Elder Paul better not go 3rd partyFrom Eric Dondero:
And so it begins...
The first signs that Ron Paul's candidacy could be having an adverse affect on his son Senator Rand Paul.
From RealClearPolitics.com:
Mark Levin, who was on vacation, came back with a fierce threat today. Levin promises he will do "everything in his power" to defeat Sen. Rand Paul if his father, Ron Paul, runs as a third-party candidate.Hear the comments at the video at the link.
"If Ron Paul decides that he is going to go third-party, which is detrimental to this nation, and pulls a million votes, which is relatively insignificant in the big scheme of things, I will do everything in my power to defeat his son Rand Paul in Kentucky," Mark Levin said on his radio program tonight.
39 comments:
Rand Paul is the reason Ron Paul won't do a third party run.
Mark Levin is a HACK!! The Ron Paul Revolution is bigger than that fat ass blowfart.
And what if Ron runs 3rd party this year then Rand goes 3rd party in 2016. Threats don't mean shit to the RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!!!!
The Great Pumpkin cometh! hehe
Mark Levin: "I will employ my nasally whine at high pitch to defeat someone for associating with someone else." Sounds like Hitler to me.
I doubt that Ron Paul is scared of Mark Levin.
But the general case is probably correct. This campaign is Paul's last hurrah, and the next Paul political outing will be Rand Paul for president or veep (there's a slim possibility that the latter might even happen this year -- how better to keep the Paulistinians in the GOP fold?). The elder Paul doesn't want to queer those possibilities, so he won't be running third party.
Pope Ron Paul 1st (thanks Chuck!)...
...10:1 ain't gonna run third party.
What bugs me about Paultards isn't the ideology, it's the attitude.
JJ, Geleff (two idiots whom Eric ought to permit me to ban) and others don't have a calm grasp on reality; There's no calm analysis or patience. They're like Maoists in their fanatic loyalty to the master thinker who apparently does it all for them. (It's especially offensive given Geleff's accusation of people of Faith as "cult.")
The rEVOLution has been playing itself out now for at least ten years. Ron Paul has been a significant voice in the debate between Libertarians and Conservatives. He has moved the ball towards Constitutional Liberty, especially on domestic issues - and for that he deserves much praise and thanks.
More, if by some act of GOD we have Pope Ron Paul 1st as the Republican nominee, he will have my vote.
On "foreign" policy - that collection of issues comprising military & defense readiness, border security, piracy and terrorism policing, protection of vital national interests, protection of our allies and treaty partners, nuking the whales and global jihad... on these issues Pope Ron Paul 1st is a dangerous fool.
That given, it makes the down-ticket races all the more important: Congress is going to have to lead the next President(s) back towards sanity.
. . .
As to Mark Levin - his statement shocked me when I heard it. Struck me as morally wrong; bitter, non-Conservative and every bit as moon-bat irrational with which he tars Paultards. Levin doesn't understand that Rand ≠ Pope Ron. They are significantly different ideological creatures.
IMHO Mark Levin damaged himself with yet another adolescent outburst. It's amazing how brilliant men can be such twits now and then.
ifyouseekpeace you just don't get it. When a turd like Levin tries to threaten you by saying he will go after a family member to suppress your voice then it is ON!! He crossed the line and Ron Paul supporters will go all in against this HACK!!
YEAH THAT'S RIGHT I SAID IT!! HE'S A HACK!
And this vitriol on these threads has started with Chuck. He calls people names, demeans them and we push back. People who have never made a comment before and Chuck will say some vulgar comment about them or their views. Save it for Chuck.
Levin's views here are largely insiginificant. What matters more, is that there's probably a great many other conservatives, and limited-government conservatives out there, and even a few libertarians, who now may be re-thinking their past support for Rand Paul.
Many of them, might indeed live in Kentucky. That's what really sucks.
Ron Paul is causing heartaches for Rand Paul. No matter how you look at it, that cannot be good for Rand Paul, the Tea Party and most certainly not for libertarian Republicans.
Actually Levin is a brilliant guy, but I can't stand to listen to him. Nothing but pissed off all the time. It gets old.
Levin is a Statist rude, nasty asshole.
Levin is truly a Statist. He did not do jack shit while the GOP Congress ran up massive Big Government spending. Only when Obama becomes President does he publish "Liberty and Tyranny."
Now he attacks the Pauls. Almost the only small government Republicans in Congress. That is not an accident.
