AP: Alaska governor shows fearlessness

[Richandler]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071226/ap_on_re_us/alaska_governor

It's interesting learning more about Sarah Palin. This article mentions she would be a good running mate. However, I have a hard time seeing her alongside any of the candidates in the field.

[Ann Kobialka]

I think she should be on our short list of potential VP's

[parocks]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071226/ap_on_re_us/alaska_governor

It's interesting learning more about Sarah Palin. This article mentions she would be a good running mate. However, I have a hard time seeing her alongside any of the candidates in the field.

And now?

[Kotin]

I think she should be on our short list of potential VP's

no.


she is a moron.. she knows absolutely nothing about solid policy, foreign or domestic.

[parocks]

no.


she is a moron.. she knows absolutely nothing about solid policy, foreign or domestic.

Well, back in 2007, when she was a virtual unknown, before she was attacked by a socialist media intent on destroying her, savvy Ron Paul supporters knew enough about Sarah Palin to recommend that Ron Paul pick her as his VP candidate.

[Kludge]

Well, back in 2007, when she was a virtual unknown, before she was attacked by a socialist media intent on destroying her, savvy Ron Paul supporters knew enough about Sarah Palin to recommend that Ron Paul pick her as his VP candidate.

You've quoted about 15 somewhat favorable opinions from RPFers two years ago of what I guesstimate to be at least 4k non-lurking members by the end of '07. Whether or not those people are credible is up for debate. The support of her then seemed to be about as unfounded as the smears you're likely to now see on RPFs. Were/are they tools? How were/are they being used? Lack of research?

I haven't yet read a comprehensive study of Palin's political positions, so I'm not yet willing to condemn her outright. Here's what I do know: her voice is annoying as all Hell and she ran with McCain. The latter is unforgivable, and I don't think I would believe this if I hadn't seen the exact same situation come up in the LNC last year, when Bob Barr was nominated for the LP's presidential ticket. Mary Ruwart, who took the second-largest share of the votes, declined to run for the VP election because she so strongly believed that Barr did not represent a ticket she wanted to be on. At the time, I was confused about the decision (in fact, I'm right now wearing my Bob Barr 2008 shirt underneath my plaid overshirt), but I now see the integrity her decision shows. Palin repeatedly endorsed McCain. McCain is unacceptable. Palin is thus unacceptable. That's my fairly weak guilt-by-association reasoning.

Now, why do you believe I should think otherwise?

[parocks]

You've quoted about 15 somewhat favorable opinions from RPFers two years ago of what I guesstimate to be at least 4k non-lurking members by the end of '07. Whether or not those people are credible is up for debate. The support of her then seemed to be about as unfounded as the smears you're likely to now see on RPFs. Were/are they tools? How were/are they being used? Lack of research?

I haven't yet read a comprehensive study of Palin's political positions, so I'm not yet willing to condemn her outright. Here's what I do know: her voice is annoying as all Hell and she ran with McCain. The latter is unforgivable, and I don't think I would believe this if I hadn't seen the exact same situation come up in the LNC last year, when Bob Barr was nominated for the LP's presidential ticket. Mary Ruwart, who took the second-largest share of the votes, declined to run for the VP election because she so strongly believed that Barr did not represent a ticket she wanted to be on. At the time, I was confused about the decision, but I now see the integrity her decision shows. Palin repeatedly endorsed McCain. McCain is unacceptable. Palin is thus unacceptable. That's my fairly weak guilt-by-association reasoning.

Now, why do you believe I should think otherwise?

If you're simply going to take a moderate, "wait and see" position, and refrain from attacking Palin, that's fine with me. I'm replying on those old threads basically for the reasons you said. No, there was not unanimous praise for Palin back in 2007, but she was discussed quite often, almost always favorably. I first took notice of Palin from reading favorable things about her here.

It's slightly different to refuse the VP nod for the Libertarian Party and for the Republican Party. Barr was a controversial choice - many felt he was more Republican than Libertarian. Typically, with the Republicans and Democrats, loyalty to the party is a factor, and there are other factors as well. "Balancing the ticket" would be a rare occurrence, if potential VP nominees would only accept if they agreed with the Presidential nominee 100%. In 1980, a Conservative (Reagan) picked a Liberal (Bush) to balance the ticket. Even though Bush thought Reagan was pushing "voodoo economics." I'm not saying that Bush was right to accept in 1980, but sometimes the desire to beat the opposition, perhaps in the belief that their party's nominee would be better than the oppositions nominee, perhaps in the belief that they themselves would be able to make a positive difference, in some small way, greater than they could from the outside, is a worthy reason to accept the nomination.

I'm not saying you, or anyone else here, should actively like, or prefer, Palin. I'm saying that it's a really bad idea to repeat the nasty MSM attacks on Palin. And in support of this, I reply to a variety of old threads from 2007 where people seem to like Palin so much that they think that she should be Ron Paul's VP. 2 years before Norah at MSNBC decided to edit interviews with Palin fans to try to make Palin look bad, we knew who she was and we generally liked her.

[Working Poor]

we knew who she was and we generally liked her....until we saw her jump on the band wagon with John McCain.

Does Palin want us to vote for her or something or are you just on a renegade campaign for her hoping to sway support? As far as I know Ron never endorsed Palin. Am I wrong on that if so please provide a link that will confirm Ron Paul's endorsement.

For me I see her as the neo con's choice and as a quitter.

[Dunedain]

She fails both the illegal immigration and foreign wars for Israel (better known as git duh terrerusts) test. She is pro-amnesty and has an Israeli flag in her office (literally).

Notice the little flag right by her window to remind her of who she is working for.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/Palin%20Israel%20flag.jpg


She has stated she would support Israel if they started another war with Iran. She ran with Mr Amnesty himself John "bomb, bomb, Iran" McCain for the presidency.

But, hey she hunts and she is hot!!! And Sean Hannity says I should like her. That must mean she is one of the good guys right?:rolleyes:

[ClayTrainor]

Well, back in 2007, when she was a virtual unknown, before she was attacked by a socialist media intent on destroying her,

This is why some people here (very few) have fallen for Palin. They think anyone the leftist media attacks, must be our friend. She's part of the problem, not the solution. Do not kid yourself. The leftist media attacked her because she's an easy target, not because she represents our movement and threatens the establishment.

Ron Paul was censored by left and right media. Right wing media LOVES Palin, and is not our friend! We are libertarians, we're not supposed to play into the left vs right game.



savvy Ron Paul supporters knew enough about Sarah Palin to recommend that Ron Paul pick her as his VP candidate.

All I know is my support for Ron Paul would disappear if he chose someone like Palin as his VP. I'm pretty confident that he would never choose her.

[parocks]

...until we saw her jump on the band wagon with John McCain.

Does Palin want us to vote for her or something or are you just on a renegade campaign for her hoping to sway support? As far as I know Ron never endorsed Palin. Am I wrong on that if so please provide a link that will confirm Ron Paul's endorsement.

