Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Ron Paul wins CPAC straw poll; greeted by cascading boos


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 17,115 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 20 February 2010 - 11:30 PM

lol

http://www.cnn.com/2...meeting/?hpt=T1

(CNN) -- U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, a stalwart foe of government spending, won a blowout victory Saturday in the annual Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll.


With participants naming "reducing the size of federal government" as their top issue, the 74-year old libertarian hero captured 31 percent of the 2,400 votes cast in the annual contest, usually seen as a barometer of how the GOP's conservative wing regards their potential presidential candidates.


Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finished second with 22 percent of the vote, ending a three-year winning streak at CPAC. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin finished third with 7 percent of the vote, followed by Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty at 6 percent and Indiana Rep. Mike Pence at 5 percent.


They were followed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who tied at 4 percent. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, South Dakota Sen. John Thune and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour rounded out the results.
Five percent of participants voted for "Other" and 6 percent was undecided.


The announcement of Paul's win, a surprise victory unlikely to have a major impact on the 2012 presidential contest, drew a volley of loud boos from the CPAC audience.


That discontent could be seen in the poll results: A majority of participants said they wished the Republican Party had a better field of candidates to choose from.


But Paul's victory might be seen, in part, as a result of his support among anti-establishment Tea Party activists -- who turned out in force at this year's conference and expressed some frustration with the Republican Party.


Reflecting the college atmosphere of the annual event, young people dominated the voting: 54 percent of participants were between the ages of 18 and 25.



#2 JeramiahCopperfield

JeramiahCopperfield

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts

Posted 21 February 2010 - 03:13 AM

Every other candidate listed is an establishment POS. Anyone that can't see that is a moron. The end.

#3 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,909 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 21 February 2010 - 03:51 AM

lol

http://www.cnn.com/2...meeting/?hpt=T1


:party:

#4 Jangler

Jangler

    a head full of candy corn

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 47,582 posts

Posted 21 February 2010 - 04:36 AM

Every politician is an establishment POS. Anyone that can't see that is a moron. The end.


fixed

#5 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,055 posts

Posted 21 February 2010 - 07:59 AM

Its fortunate that Paul has zero chance of being elected.

#6 Guest_CatofWar_*

Guest_CatofWar_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 February 2010 - 09:41 AM

Its fortunate that Paul has zero chance of being elected.


Fortunate for supporters of big government.

#7 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,055 posts

Posted 21 February 2010 - 11:50 AM

Fortunate for supporters of big government.


Fortunate for those with the ability to reason. Ron Paul has some good ideas about a few things, but his isolationist stances irt NATO and the UN, his wanting to return us to the gold standard, and his belief that we were better off in the 1930's than we are now is ridiculous.

Edited by Davidson Deac II, 21 February 2010 - 12:05 PM.


#8 Bobby

Bobby

    Czar of Czars

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,987 posts

Posted 21 February 2010 - 11:54 AM

Honesty is what kills Paul and Nader. What you see is what you get, no bravado with them.

#9 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,933 posts

Posted 21 February 2010 - 12:42 PM

Honesty is what kills Paul


unless you ask him about evolution. he'll give a different answer depending on who is listening.

#10 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,909 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 21 February 2010 - 12:54 PM

Fortunate for those with the ability to reason. Ron Paul has some good ideas about a few things, but his isolationist stances irt NATO and the UN, his wanting to return us to the gold standard, and his belief that we were better off in the 1930's than we are now is ridiculous.


trying to figure out what "irt" means before i respond to this..

#11 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,933 posts

Posted 21 February 2010 - 01:04 PM

in relation to

#12 theedaddy

theedaddy

    living in the present

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 21 February 2010 - 02:05 PM

huge ron fan, balls and honest. wish he was about 20 years younger and had a realist chance of being president. i dont see another like him in the future, just more of the same BS.

#13 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,909 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 21 February 2010 - 02:07 PM

Fortunate for those with the ability to reason. Ron Paul has some good ideas about a few things, but his isolationist stances irt NATO and the UN, his wanting to return us to the gold standard, and his belief that we were better off in the 1930's than we are now is ridiculous.


why is his isolationist stance ridiculous? this country was founded on the principles of being non interventionist with other nations and their affairs. honestly what good is it doing any of us that we are in iraq/afghanistan? what good has any war done for us, for that matter (post WWII)? wars exist for the purpose of making money and nation building. the banks fund both sides of wars, and as long as there is a war going on, there is money to be made; hence our involvement in the never-ending war against "terrorism."

we were misled into going into iraq due to the false flag on 9/11. due to this, there is absolutely no reason for our armed forces to be over there. we need to get them out, and do it now.

the United Nations was created in lieu of world governance, and threatens our sovereignty. this organization, along with the IMF/Trilateral Commission only cares about global dominance and world order.

youre right about the gold standard though.

Edited by venom, 22 February 2010 - 12:34 AM.


#14 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,933 posts

Posted 21 February 2010 - 02:16 PM

for the record, if the election was today, i'd vote for Paul over Obama.

#15 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,055 posts

Posted 21 February 2010 - 02:22 PM

why is his isolationist stance ridiculous? this country was founded on the principles of being non interventionist with other nations and their affairs. honestly what good is it doing any of us that we are in iraq/afghanistan? what good has any war done for us, for that matter (post WWII)? wars exist for the purpose of making money and nation building. the banks fund both sides of wars, and as long as there is a war going on, there is money to be made; hence our involvement in the never-ending war against "terrorism."

we were misled into going into iraq due to the false flag on 9/11. due to this, there is absolutely no reason for our armed forces to be over there. we need to get them out, and do it now.

the United Nations was created in lieu of world governance, and threatens our sovereignty. this organization, along with the IFM/Trilateral Commission only cares about global dominance and world order.

youre right about the gold standard though.


In 1783, when it took a month or so to travel from the US to Europe, military isolationism made sense. We could afford to ignore what was going on in europe. Although even then, the Barbary pirates proved we needed to work with other nations and defend ourselves overseas. But these days, when ballistic missiles can travel from one side of the earth to the other in less time than it takes for dominos to deliver a pizza, its unrealistic and dangerous.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that we went in to Iraq under false pretenses. Of course, thats hardly the only war we went into under false pretenses. Both the mexican and spanish american wars were committed to under false pretenses and this was well before any of those entangling European alliances. Its the quality and competence of our leadership that matters, not NATO or our alliances. Those alliances are important, because they give us a mechanism to act in concert with other nations against potential future threats. But the choice on whether or not to go war still comes down to the competence of our leadership. We didn't go into Iraq because of NATO or the UN. In fact, those entities tried to restrain us. But Bush II was incompetent and unqualified to be president of the US, and made bad choices all by himself. As bad as Bush II was, I trust Ron Paul even less to be able to make the tough decisions.


I don't have time to continue this debate, because I have to go meet with the rest of the trilats and plan the next black helicopter op, but feel free to carry on.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com