sleeper;1013839 wrote:Also, can't believe people are actually considering Gingrich. Dude is a fraud.

rydawg5;1014008 wrote:I like Gingrich so far. I told my mom that's who I'd vote for in the primary when it looked like he had no shot at being the candidate. I also, for real change, like Ron Paul. I think he is a patriot and would make a difference.

ccrunner609;1012689 wrote:I called Newt since day one....probably the only one on here since September.

ccrunner609;1012805 wrote:No way....Obama wil lose to anyone they put up. Newt would not only beat him in a debate....he would embarras him. Obama is going to stand there and tell you he saved us from a depression and lie about the unemployment rate and Newt is gonna set him straight.

rydawg5;1014008 wrote:I like Gingrich so far. I told my mom that's who I'd vote for in the primary when it looked like he had no shot at being the candidate. I also, for real change, like Ron Paul. I think he is a patriot and would make a difference.

I Wear Pants;1014052 wrote:Then why the hell wouldn't you vote for Ron Paul in the primary?

rydawg5;1014055 wrote:I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet.

I Wear Pants;1014059 wrote:I must have misunderstood what you meant in that quote because I thought you were trying to say you'd vote for Gingrich...but if you really wanted change you'd vote for Ron Paul.

I just fucking wish everyone would vote for who they feel the best candidate is, then maybe we could actually not get the line of shit we've been having in the presidency.

Cleveland Buck;1014082 wrote:Gingrich and Paul are pretty much exact opposites, so it would be difficult to like them both. Paul favors free markets. Gingrich favors government solutions. Paul favors sound money. Gingrich must prefer the printing press to pay for his visions for this country. Paul favors strong defense over spreading ourselves thin all over the world and meddling where we don't belong. Gingrich wants war with everyone, no matter the cost. Paul defends the Constitution. Gingrich wrote the forward for a book saying the Constitution must die.

Records are infinitely more important than rhetoric. I remember warning people 4 years ago not to vote for Obama because he will take over private industries and explode the debt and the power of the federal government. People laughed it off, but anyone who looked at his record could see he would do it, and he did. That's why I don't pay attention to what any of them say. I look at what they have done.

rydawg5;1014062 wrote:I did, but I was referring to when the debates first started happening. I like Gingrich and Paul. I meant like "hey, I'd vote for this guy.. especially over frontrunners Romney, Cain, and Perry"

ccrunner609;1014163 wrote:Obama stuttered all the way through 60 minutes the other day.

ccrunner609;1014163 wrote:First off........I was 2 months ahead of the whole country and the main stream media on the idea that Newt was going to be the guy.

gut;1014252 wrote:In his defense, when you don't have any answers it can be difficult to decide which excuse to go with...

Spread All Day;1001680 wrote:I know i'm late, but Ron Paul is the only logical choice for the GOP nod.

I Wear Pants;1002206 wrote:Our system doesn't work if Paul isn't the nominee.

I Wear Pants;1014052 wrote:Then why the hell wouldn't you vote for Ron Paul in the primary?

And it’s… just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately, before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq. So the war drums beat

Ron Paul has now moved from saying that 9/11 was our fault (which was despicable enough) to now saying that it’s something our government actually wanted to happen. Put this up there with Ron Paul’s belief that Southeast Asia got much better after we left Vietnam (a viewpoint doubtless shared by millions of massacred Southeast Asians – but hey, at least we trade with Vietnam now) on the all time list of Ron Paul’s contemptible and publicly-expressed beliefs. Add to this the fact that Ron Paul is a liar and a hypocrite on spending, who has built a career larding up appropriations bills with pork for his home district and then casting meaningless votes against their final passage, and I have to confess that I don’t really see the appeal of Ron Paul to Iowa voters. Well, the Republican ones, at least.

jhay78;1014951 wrote:And it's absurd to lay out the false choices of "Empire building, war-mongering" or Ron Paul, and "Gingrich/Romney/big government/statist" or Ron Paul. Those aren't your only choices.

jhay78;1014951 wrote:There is NOTHING logical about Ron Paul's latest exposure of himself, saying there was glee in the administration after 9/11, because then we could go to war:



http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/10/ron-paul-goes-full-metal-truther/



Seriously, I expect certain posters on here to worship the man no matter what he says and does, but it's alarming to read all the "everyone else sucks so I'm voting for Paul" posts on here. There is nothing conservative about blaming the US for 9/11, nothing conservative about ignoring an ideology that hates and kills no matter how many US troops "occupy" other countries or how many foreign dictators we've "propped up".

The guy dresses up his rhetoric just enough to appear sane during the debates, and even manages to say a few intelligent things in spite of himself. If "the adminstration marched into Iraq based on lies", as he says, then why didn't the self-professed founder of the Tea Party introduce articles of impeachment against GWBush? Why does the guy lead from behind, wait until things go south in Iraq, when the war was unpopular, and then say "Aha- see what you get when you invade and occupy foreign countries? See what happens when warmongers are in charge?"

The guy voted in favor of the Authorization to use Military Force after 9/11, and to my knowledge has never introduced a bill to rescind that, nor to impeach the president who lied and misled us. I would vote for a rotten banana peel over Barack Obama, and as such I would grudgingly vote for someone slightly better than a rotten banana peel, Ron Paul, if the choice came down to those two.

jhay78;1014951 wrote: And it's absurd to lay out the false choices of "Empire building, war-mongering" or Ron Paul, and "Gingrich/Romney/big government/statist" or Ron Paul. Those aren't your only choices.

believer;1014975 wrote:True. The Paulists think Dr. Ron is without blemish, but he's a politician just like the rest. Need I say more?

jhay78;1014951 wrote:There is NOTHING logical about Ron Paul's latest exposure of himself, saying there was glee in the administration after 9/11, because then we could go to war:



http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/10/ron-paul-goes-full-metal-truther/



Seriously, I expect certain posters on here to worship the man no matter what he says and does, but it's alarming to read all the "everyone else sucks so I'm voting for Paul" posts on here. There is nothing conservative about blaming the US for 9/11, nothing conservative about ignoring an ideology that hates and kills no matter how many US troops "occupy" other countries or how many foreign dictators we've "propped up".

The guy dresses up his rhetoric just enough to appear sane during the debates, and even manages to say a few intelligent things in spite of himself. If "the adminstration marched into Iraq based on lies", as he says, then why didn't the self-professed founder of the Tea Party introduce articles of impeachment against GWBush? Why does the guy lead from behind, wait until things go south in Iraq, when the war was unpopular, and then say "Aha- see what you get when you invade and occupy foreign countries? See what happens when warmongers are in charge?"

The guy voted in favor of the Authorization to use Military Force after 9/11, and to my knowledge has never introduced a bill to rescind that, nor to impeach the president who lied and misled us. I would vote for a rotten banana peel over Barack Obama, and as such I would grudgingly vote for someone slightly better than a rotten banana peel, Ron Paul, if the choice came down to those two.

And it's absurd to lay out the false choices of "Empire building, war-mongering" or Ron Paul, and "Gingrich/Romney/big government/statist" or Ron Paul. Those aren't your only choices.

jhay78;1014951 wrote:Why does the guy lead from behind, wait until things go south in Iraq, when the war was unpopular, and then say "Aha- see what you get when you invade and occupy foreign countries? See what happens when warmongers are in charge?"