For me I see her as the neo con's choice and as a quitter.

If you look around you'll see a bunch of people calling her stupid and a neocon.
I'm not saying that you should support Palin. I'm saying that when people look through here, and supporters of a Republican candidate are tearing down a fellow Republican, when there's no Presidential race, and that Republican being torn down is being very effective in combatting Obama, it looks bad. Republicans - Romney supporters, Huck supporters, supporters of other candidates or none at all - might not support Palin, but they do recognize that Palin is effective at helping to thwart Obama, a task that most Republicans agree is a worthy one. They may attempt to distinguish their candidate from Palin, but they at least somewhat dignified language in doing so.

They don't use DNC talking points.

Really, sometimes I can't tell if I'm on Democratic Underground or Ron Paul Forums with the language many use here. Even back in 2007-2008, I got the impression that Ron Paul had many supporters who didn't fully grasp the idea that Ron Paul had to be sold to Republicans, because he had to win the Republican nomination
by winning Republican Primaries in order to become President.

Some Republican who isn't fully committed to Ron Paul stumbles across this site, and they'll immediately think Ron Paul is a Democrat, because Republicans don't call Sarah Palin stupid. And look, here are all these people calling Sarah Palin stupid, and this is a Ron Paul site, so Ron Paul must be a Democrat. (By the way, typically, Democrats call other people stupid, not Republicans, it's not Palin specific). Republicans prefer socialist, leftist, liberal, evil, elitist. Democrats like stupid, extreme, right-wing, racist, sexist.

[parocks]

This is why some people here (very few) have fallen for Palin. They think anyone the leftist media attacks, must be our friend. She's part of the problem, not the solution. Do not kid yourself. The leftist media attacked her because she's an easy target, not because she represents our movement and threatens the establishment.

Ron Paul was censored by left and right media. Right wing media LOVES Palin, and is not our friend! We are libertarians, we're not supposed to play into the left vs right game.



All I know is my support for Ron Paul would disappear if he chose someone like Palin as his VP. I'm pretty confident that he would never choose her.

No, I'm talking about back in 2007 when people were discussing who should be Ron Paul's VP. Before anyone heard of her, we did, in 2007, and we knew her and liked her. Palin's a conservative, strong enough to get the nomination and beat Obama. That's why the Leftist media is attacking her. Yes, Paul is more revolutionary, represents more real change, and is a threat to both left and right.

The question at this point isn't whether Paul would pick Palin, but whether Palin would pick Paul - not only for VP, but for any top cabinet position. She's the front-runner now. Hating Palin is not a good way to get Ron Paul a different job (if he might want it).

[torchbearer]

No, I'm talking about back in 2007 when people were discussing who should be Ron Paul's VP. Before anyone heard of her, we did, in 2007, and we knew her and liked her. Palin's a conservative, strong enough to get the nomination and beat Obama. That's why the Leftist media is attacking her. Yes, Paul is more revolutionary, represents more real change, and is a threat to both left and right.

The question at this point isn't whether Paul would pick Palin, but whether Palin would pick Paul - not only for VP, but for any top cabinet position. She's the front-runner now. Hating Palin is not a good way to get Ron Paul a different job (if he might want it).

prior to Palin selling out her principles to join McCain- we thought she was someone who supported secession. That is something else she has distance herself from... How can you trust her now?
She'd sell you into slavery if it meant more power for herself.

[parocks]

prior to Palin selling out her principles to join McCain- we thought she was someone who supported secession. That is something else she has distance herself from... How can you trust her now?
She'd sell you into slavery if it meant more power for herself.

I dunno. My point isn't how great Palin is. I know you were on these boards a lot back in the day.

Bush didn't become conservative when Reagan picked him. I'm not sure I'd agree with selling out the principles by taking the VP slot. But it's a reasonable enough argument. I don't know enough about secession to say. Slavery's probably a bit much.

But my core point is: Calling Palin stupid is a DNC talking point. Republicans know it. They go to a message board filled with people calling Palin stupid and they're not gonna like the message board and they're not gonna like the candidate the message board is about. And Ron Paul really needs Republicans if he's gonna run again in 2012.

McCain is disliked by a sizeable chunk of Republicans. Criticizing Palin by criticizing McCain (especially if McCain is seen as a RINO, rather than a neocon) will not hurt with Republicans. And there are plenty of other valid criticisms.

But when hundreds of people chant "Palin is stupid" in response to yet another MSNBC hit piece, this message board gets the feel of Democratic Underground.
That is definitely not the feel you want if you ever want votes from Republicans.

[torchbearer]

I dunno. My point isn't how great Palin is. I know you were on these boards a lot back in the day.

Bush didn't become conservative when Reagan picked him. I'm not sure I'd agree with selling out the principles by taking the VP slot. But it's a reasonable enough argument. I don't know enough about secession to say. Slavery's probably a bit much.

But my core point is: Calling Palin stupid is a DNC talking point. Republicans know it. They go to a message board filled with people calling Palin stupid and they're not gonna like the message board and they're not gonna like the candidate the message board is about. And Ron Paul really needs Republicans if he's gonna run again in 2012.

McCain is disliked by a sizeable chunk of Republicans. Criticizing Palin by criticizing McCain (especially if McCain is seen as a RINO, rather than a neocon) will not hurt with Republicans. And there are plenty of other valid criticisms.

But when hundreds of people chant "Palin is stupid" in response to yet another MSNBC hit piece, this message board gets the feel of Democratic Underground.
That is definitely not the feel you want if you ever want votes from Republicans.

This is my definition of stupid- YouTube - CBS Sarah Palin interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ)
(note she backs mccain in the interview- she supported the bail-out because "something had to be done"
Not used as slander- just a definition of her breathe of knowledge.
If Ron Paul is in his senior year, Palin is in pre-k.

[parocks]

And my only point is that Ron Paul does not benefit when you call Palin stupid.

It's not a debate about Palin's intelligence.

I look through these forums, and I see much less about Obama than I should, and almost everything Obama does is 100% opposite to everything Ron Paul stands for.

Palin is trying to stop the same things that Paul is trying to stop, and his supporters are criticizing his ally.


This is my definition of stupid- YouTube - CBS Sarah Palin interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ)
(note she backs mccain in the interview- she supported the bail-out because "something had to be done"
Not used as slander- just a definition of her breathe of knowledge.
If Ron Paul is in his senior year, Palin is in pre-k.

[torchbearer]

And my only point is that Ron Paul does not benefit when you call Palin stupid.

It's not a debate about Palin's intelligence.

I look through these forums, and I see much less about Obama than I should, and almost everything Obama does is 100% opposite to everything Ron Paul stands for.

Palin is trying to stop the same things that Paul is trying to stop, and his supporters are criticizing his ally.

how is supporting the bail-out of banks supporting the same thing Ron stands for?

[Liberty Star]

The only running mate she would be for the mayor of the crazy town.

She is politically dead, media probably wants to keep idiotic ramblings of her lunacy around.

