Rush: "Anybody other than Ron Paul...

[jackers]

Paul is a kook plain and simple. How the hell did he have a newsletter and not know what was in it? His foreign policy is a joke. I foresee lots more interesting info coming out as the days progress.

I guess he was busy being a full-time physician, working 12-16 hour days, treating poor minorities for free (he doesn't accept Medicare/Medicaid) to proof read every line in newsletters that he didn't edit.

He has said before that those newsletters were ultimately his responsibility because they had his name on them but he obviously didn't write them.

Ron Paul has 30 years of letters, speeches, videos, and debates to prove that those letters weren't written by him. The writing style is completely different.

The head of the NAACP defended Ron in 2008 after the newsletters surfaced last time.

So the candidate with the strongest stance on civil liberties, who was defended by the head of the NAACP, and who made a living treating poor minorities for free (didn't even accept government payments) is some crazy racist because someone else wrote a couple nasty lines in newsletters that he wasn't overseeing anymore.

But I guess because Sean Hannity says so, it must be true...

 

[jackers]

can beat Obama":

Ron Paul | Rush Limbaugh | Greta Van Susteren | The Daily Caller

And I could give you a list of "conservatives" who trash Newt. What's your point?

 

[jackers]

His foreign policy is just like Obama's energy policy - "We don't want any"

His foreign policy is supported by the troops. He has more donations from active-duty servicemembers than all of the other candidates COMBINED, including Obama.

Is their foreign policy kooky too?

 

[jackers]

Not hardly. The man acts like a kook. He gives the appearance of one, and he talks like one when he rants.

Kook | Define Kook at Dictionary.com

It's better to have someone who looks presidential than someone who acts presidential I guess. Obama is a smooth talker and has rock-star type charisma. Wait, why did his presidency fail again? I'm confused....

 

[jackers]

I think where people feel Paul is a kook is that he has a following that hold beliefs that are just…….. kooky. The 911 Truthers are big Paul supporters. Paul mildly tries to distance himself from them, but refuses to completely tell them “I don’t have anything to do with you people, please don't associate yourselves with me”.

Imagine that, you misrepresenting Paul again. Who would have thought?

Where folks also feel he’s a kook is on foreign policy; especially where he stands on Iran. And an awful lot of Americans are sick of the ‘blame America’ mentality Paul supports. This is crap we put up with from the left.

Yeah, because I am sure we would just hand over a stealth drone if China crashed one into New Jersey. We don't do anything to poke the sleeping bear. It's all Iran's fault.

I’ve said it before; I’ll say it again… I have no problem with an honest analysis of what we are doing in the world and trying to change course that would put us in a better strategic and harmonious position with the world - and Paul gives us this. But it sours my stomach to hear nothing but “It’s our fault this world is so screwed up” without a balance of how great this country is and has been and the force for good we have been. All Paul sees is how evil this country has been for the past 100 years. His rhetoric is one-dimensional: American has destroyed this world. Americans don’t want to hear that crap. They want to hear they are part of a country that is and has been great. Paul does not even touch that part of the subject.

USA USA USA! - Bomb Bomb Bomb!

 

[EmptyTimCup]

@jackler's

were you making a point here ?

 

[Larry Gude]

Well said.

Paul thinks if left alone, Iran just goes away. Now this is after they attempted to assinate a Saudi on CONUS American soil, said to the world that they want to annihilate Israel and are open supporters of global terrorism.

Paul has a news letter that when read exerpts said "I have no idea where that came from."

Paul actually entertains the idea that the 911 truthers have a case!

Pure kook, plain and simple.

Work it! Work it!

As long as the focus is on him being a kook and you don't run into any unpleasantness like trying to explain how what we've been doing for 20 years has been so successful.

 

[Larry Gude]

@jackler's

were you making a point here ?

The point is to look at what we've done for 20 years of neo con dominance in foreign affairs and...the results.

Why on earth would Iran want a bomb? I mean, objectively, what possible rationale could they have? I mean, other than the US going from active support of their enemy, (Iraq for those of us historically challenged) to having our military right next door pretty much for the last generation. I mean, don't they trust us?

