster than calls for a state remedy.

Alternatively, you can advocate cessation of government intervention in this industry, and then you'd have a moral and ethical platform from which to mount your criticism. Until that occurs, you're writing is merely bombastic.
 
bombastic.

His earmarks aren't authorized by the constitution. Or maybe Paul's earmarks are constitutional, but other pork projects are not. Regardless, Paul likes his pork. He's no fiscal conservative.
 
Fremmer: His earmarks aren't authorized by the constitution. Or maybe Paul's earmarks are constitutional, but other pork projects are not. Regardless, Paul likes his pork. He's no fiscal conservative.

I'm going to repeat the quote I pasted above again because you missed it the first time:

earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives.

He did not increase federal spending.
 
cnorman18 said:
His earmarks aren't authorized by the constitution. Or maybe Paul's earmarks are constitutional, but other pork projects are not. Regardless, Paul likes his pork. He's no fiscal conservative.

you people are funny. first, you complain that he is to much of a strict constructionist. now, you complain that he is to fast and loose with the constitution. you claim that he is not pragmatic enough, then you complain that he is too pragmatic. so pragmatic that he is now not a fiscal conservative all because of earmarks. i dont mind actual criticisms, they are a good and healthy part of the candidate selection process. but please, try to stop jumping back and forth (flip-flopping?) so much on your positions.
 
from what i can tell, there is mostly one major criticism of ron paul, and that is on the war and foreign policy. and thats fine. honestly, i can put forward arguments both for the war and against it. but it seems like because of this position, the anti-paulites are trying to look for anything and everything they can to convince people (themselves?) that ron paul is a horrible candidate. if they are so right on paul not being a good candidate, it seems to me that they should be able to provide a more fact filled and rational argument. if they are so right, why must they resort to name calling and distorting facts? reminds me of why i dont like michael moore...
 
Michael Moore didn't spend half a billion dollars of taxpayer money to benefit fat-cat corporations. Ron Paul did. That's no flip-flop, it's a fact. Apparently, Ron Paul's spending habits are not constrained by his interpretation of the Constitution.
 
Fremmer says: Michael Moore didn't spend half a billion dollars of taxpayer money to benefit fat-cat corporations. Ron Paul did. That's no flip-flop, it's a fact. Apparently, Ron Paul's spending habits are not constrained by his interpretation of the Constitution.
This is a lie of the worst kind. Ron Paul did no such thing.

Fremmer has been trying to smear Ron Paul for weeks. This is a shabby attempt.
 
fremmer said:
Michael Moore didn't spend half a billion dollars of taxpayer money to benefit fat-cat corporations. Ron Paul did. That's no flip-flop, it's a fact. Apparently, Ron Paul's spending habits are not constrained by his interpretation of the Constitution.

you completely avoided the issue. the flip flop was not in regards to paul or moore and the man in the moon, it was about the anti-paulites and the fact that they will take any and all opportunities to bash paul, even if they are completely contradictory in their attempts.
 
Back
Top