[parocks]

Selling a lot of books, huge crowds at booksignings, over 1 million on Facebook etc etc etc.


The only running mate she would be for the mayor of the crazy town.

She is politically dead, media probably wants to keep idiotic ramblings of her lunacy around.

[Liberty Star]

Bush drew bigger crowds than her, even if he didn't did'nt take time to quit his Texas governorship to write a book and do the book promoting tours.
That in itself doesn't amount to much in the end if objective is change for the better. I wonder how many people would be showing up to buy her book if she looked like Susan Byle. What is the book about, how to carry on Bush's policies even after he has left the building? She's more of the same old same past ignorances.

With her public display of religioracial extremism about Israeli settlements, she has essentially cut herself out of any future political high office.

[torchbearer]

Selling a lot of books, huge crowds at booksignings, over 1 million on Facebook etc etc etc.

I hear Obama can draw huge crowds too, maybe he's an ally too.

How about you start a thread where you list all of Palin's platform. Please site interviews to back the platform.

You will see she is neocon.
She wasn't neocon years ago when her and her husband supported the alaskan secessionist movement. But she has "reformed" those positions.
I have interview after interview of her parroting John McCain.
I don't like John McCain's policies.. and likewise- I don't like Palin's policies because they are the same.
And if she is changing her tune AGAIN- then that tells you how principled she really is-

If she was a 500 pound pig- i swear the whole love fest would be non-existant.

[akforme]

Well, back in 2007, when she was a virtual unknown, before she was attacked by a socialist media intent on destroying her, savvy Ron Paul supporters knew enough about Sarah Palin to recommend that Ron Paul pick her as his VP candidate.

Yeah, she's so great, she increased taxes, increased government, centralized power in AK, and increased spending.

She also violated our privacy because now the government databases all our prescription drug purchases and what doctor we see.

If you support Sarah, your on the wrong board. Or maybe I am, because if Ron ever picked her, I could never vote or support him again.

[parocks]

Sometimes I think I'm talking to Republicans here, sometimes not.

We're in a phase right now where Obama and the Democrats are trying to implement socialism and Paul, Palin and the Republicans are trying to stop them.

We're not in a "who has a better platform" phase, or a "let's compare foreign policy" phase. We're in a "stop Obama and the Democrats" phase which will overlap with the "elect good Republicans in 2010."

Because we're in this particular phase, Paul and Palin are trying to do the same things. They're going about it in different ways, they probably have at least slightly different ideas about who good Republicans would be.

Rand Paul has asked for Sarah Palin's help.

Now, once election day 2010 is over, we can take a look at the results, analyze the landscape, and see how best to proceed. I suspect neither Paul nor Palin will announce prior to election day 2010.

Until then, both Paul and Palin should be working to stop Obama and to get their Republicans elected. When Paul's people are attacking Palin instead of helping on their goals, it's bad for Paul.

Unless I missed something, and Paul switched to Democrat, and the goal is to help Obama, not to stop him. I'm pretty sure I'm right though. I'm not sure that many have thought that through.


I hear Obama can draw huge crowds too, maybe he's an ally too.

How about you start a thread where you list all of Palin's platform. Please site interviews to back the platform.

You will see she is neocon.
She wasn't neocon years ago when her and her husband supported the alaskan secessionist movement. But she has "reformed" those positions.
I have interview after interview of her parroting John McCain.
I don't like John McCain's policies.. and likewise- I don't like Palin's policies because they are the same.
And if she is changing her tune AGAIN- then that tells you how principled she really is-

If she was a 500 pound pig- i swear the whole love fest would be non-existant.

[torchbearer]

Sometimes I think I'm talking to Republicans here, sometimes not.

We're in a phase right now where Obama and the Democrats are trying to implement socialism and Paul, Palin and the Republicans are trying to stop them.

We're not in a "who has a better platform" phase, or a "let's compare foreign policy" phase. We're in a "stop Obama and the Democrats" phase which will overlap with the "elect good Republicans in 2010."

Because we're in this particular phase, Paul and Palin are trying to do the same things. They're going about it in different ways, they probably have at least slightly different ideas about who good Republicans would be.

Rand Paul has asked for Sarah Palin's help.

Now, once election day 2010 is over, we can take a look at the results, analyze the landscape, and see how best to proceed. I suspect neither Paul nor Palin will announce prior to election day 2010.

Until then, both Paul and Palin should be working to stop Obama and to get their Republicans elected. When Paul's people are attacking Palin instead of helping on their goals, it's bad for Paul.

Unless I missed something, and Paul switched to Democrat, and the goal is to help Obama, not to stop him. I'm pretty sure I'm right though. I'm not sure that many have thought that through.

Let me give you a clue for free. no charge.
We aren't republicans, we are americans.
We are people who will no longer put party before country.
We are people who demand principled politicians not feel-good demagogues.

Palin is not our ally. She is whatever is popular at the moment. She has proven this with her own actions.

Maybe you need to do some serious thinking about what is really important to you.

[akforme]

Sometimes I think I'm talking to Republicans here, sometimes not.

We're in a phase right now where Obama and the Democrats are trying to implement socialism and Paul, Palin and the Republicans are trying to stop them.

We're not in a "who has a better platform" phase, or a "let's compare foreign policy" phase. We're in a "stop Obama and the Democrats" phase which will overlap with the "elect good Republicans in 2010."

Because we're in this particular phase, Paul and Palin are trying to do the same things. They're going about it in different ways, they probably have at least slightly different ideas about who good Republicans would be.

Rand Paul has asked for Sarah Palin's help.

Now, once election day 2010 is over, we can take a look at the results, analyze the landscape, and see how best to proceed. I suspect neither Paul nor Palin will announce prior to election day 2010.

Until then, both Paul and Palin should be working to stop Obama and to get their Republicans elected. When Paul's people are attacking Palin instead of helping on their goals, it's bad for Paul.

Unless I missed something, and Paul switched to Democrat, and the goal is to help Obama, not to stop him. I'm pretty sure I'm right though. I'm not sure that many have thought that through.

You probably think Reagan was a good president too right? Minus the fact he increased taxes 6 times, sold arms to Iran, brought crack to our streets, funded a cold war that was utter bullshit, increased the failed war on drugs and hired greenapsn.

I don't think you understand Ron Paul that well. If your just against Obama, go to Hannity's forum, you'll fit right in.

And if Rand asked for Sarah's help, I'm glad I know now because he won't get any support from me.

[parocks]

I'm not a Palin expert. I'm not saying Palin is great. I said that many here thought that she should be the VP. And many here did.

If Palin and Paul run both run in 2012, all of those things that you're saying are the kinds of things that will make Republicans less likely to vote for Palin.

But right now, in Nov 2009, neither Paul nor Palin are running for President, and both Paul and Palin are working toward the same goals - to stop Obama from increasing socialism and to get some more Republicans elected.