Add to that that our policies have DIRECTLY made them rich enough to afford all sorts of things.

Add to that, most people on the right, after 2 minutes of conversation, tend to all agree we've been in Israel's way FAR more than we've helped them the last 20 years.

So, other than that, hey, why not keep on keeping on?

 

[Larry Gude]

I think where people feel Paul is a kook is that he has a following that hold beliefs that are just…….. kooky. The 911 Truthers are big Paul supporters. Paul mildly tries to distance himself from them, but refuses to completely tell them “I don’t have anything to do with you people, please don't associate yourselves with me”.

.

And if this was 1951 and 'Pearl Harbor truthers' felt FDR left our pants down and a GOP'er said "Well, I wouldn't go that far but..." then we'd all be on his side.

Better yet, if Clinton or Gore were potus on 9/11 not one of us would completely dismiss conspiracy talk out of hand. We'd all raise hell that they sat on their ass for 8 months and LET this happen because they were too busy with whatever while NOT paying enough attention to their primary responsibility. I have my doubts about TWA 800. Not that 'we' did it but, that we have not been told the truth. We all know the FBI was onto Atta and company.

Tell me that's not so. Show that you guys are simply THAT blind, THAT emotionally wrapped up in D vs. R.

 

[PsyOps]

And I could give you a list of "conservatives" who trash Newt. What's your point?

Nothing

 

[unxpcted]

Just for accuracy, O'Reilly is an independent not affiliated with either major party (R or D). Glenn Beck, as far I know, has never stated he belongs to either party but claims he is a Libertarian.

You make it obvious you have a problem with people that are big voices for conservatism. These people don’t speak to an empty audience; in fact their audiences are huge. Rush climb to his peek of success during the whole conservative movement of the mid 90s. Along with Newt, a lot of people give almost sole credit to Rush and his voice for making it happen. Like him or not, he is still a very powerful voice and the fact the people attack for talking in unpopular ways shows how much people like you seem to fear him.

No, I don't fear any of them, I actually used to be fans of all three and have read several of their books and I listen to their radio shows almost daily. You just have to take what they say with a grain of salt. My point is, they are what people think of when they think of the voice of republicans, the same way I think of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow when I think of democrats, contorting facts and spewing hate. I just wish there was a "big voice" who could be looked at as a role model for us conservatives.

 

[PsyOps]

No, I don't fear any of them, I actually used to be fans of all three and have read several of their books and I listen to their radio shows almost daily. You just have to take what they say with a grain of salt. My point is, they are what people think of when they think of the voice of republicans, the same way I think of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow when I think of democrats, contorting facts and spewing hate. I just wish there was a "big voice" who could be looked at as a role model for us conservatives.

None of these guys are perfect but I disagree that Rush, O’Reilly, and Hannity contort the facts. And I don’t subscribe to the whole ‘hate’ thing simply because I don’t like their tone or angle on a message. My skin is too thick for that kind of thing. Fact is these don’t tell you what you want to hear and how you want to hear it. But I challenge you to provide something that shows Rush, O’Reilly, or Hannity have lied about anything or examples of ‘hate’.

 

[jackers]

@jackler's

were you making a point here ?

Yeah, PsyOps wanted to feel good. Since Paul doesn't sugar-coat the important issues I thought I would offer up the standard Republican cheer.

You know, USA is the greatest, we are the words super-power! Peace through spyplanes and bombing! We are the shining missle silo on the hill! We need to protect the innocent and destroy the evil. We just ended the Iraq war, quick, we need someone else to bomb since we are so strong and poor Israel is so weak!

USA! USA! Bomb Bomb Bomb!

The George Bush You Forgot - YouTube

 

[This_person]

And if this was 1951 and 'Pearl Harbor truthers' felt FDR left our pants down and a GOP'er said "Well, I wouldn't go that far but..." then we'd all be on his side.

Better yet, if Clinton or Gore were potus on 9/11 not one of us would completely dismiss conspiracy talk out of hand. We'd all raise hell that they sat on their ass for 8 months and LET this happen because they were too busy with whatever while NOT paying enough attention to their primary responsibility. I have my doubts about TWA 800. Not that 'we' did it but, that we have not been told the truth. We all know the FBI was onto Atta and company.