Attacking Palin before Nov 2010, before either Paul or Palin runs, doesn't help Paul accomplish his objectives of stopping Obama and getting Republicans elected.

Ron Paul, presumably, wants Rand Paul elected. He's working toward that goal.
Rand Paul asked for Sarah Palin's help. And here, on a message board that's supposed to be helping, among others, Rand Paul, we have lots and lots of people dumping on Sarah Palin.

Now, smart people, is dumping on Sarah Palin going to make Sarah Palin more likely, or less likely to support Rand Paul?

C'mon, we know how smart you all say you are. Rand Paul is asking for Sarah Palin's help. Does dumping on Sarah Palin on Rand Paul's message board help Rand Paul?


Yeah, she's so great, she increased taxes, increased government, centralized power in AK, and increased spending.

She also violated our privacy because now the government databases all our prescription drug purchases and what doctor we see.

If you support Sarah, your on the wrong board. Or maybe I am, because if Ron ever picked her, I could never vote or support him again.

[akforme]

I'm not a Palin expert. I'm not saying Palin is great. I said that many here thought that she should be the VP. And many here did.

If Palin and Paul run both run in 2012, all of those things that you're saying are the kinds of things that will make Republicans less likely to vote for Palin.

But right now, in Nov 2009, neither Paul nor Palin are running for President, and both Paul and Palin are working toward the same goals - to stop Obama from increasing socialism and to get some more Republicans elected.

Attacking Palin before Nov 2010, before either Paul or Palin runs, doesn't help Paul accomplish his objectives of stopping Obama and getting Republicans elected.

Ron Paul, presumably, wants Rand Paul elected. He's working toward that goal.
Rand Paul asked for Sarah Palin's help. And here, on a message board that's supposed to be helping, among others, Rand Paul, we have lots and lots of people dumping on Sarah Palin.

Now, smart people, is dumping on Sarah Palin going to make Sarah Palin more likely, or less likely to support Rand Paul?

C'mon, we know how smart you all say you are. Rand Paul is asking for Sarah Palin's help. Does dumping on Sarah Palin on Rand Paul's message board help Rand Paul?


I don't like Rand now if he wants sarah's help. I'm glad I only sent 20 bucks because it will be the last 20 bucks he EVER gets from me.

Thanks for letting me know about that.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't like Rand now if he wants sarah's help. I'm glad I only sent 20 bucks because it will be the last 20 bucks he EVER gets from me.

Thanks for letting me know about that.

I'm for ANYONE helping Rand to get elected; it DOES NOT MEAN that he is willing to compromise his principles. Hell, Ron Paul accepted donations from anyone and everyone. How is what Rand doing any different than that?

[RM918]

And my only point is that Ron Paul does not benefit when you call Palin stupid.

It's not a debate about Palin's intelligence.

I look through these forums, and I see much less about Obama than I should, and almost everything Obama does is 100% opposite to everything Ron Paul stands for.

Palin is trying to stop the same things that Paul is trying to stop, and his supporters are criticizing his ally.

Oh no! We're not attacking Obama enough!

This is total and utter horseshit. You keep propagating the whole left-right war, and insisting we are betraying ourselves by not looking to the left as Satan manifest. Both the right AND the left are the targets here, along with the system they propagate that you must pick a team and attack the other.

And, to make it worse, you try shaming everyone by calling them Democrats like this is some sort of ultimate insult for not daring to support a completely empty candidate that sits on your preferred side of the fence. If you don't see why this is foolhardy, I don't think you even understand the whole point trying to be made here.

What we have here has nothing to do with left vs. right. We agree with things that Democrats purport to agree with, and we agree with things Republicans purport to agree with. We are neither, because a country with 300 million people cannot have 2 cookie-cutter points of view on any situation.

Palin has sided with neocons, talks like a neocon and has shown no true support for any of our causes, so, I have no reason to support her unless she proves otherwise. She hasn't. To me, she is currently just as much an enemy as Obama is, as she continues to propagate the destruction of our country just as severely no matter what sort of show she's putting on. For siding with her, perhaps you're more of a Democrat than any of us.

Unless she changes her tune, she remains that way, and is not to be trusted. If she does happen to work toward goals I agree with, then I'd work with her on those goals but lend her no aide anywhere else. She can even help out Rand, I don't care. However, even if she does, I'd rather nominate a piece of driftwood than her as any sort of candidate.

[akforme]

I'm for ANYONE helping Rand to get elected; it DOES NOT MEAN that he is willing to compromise his principles. Hell, Ron Paul accepted donations from anyone and everyone. How is what Rand doing any different than that?

Your right, and i just wrote Rands campaign to find out the details. I don't want to make any decision without knowing what the truth is.

However, if Rand asked for her help, I need to know what he agrees with her on? Quitting? Increasing taxes? Invading my privacy? Centralizing power? Increasing spending?

What principals is Rand giving up to gain the power of her support?

And I had no problem with Ron keeping that money, he was right, but he didn't ask them specifically for help either.

[LibertyEagle]

If you look around you'll see a bunch of people calling her stupid and a neocon.
I'm not saying that you should support Palin. I'm saying that when people look through here, and supporters of a Republican candidate are tearing down a fellow Republican, when there's no Presidential race, and that Republican being torn down is being very effective in combatting Obama, it looks bad. Republicans - Romney supporters, Huck supporters, supporters of other candidates or none at all - might not support Palin, but they do recognize that Palin is effective at helping to thwart Obama, a task that most Republicans agree is a worthy one. They may attempt to distinguish their candidate from Palin, but they at least somewhat dignified language in doing so.

They don't use DNC talking points.

Really, sometimes I can't tell if I'm on Democratic Underground or Ron Paul Forums with the language many use here. Even back in 2007-2008, I got the impression that Ron Paul had many supporters who didn't fully grasp the idea that Ron Paul had to be sold to Republicans, because he had to win the Republican nomination
by winning Republican Primaries in order to become President.

Some Republican who isn't fully committed to Ron Paul stumbles across this site, and they'll immediately think Ron Paul is a Democrat, because Republicans don't call Sarah Palin stupid. And look, here are all these people calling Sarah Palin stupid, and this is a Ron Paul site, so Ron Paul must be a Democrat. (By the way, typically, Democrats call other people stupid, not Republicans, it's not Palin specific). Republicans prefer socialist, leftist, liberal, evil, elitist. Democrats like stupid, extreme, right-wing, racist, sexist.

FWIW, personally, I agree with you. It's one thing to point out what Palin has done that makes us question her authenticity; but, it's quite another to be calling her stupid and likewise, her supporters. That is unless we want to run off Republicans from the freedom movement. Thing is, that seems to me to be an odd choice to make, seeing as most of our liberty candidates are running as REPUBLICANS!

[LibertyEagle]

Your right, and i just wrote Rands campaign to find out the details. I don't want to make any decision without knowing what the truth is.

However, if Rand asked for her help, I need to know what he agrees with her on? Quitting? Increasing taxes? Invading my privacy? Centralizing power? Increasing spending?