Tell me that's not so. Show that you guys are simply THAT blind, THAT emotionally wrapped up in D vs. R.

I have to say, I would more than likely completely dismiss, out of hand, that there was a consipiracy.

I'd say the same things I said about Bush - he should have known, and didn't. he should have had actionable intelligence, better policies in place already, and didn't.

Just saying.

 

[unxpcted]

None of these guys are perfect but I disagree that Rush, O’Reilly, and Hannity contort the facts. And I don’t subscribe to the whole ‘hate’ thing simply because I don’t like their tone or angle on a message. My skin is too thick for that kind of thing. Fact is these don’t tell you what you want to hear and how you want to hear it. But I challenge you to provide something that shows Rush, O’Reilly, or Hannity have lied about anything or examples of ‘hate’.

I was refering to Olbermann and Maddow with the hate spewing comment. I never mentioned Hannity. I actually like him and Savage.

 

[EmptyTimCup]

Yeah, PsyOps wanted to feel good. Since Paul doesn't sugar-coat the important issues I thought I would offer up the standard Republican cheer.

who are you Kerad Resurrected ?

 

[jackers]

None of these guys are perfect but I disagree that Rush, O’Reilly, and Hannity contort the facts. And I don’t subscribe to the whole ‘hate’ thing simply because I don’t like their tone or angle on a message. My skin is too thick for that kind of thing. Fact is these don’t tell you what you want to hear and how you want to hear it. But I challenge you to provide something that shows Rush, O’Reilly, or Hannity have lied about anything or examples of ‘hate’.

Seriously?

Lies about Paul authoring the newsletters.
Lies and distorts Paul's support of Israel and his "isolationist" foreign policy.
Lies about "vetting" the candidates. He has them on and simply asks for clarification from Romney, Newt, Bachman, Cain, Palin, but for two straight days trashes Paul over his newsletters before even asking him about them first.
Scheduled Paul on his radio show two days ago, then cancelled on Paul, then says last night Paul cancelled on him. Complete lie.
Lied after the debates in 07, said the only reason Paul was winning the fox news "texting" poll was because Paul supporters flooded the poll yet the software Fox used only allowed for one vote per telephone.

Those are just off the top of my head without even doing an internet search. I am sure there are plenty more in regards to other candidates and especially Obama.

I don't listen to Rush or O'Reilly so I won't comment on them. But it is crazy that you don't think Hannity doesn't distort the truth or flatly lies.

What about Hannity's connection with Neo-Nazi Hal Turner. Hannity lied and said he didn't know him. Then lied again and said he was just some guy running in NJ. Yet Hannity had him on his show numerous times and even gave him the direct number to call into his show any time. Turner said they were friends through the years.

How anyone can take him serious is beyond me.

 

[EmptyTimCup]

Seriously?

Lies and distorts Paul's support of Israel and his "isolationist" foreign policy.

now who is lying ....... RP is an isolationist

 

[This_person]

I was refering to Olbermann and Maddow with the hate spewing comment. I never mentioned Hannity. I actually like him and Savage.

No offense, but I find it hard to differentiate between Hannity, Olbermann, Maddow, and Savage. Other than ideology, they all lie, or at least GROSSLY intentionally distort, in the hopes that people with the same ideology will listen to them and make them sponsor money.

 

[jackers]

now who is lying ....... RP is an isolationist

The George Bush You Forgot - YouTube

Was Bush an isolationist too?

Paul wants open and free trade. He wants to lift the embargo from Iran. He wants people to visit Cuba. Paul voted for the use of military action against Afghanistan. Hannity paints him as an appologizer and a coward. Far from the truth.

Isolationist is a dirty word painted by the Neo-Cons to distract from his positions. Imperial Japan was an isolationist country. Non-interventionism is the way of Russel Kirk, Barry Goldwater, President Taft. They created the conservative movement and none of them were considered isolationists. Even Bush (in the video above) won his first nomination based on a non-interventionist foreign policy.