What principals is Rand giving up to gain the power of her support?

And I had no problem with Ron keeping that money, he was right, but he didn't ask them specifically for help either.

Hell, as soon as I find her address, I'm going to ask Palin to support Debra Medina for Governor of Texas. I doubt that she will, because I think she's supporting the current Governor. But, her endorsement would likely give some more name recognition for Debra and also bring some Republicans over to Debra's camp. Because if Debra does not win the REPUBLICAN PRIMARY, there is no chance to be in the general election. Not for one minute, does it mean that Medina agrees with Palin.

I think you are forgetting that Republicans SEE PALIN, in their minds, as being for limited government and in politics, it is the perception that matters. In case you were wondering, no, I wouldn't vote for Palin as dogcatcher.

[RM918]

FWIW, personally, I agree with you. It's one thing to point out what Palin has done that makes us question her authenticity; but, it's quite another to be calling her stupid and likewise, her supporters. That is unless we want to run off Republicans from the freedom movement. Thing is, that seems to me to be an odd choice to make, seeing as most of our liberty candidates are running as REPUBLICANS!

Juvenile attacks I'm against, but hey, it's the internet. People are going to act stupidly. However, that doesn't mean I'd vote for Palin for anything greater than county dogcatcher. But if someone tells me, 'How DARE you not consider Palin for VP! Are you some kind of DEMOCRAT?', I'm going to tell them why I wouldn't and why it's stupid to do so.

[amy31416]

This is Ron Paul on war and peace:

YouTube - Ron Paul : The Just War Theory & Peace Correlation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng11CidmE5k)

Sarah Palin, who also claims to be a Christian, is the opposite. Like Bush, I'm convinced that she would think these Middle Eastern wars are holy wars. No way, no how.

I think that people liked her in 2007 because of a false impression that she was a Buchananite, understood the 10th Amendment, was independent, etc. The only thing I like about her is that she supports the 2nd Amendment. I do have my doubts that she has the first clue about the underlying philosophy.

In my opinion, she's a tool to get the religious right on board since they're so crazy for her.

[JoshLowry]

Sarah Palin is smart.

Check out this zinger:

LiveLeak.com - Sarah Palin Handles Heckler At Rally (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0fc_1223394813)

Her son is in Iraq fighting for our right to protest. Genius!

[akforme]

Hell, as soon as I find her address, I'm going to ask Palin to support Debra Medina for Governor of Texas. I doubt that she will, because I think she's supporting the current Governor. But, her endorsement would likely give some more name recognition for Debra and also bring some Republicans over to Debra's camp. Because if Debra does not win the REPUBLICAN PRIMARY, there is no chance to be in the general election. Not for one minute, does it mean that Medina agrees with Palin.

I think you are forgetting that Republicans SEE PALIN, in their minds, as being for limited government and in politics, it is the perception that matters. In case you were wondering, no, I wouldn't vote for Palin as dogcatcher.

So the end justifies the mean? Not for me. If we have to support Sarah to get power I don't want to be on that team because it's corruptable and I can't trust it. Think about Reagan, before and after he got Bush'd to get power. They will hold that support over our head if we use it to get elected.

[LibertyEagle]

So the end justifies the mean? Not for me. If we have to support Sarah to get power I don't want to be on that team because it's corruptable and I can't trust it. Think about Reagan, before and after he got Bush'd to get power. They will hold that support over our head if we use it to get elected.

Who said ANYTHING about supporting Palin??


Juvenile attacks I'm against, but hey, it's the internet. People are going to act stupidly. However, that doesn't mean I'd vote for Palin for anything greater than county dogcatcher. But if someone tells me, 'How DARE you not consider Palin for VP! Are you some kind of DEMOCRAT?', I'm going to tell them why I wouldn't and why it's stupid to do so.

And so would I.

[akforme]

Who said ANYTHING about supporting Palin??

Sorry that was a typo. If we have to get Sarah's support to win then we are in debt to Sarah. That's who the game is played, she won't give support without it.

If she believed in our cause, and she knows what it is, she's not stupid, she'd join, but that would mean she would have to change her way's to get our support and she's not willing to do that because her way is giving her too much power.

[parocks]

Back when Ron Paul was running for President, he released promotional literature
with pictures of him and Ronald Reagan. That promotional literature also made reference to the fact that Ron Paul was the first congressman to support Reagan in 1976. Reagan wasn't perfect, and Ron Paul had his differences with him, but he did at least try to shrink the size of government.

Here's a point that's very difficult for many to understand. Ron Paul is a Republican. He ran for President as a Republican in 2008. He needed votes from
Republicans to win. If he runs again, it will be most likely as a Republican. He will, again, need votes from Republicans, in Republican primaries, in order to win the Republican nomination.

Republicans and Democrats are the 2 major parties in the US, they win 99% of all the races. Obama is a Democrat. Obama is doing things that Republicans don't like. Ron Paul is a Republican. If Ron Paul does things to stop Obama from doing things that Republicans don't like, Republicans will be happy. Happy Republicans happy that Ron Paul did what they want are potential voters for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul supporters who criticize someone who is trying to do what they want
when that person is not running for office but who is trying to do the same basic thing as Ron Paul is doing do not make Republicans happy with the Ron Paul supporters or with Ron Paul, and Republicans who are not happy with Ron Paul do not vote for Ron Paul. And, remember, you need Republican votes to win, not Democrat votes, Republican votes.

In New Hampshire, January 2008, there were a lot of Ron Paul supporters, from all over the country. I was one of them. Most of them were poorly supervised, poorly tasked, poorly instructed. Many, not all, but some, came across as argumentative anti-war Democrats. If you're a Republican voter from New Hampshire, you are probably less likely to vote for someone who is being represented by, seemingly, an anti-war Democrat.

Does any of that make any sense to you? If you don't like Republicans in general, or at least have a preference for Republicans over Democrats, don't you think that
you should take a closer look at your message? Remember, you have to persuade
Republicans, not Democrats. Oh, and by the way, Reagan is popular with Republicans. If you ever put yourself in a position where you're representing Ron Paul to an unknown Republican voter, and you're trying to persuade him or her
to support Ron Paul in some way, it's a much better idea to note the similarities between Ron Paul and Ronald Reagan than to note the differences.



You probably think Reagan was a good president too right? Minus the fact he increased taxes 6 times, sold arms to Iran, brought crack to our streets, funded a cold war that was utter bullshit, increased the failed war on drugs and hired greenapsn.

I don't think you understand Ron Paul that well. If your just against Obama, go to Hannity's forum, you'll fit right in.

And if Rand asked for Sarah's help, I'm glad I know now because he won't get any support from me.

[RM918]

Back when Ron Paul was running for President, he released promotional literature
with pictures of him and Ronald Reagan. That promotional literature also made reference to the fact that Ron Paul was the first congressman to support Reagan in 1976. Reagan wasn't perfect, and Ron Paul had his differences with him, but he did at least try to shrink the size of government.

Here's a point that's very difficult for many to understand. Ron Paul is a Republican. He ran for President as a Republican in 2008. He needed votes from
Republicans to win. If he runs again, it will be most likely as a Republican. He will, again, need votes from Republicans, in Republican primaries, in order to win the Republican nomination.

Republicans and Democrats are the 2 major parties in the US, they win 99% of all the races. Obama is a Democrat. Obama is doing things that Republicans don't like. Ron Paul is a Republican. If Ron Paul does things to stop Obama from doing things that Republicans don't like, Republicans will be happy. Happy Republicans happy that Ron Paul did what they want are potential voters for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul supporters who criticize someone who is trying to do what they want
when that person is not running for office but who is trying to do the same basic thing as Ron Paul is doing do not make Republicans happy with the Ron Paul supporters or with Ron Paul, and Republicans who are not happy with Ron Paul do not vote for Ron Paul. And, remember, you need Republican votes to win, not Democrat votes, Republican votes.

In New Hampshire, January 2008, there were a lot of Ron Paul supporters, from all over the country. I was one of them. Most of them were poorly supervised, poorly tasked, poorly instructed. Many, not all, but some, came across as argumentative anti-war Democrats. If you're a Republican voter from New Hampshire, you are probably less likely to vote for someone who is being represented by, seemingly, an anti-war Democrat.

Does any of that make any sense to you? If you don't like Republicans in general, or at least have a preference for Republicans over Democrats, don't you think that
you should take a closer look at your message? Remember, you have to persuade
Republicans, not Democrats. Oh, and by the way, Reagan is popular with Republicans. If you ever put yourself in a position where you're representing Ron Paul to an unknown Republican voter, and you're trying to persuade him or her
to support Ron Paul in some way, it's a much better idea to note the similarities between Ron Paul and Ronald Reagan than to note the differences.

You're presenting the solution as out-neoconning the neocons. It's a valid strategy, I suppose, but that's a strategy for the neocons. Campaigning on 'leadership' and 'charisma' is what led us to Obama and everyone else. If we want any chance of changing anything, we have to change minds. That's how Paul got most of his supporters to begin with. How is Paul saying the exact same stuff Mitt Romney says going to win him any Mitt Romney supporters, when they have Mitt Romney? I'm against baseless attacks against rivals or juvenile name-tossing, but fooling someone who would've voted for Mitt Romney that we can out-Romney him isn't going to get us anywhere.

[parocks]

She's not a candidate at this point, neither is Ron Paul. Your error is to think that what I'm talking about has anything to do with voting for Sarah Palin.

You seem to think that the "left-right war" is fictional in large part.

Are you paying attention to what is happening?

What is happening right now is that Obama and the Democrats, right now, are trying to pass legislation that we do not want to see passed at all. Not one bit.
Ron Paul will not be voting for this legislation that Obama and the Democrats are trying to pass. Now, I don't want to burst your bubble here, but, guess what,
these votes are coming down on party lines. In some cases, NO Republicans are voting for these bills, (or cloture, etc etc) and yet these terrible bills, that Ron Paul does not support, are still moving forward.

So, yes, in theory, and in specific in some cases, Republicans and Democrats both vote for big government, both do things we don't like, Republicrat, etc. But right
now, in this specific instance, Obama and the Dems are trying to pass, with or
without any Republican support at all, things that we as Liberty Loving Americans
do not want. Ron Paul does not want these things and is trying to stop them.
Sarah Palin does not want these things and is trying to stop them. Obama, the Dems and the media do want these things. Sarah Palin, probably the top current single messenger of our message, is being attacked by the media, in an effort to weaken her ability to carry our message. You should not be helping the media in their efforts. It's important that she be able to communicate the message, get the people all pissed off and calling their Senators and Reps, putting pressure on them to not vote for these pieces of terrible legislation.


Oh no! We're not attacking Obama enough!

This is total and utter horseshit. You keep propagating the whole left-right war, and insisting we are betraying ourselves by not looking to the left as Satan manifest. Both the right AND the left are the targets here, along with the system they propagate that you must pick a team and attack the other.

And, to make it worse, you try shaming everyone by calling them Democrats like this is some sort of ultimate insult for not daring to support a completely empty candidate that sits on your preferred side of the fence. If you don't see why this is foolhardy, I don't think you even understand the whole point trying to be made here.

What we have here has nothing to do with left vs. right. We agree with things that Democrats purport to agree with, and we agree with things Republicans purport to agree with. We are neither, because a country with 300 million people cannot have 2 cookie-cutter points of view on any situation.

Palin has sided with neocons, talks like a neocon and has shown no true support for any of our causes, so, I have no reason to support her unless she proves otherwise. She hasn't. To me, she is currently just as much an enemy as Obama is, as she continues to propagate the destruction of our country just as severely no matter what sort of show she's putting on. For siding with her, perhaps you're more of a Democrat than any of us.

Unless she changes her tune, she remains that way, and is not to be trusted. If she does happen to work toward goals I agree with, then I'd work with her on those goals but lend her no aide anywhere else. She can even help out Rand, I don't care. However, even if she does, I'd rather nominate a piece of driftwood than her as any sort of candidate.

[LibertyEagle]

I agree with parocks, WHOLEHEARTEDLY, here (this post) (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2421729&postcount=39).

There are always different ways to say the same thing. For example, instead of going into detail explaining that you are against invading other countries that have not attacked us, and that you think the troops should be brought home to protect our own country, you could say that you are for a strong national DEFENSE. Period. The only difference between the two is that in the latter, you did not go into the detail. We may love the detail, but it sinks ships and accept it or not, people get confused. "Strong national defense", they love. At least Republicans do and that is the primary in which he is running. Saying a "strong national defense" does not a warmonger make. Ron Paul was also for a strong national defense.

[RevolutionSD]

I think she should be on our short list of potential VP's

Sure, if you're a fan of war and neocons. :(

[parocks]

What are you talking about? Where did I say anything about neocons?

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to shout.

REPUBLICANS VOTE IN REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES.
DEMOCRATS VOTE IN DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES.
(with exceptions)

You have to win Republican votes from Republicans in Republican primaries. Not Democrats.

If the Republicans in a given state are, for lack of a better word "paleo cons"
feel free to play up the "non-interventionist" angle. If the Republicans in a given state are "neo cons" play down the "non-interventionist", play up some other element of the message that will appeal to Republicans in that state.

The point is, the universe is that of Republicans.




You're presenting the solution as out-neoconning the neocons. It's a valid strategy, I suppose, but that's a strategy for the neocons. Campaigning on 'leadership' and 'charisma' is what led us to Obama and everyone else. If we want any chance of changing anything, we have to change minds. That's how Paul got most of his supporters to begin with. How is Paul saying the exact same stuff Mitt Romney says going to win him any Mitt Romney supporters, when they have Mitt Romney? I'm against baseless attacks against rivals or juvenile name-tossing, but fooling someone who would've voted for Mitt Romney that we can out-Romney him isn't going to get us anywhere.

[parocks]

I agree with parocks, WHOLEHEARTEDLY, here (this post) (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2421729&postcount=39).

There are always different ways to say the same thing. For example, instead of going into detail explaining that you are against invading other countries that have not attacked us, and that you think the troops should be brought home to protect our own country, you could say that you are for a strong national DEFENSE. Period. The only difference between the two is that in the latter, you did not go into the detail. We may love the detail, but it sinks ships and accept it or not, people get confused. "Strong national defense", they love. At least Republicans do and that is the primary in which he is running. Saying a "strong national defense" does not a warmonger make. Ron Paul was also for a strong national defense.

That is a good, accurate, correct description of how a specific message can be crafted.

The basic point that needs to be understood by some is that you have to understand what the Republicans like. If you don't know that Republicans like a strong national defense, if you just figure that your amazing powers of argumentation will convince a Republican who believes in a strong national defense to become anti-war, you're not doing a very good job for Ron Paul.

[LibertyEagle]

Here are some other suggestions that MRoCkEd made some time back. I think they are quite good. Notice how he frames states' rights in a way that would appeal to even the most ardent social conservative. And guess what? The stances below are exactly the same as Ron's (w/ the possible exception of the 3rd one in that I have never heard Ron say that was the primary purpose of the fed'l gov't); they're just phrased differently.


Rand needs to frame his positions correctly.

"I am strongly opposed to illegal drug use, and I believe Kentuckians should be empowered to determine the best laws to combat this problem"

"I firmly believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I also believe this is an issue for churches to decide and not the government."

"I believe national defense is the primary purpose of the federal government. We must remain strong militarily by securing our borders and retaliating forcefully and immediately to any foreign attacks."

"I believe life begins at conception and I am strongly opposed to abortion. I support an immediate overturn of Roe v. Wade and the passage of the Sanctity of Life act. States like Kentucky have the right and responsibility to put restrictions on this practice and no federal court should be able to say otherwise."

[Liberty Star]

You seem to think that the "left-right war" is fictional in large part.

...

That is a misleading paradigm, it's really about "right-wrong". There are as many ignoramouses on the "right" as there are on the "left" in our current political spectrum, after 9 years of Bush/Cheney/Obama it need not be a debatable issue.

Palin represents "wrong" in the right-wrong equation and any political candidate she would stand with would lose and rightly so, she's become more radioactive than just a VP loser. She was a vocal defender of all of Bush-Cheney cabal's disastrous policies, her mental competence is questionable at best and lately has become a symbol of violent racism in mideast since publication of her book.

[sofia]

Well, back in 2007, when she was a virtual unknown, before she was attacked by a socialist media intent on destroying her, savvy Ron Paul supporters knew enough about Sarah Palin to recommend that Ron Paul pick her as his VP candidate.

Sarah is a warmongering neo-con

Sarah is an Israel Firster

Sarah supported the bailout

Sarah is an intellectual lightweight

Sarah is a QUITTER

Sarah is a money hungry narcissist

Sarah cheated on her husband with his business partner

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/national_enquirer_world_exclusive_sarah_palins_sec ret_lover_revealed/celebrity/65481

CONSERVATIVES BEWARE! This woman is an ambitious PHONY!

[parocks]

Sure have a lot of anger toward a fellow Republican.

Sarah Palin is not running for President.

Sarah Palin and Ron Paul are both trying to stop Obama
from destroying the US with socialism.

To insult Sarah Palin with slanderous comments
tends to piss off Republicans who want to see
Sarah Palin and Ron Paul stop Obama.

Ron Paul, if he is to run for President in 2012
will need the support of Republicans who you
are pissing off with your comments if he is to win.

Rand Paul asked for Sarah Palin's support. If Rand Paul's
supporters insult Sarah Palin, that makes it less likely
that Sarah Palin will support Rand Paul.

Save your negative attacks for when she becomes
a candidate. Right now, both Paul and Palin are
working to stop Obama.

And welcome to Liberty Forest.


Sarah is a warmongering neo-con

Sarah is an Israel Firster

Sarah supported the bailout

Sarah is an intellectual lightweight

Sarah is a QUITTER

Sarah is a money hungry narcissist

Sarah cheated on her husband with his business partner

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/national_enquirer_world_exclusive_sarah_palins_sec ret_lover_revealed/celebrity/65481

CONSERVATIVES BEWARE! This woman is an ambitious PHONY!

[LibertyEagle]

Sofia, you are quoting the NATIONAL ENQUIRER, for God's sake. :rolleyes: I'm not fond of the woman either, but seriously.

[raiha]

Alaska Governor shows Fearlessness
So do turds.

[sofia]

Sofia, you are quoting the NATIONAL ENQUIRER, for God's sake. :rolleyes: I'm not fond of the woman either, but seriously.

when it comes to gossip, Nat Enq has scooped MSM many times.

The stories are trashy, but their fact checking seems solid

[sparebulb]

Sarah is a warmongering neo-con

Sarah is an Israel Firster

Sarah supported the bailout

Sarah is an intellectual lightweight

Sarah is a QUITTER

Sarah is a money hungry narcissist

Sarah cheated on her husband with his business partner

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/national_enquirer_world_exclusive_sarah_palins_sec ret_lover_revealed/celebrity/65481

CONSERVATIVES BEWARE! This woman is an ambitious PHONY!

Might we add that she supports illegal alien amnesty.

[davesxj]

Anti-liberty solutions to Obamunism are not solutions. Sorry.

EDIT: Actually I think I'm more disgusted by her foreign policy than I am with socialized health care.

[rprprs]

...I haven't yet read a comprehensive study of Palin's political positions...

And you never will!
She's for "common sense". That's the extent of it. :rolleyes:

[silverhawks]

Well, back in 2007, when she was a virtual unknown, before she was attacked by a socialist media intent on destroying her, savvy Ron Paul supporters knew enough about Sarah Palin to recommend that Ron Paul pick her as his VP candidate.

Please don't include me as a member of your imaginary collective.

Sarah Palin shouldn't be anywhere near the liberty movement. She is a tool of big government who sold out a long time ago.

Insult my intelligence all you like, there's no way that I'm putting my hopes behind a neo-con that is going to keep on enslaving me and mine.

[bunklocoempire]

Let me give you a clue for free. no charge.
We aren't republicans, we are americans.
We are people who will no longer put party before country.
We are people who demand principled politicians not feel-good demagogues.

Palin is not our ally. She is whatever is popular at the moment. She has proven this with her own actions.

Maybe you need to do some serious thinking about what is really important to you.

THIS.

We are not afraid of Democrats, we are not afraid of Muslims or terrorists, we are not afraid of economic crisis, we are not afraid of ANY inanimate objects, we are not afraid of people who are different than us enjoying the same liberty we enjoy.

WE ARE NOT AFRAID!

EDIT: WE are the FEARLESS.

We'll make our concessions at the bottom with our fellow Americans because we've seen what "concessions" at the top bring us.

We realize there are other American allies out there. Other than just Republicans.

Paul, Baldwin, McKinney, Nader: We Agree

http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-10/paul-baldwin-mccinney-nader-we-agree/

"The Republican/Democrat duopoly has, for far too long, ignored the most important issues facing our nation. However, alternate candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader agree with Ron Paul on four key principles central to the health of our nation. These principles should be key in the considerations of every voter this November and in every election.

We Agree

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds."


Bunkloco

[parocks]

Well, I'm simply stating what happened in 2007. You weren't here. I'm simply stating that many here (not all) liked Sarah Palin in 2007 enough to recommend her as Ron Paul's VP. But for some reason instead of standing with Ron Paul and Sarah Palin in trying to stop Obama, you think it's more important to tear someone down who is not a candidate. And nowhere am I suggesting that Ron Paul supporters should stop supporting Ron Paul and support Sarah Palin instead. There is a big election in 2010 ahead. Ron Paul and Sarah Palin are fighting to stop socialism. It doesn't help Ron Paul to tear down Sarah Palin. After Nov 2010,
if Ron Paul and Sarah Palin are both running for President, of course it's a different story. Right now, conservatives need to be focusing on stopping Obama and the Democrats.


Please don't include me as a member of your imaginary collective.

Sarah Palin shouldn't be anywhere near the liberty movement. She is a tool of big government who sold out a long time ago.

Insult my intelligence all you like, there's no way that I'm putting my hopes behind a neo-con that is going to keep on enslaving me and mine.

[jmdrake]

Well, I'm simply stating what happened in 2007. You weren't here. I'm simply stating that many here (not all) liked Sarah Palin in 2007 enough to recommend her as Ron Paul's VP. But for some reason instead of standing with Ron Paul and Sarah Palin in trying to stop Obama, you think it's more important to tear someone down who is not a candidate. And nowhere am I suggesting that Ron Paul supporters should stop supporting Ron Paul and support Sarah Palin instead. There is a big election in 2010 ahead. Ron Paul and Sarah Palin are fighting to stop socialism. It doesn't help Ron Paul to tear down Sarah Palin. After Nov 2010,
if Ron Paul and Sarah Palin are both running for President, of course it's a different story. Right now, conservatives need to be focusing on stopping Obama and the Democrats.

2007 was before Sarah Palin endorsed the bailout. As for "fighting socialism", the bailout is what made this all possible. If you can bailout the banks you can bailout out the car companies. If you can bailout the car companies you can bailout people who don't have health insurance. If you can bailout people who don't have health insurance you can bailout the planet with "crap and trade". Never forget this Newsweek cover.

http://www.galvestoneconomicreport.com/Pics/NewsweekSocialists.jpg

That was in direct response to the Bush / Obama bailout. The anti Obama backlash has grown despite Sarah Palin. The tea parties started even before Ron Paul with the 9/11 truthers. And while I'll (grudgingly) give Glenn Beck credit for helping to grow and focus the movement, Palin's had little to do with it's success. It's helping her sell books though. The danger is that she and others who supported the Bush bailout but are now trying to capitalize on the backlash dilute the movements effectiveness. Our best bet is for people like Rand to get elected in 2010. That will shake up the establishment in both parties.

[angelatc]

. After Nov 2010,
if Ron Paul and Sarah Palin are both running for President, of course it's a different story. Right now, conservatives need to be focusing on stopping Obama and the Democrats.

Thats the sentiment that's got us to the point we're at.

[jmdrake]

This should be a sticky!


THIS.

We are not afraid of Democrats, we are not afraid of Muslims or terrorists, we are not afraid of economic crisis, we are not afraid of ANY inanimate objects, we are not afraid of people who are different than us enjoying the same liberty we enjoy.

WE ARE NOT AFRAID!

EDIT: WE are the FEARLESS.

We'll make our concessions at the bottom with our fellow Americans because we've seen what "concessions" at the top bring us.

We realize there are other American allies out there. Other than just Republicans.

Paul, Baldwin, McKinney, Nader: We Agree

http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-10/paul-baldwin-mccinney-nader-we-agree/

"The Republican/Democrat duopoly has, for far too long, ignored the most important issues facing our nation. However, alternate candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader agree with Ron Paul on four key principles central to the health of our nation. These principles should be key in the considerations of every voter this November and in every election.

We Agree

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds."


Bunkloco

[pcosmar]

Well, back in 2007, when she was a virtual unknown, before she was attacked by a socialist media intent on destroying her, savvy Ron Paul supporters knew enough about Sarah Palin to recommend that Ron Paul pick her as his VP candidate.

No, That is not entirely true.
A couple people were pushing her as a VP choice. Is this resurrected thread the one that got that crap started?

[pcosmar]

Well, I'm simply stating what happened in 2007. You weren't here. I'm simply stating that many here (not all) liked Sarah Palin in 2007 enough to recommend her as Ron Paul's VP. But for some reason instead of standing with Ron Paul and Sarah Palin in trying to stop Obama, you think it's more important to tear someone down who is not a candidate. And nowhere am I suggesting that Ron Paul supporters should stop supporting Ron Paul and support Sarah Palin instead. There is a big election in 2010 ahead. Ron Paul and Sarah Palin are fighting to stop socialism. It doesn't help Ron Paul to tear down Sarah Palin. After Nov 2010,
if Ron Paul and Sarah Palin are both running for President, of course it's a different story. Right now, conservatives need to be focusing on stopping Obama and the Democrats.

Woah, I was here. And you are full of shit.
There were a few voices that pushed Palin incessantly. To the point of annoyance.
There were some pushing McCain too, and Huck, and even Thompson.
Just to stop Hillary. (Like that makes any difference.)

It was not most or even many.

[parocks]

I dunno. I didn't say most. Most is over 50%. It wasn't most. I said many. I'm not sure that you are accurate in calling me full of shit because you disagree with my definition of "many". I will still say that many (more than a few) thought Palin should be Paul's VP in 2008. If there's a word that describes a quantity between few and many, that word might be better. Perhaps "a significant number" would be better. I think that "a significant number" would include both "few" and "many". I would say the quantity of people here in 2007 who thought that Palin should be Paul's VP pick in 2008 was on the "many" side of the border between "few" and "many", but close to that border.


Woah, I was here. And you are full of shit.
There were a few voices that pushed Palin incessantly. To the point of annoyance.
There were some pushing McCain too, and Huck, and even Thompson.
Just to stop Hillary. (Like that makes any difference.)

It was not most or even many.

[Flash]

Shes fearless? All she did was endorse Doug Hoffman. Oh yeah but she waited until Mark Levin, Hannity, and the other mainstream Republicans gave him an endorsement. What fearlessness!
If she was really brave she would've given endorsements to Rand Paul & Chuck DeVore months ago. I'm convinced she doesn't care about conservatism.