"And this vitriol on these threads has started with Chuck."
We do rude here.
As a matter of fact, it was one of *your* first comments at LR that was unhinged that damn near got you banned, December 19th. We don't do vigilante stuff here. Just rude.
. . .
Gary, love ya dude, but fuck off. "Levin is truly a Statist. He did not do jack shit while the GOP Congress ran up massive Big Government spending. Only when Obama becomes President does he publish "Liberty and Tyranny."" Levin WROTE L&T in response TO, and during, the failures of the Bush Administration. Levin is clear about it. You still haven't read the damned book. Read it. If you have any shame you'll be embarrassed.
Liberty and Tyranny published in 2009 once Comrade Obama was in office. You sell a lot more books to the right-wing Sheeple if there is an evil Democrat in office to attack. . . . and it is all about selling books.
- - - The book was NOT published in 2002 when the GOP expanded big government in creating the Department of Homeland Security.
- - - The book was NOT published in 2003 when the GOP massively increased entitlement spending with the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement, and Modernization Act.
If you do the math, Levin was so "outraged" by GOP Big Government he waited six years from the Medicare entitlement to publish.
So-called "Conservatives" love Big Brother as long as they are in charge of running it.
NO, Gary. A book is not written and published overnight. It takes a full year post-completion to edit, produce and ship. It was written, for the most part, during 2008, after Men in Black and after Rescuing Sprite.
Furthermore, the whole point of the book is it's message of small, limited-powers government and maximal individual responsibility v. Statism.
That is proof that Levin is a "statist?" You're bullshitting again about it because you...
have not read it.
Don't give is this crap again about having started it and gotten bored.
And stop with the timeline crap. You know sweet fuck-all about Levin, his books or his conservatism. Please. Just shut-up already.
**** A book is not written and published overnight. ****
I guess you don't follow pop culture when celebrity and hot current news items are turned into a book within a few weeks.
What I do know is it does not take SEVEN YEARS from the DHS creation to publish.
Keep in mind that Levin (and the entire GOP) is attacking the only small government candidate in the race.
Their own actions really say it all without any words from me.
"JJ, Geleff (two idiots whom Eric ought to permit me to ban) and others don't have a calm grasp on reality; There's no calm analysis or patience. They're like Maoists in their fanatic loyalty to the master thinker who apparently does it all for them. (It's especially offensive given Geleff's accusation of people of Faith as "cult.")"
And Ifyouseekpeace is a religious fucking fanatic without a clue. But then that's repetitious. Support your mainstream GOP candidates and wait for the government to grow, so that in four years you can say, "Hey, we want government to get smaller" again. AGAIN. Then you'll vote for the next dunderhead who flashes his Bible in your face, all the while attempting to destroy your Constitutional rights. Talk about a cult.
Mark levin really stooped to An intellectual low point on this one!
I really should lighten up the rhetoric about religious fanatics. I don't have a problem with people who are honest in their faith, and I don't know whether ifyouseekpeace (who by the way doesn't use his own name) is honest or not. I do know that Perry, Santorum, and Bachmann are phonies to the end and use religion as a way to reach people. That's dishonest. So my apology will go to ifyouseekpeace for my previous post of calling you a religious fanatic. But you'll admit you're not exactly following Christ's example with your attacks on people. And Chuckie too.
Speaking of religion. It is interesting how Perry changed his mind on abortion for victims of rape or incest in order to pander to the most crazy of the loons.
Abortion isn't a religious issue. It's a killing people issue.
Fubar. Ron Paul's candidacy doesn't even make he himself a target to me! Cooky, crazy, possibly rather honest, somewhat more diplomatic than he puts out at times, with some good points too, I do like the ol' vagina checker. Seriously. It will be minor sad day when he hangs up his political hat. And I like his son even more, politically speaking.
Mind you, I know none of these guys personally. Though, if they drank beer, I might well be willing to offer them one should we be in such a venue at the same time and they happen to be imbibers. At least, from what I can tell. And that in spite of the fact I would never vote for the elder, if I might consider voting for the younger.
Any attack on the younger because of the elder will come back to bite whomever in the ass like a larger beefed up angry Rottweiler.
Wow. Who would have thought that preserving life was merely a matter of pandering to "religious" nutters.
(I happen to be a religious nutter, but that's beside the point.)
Chuck, don't know about you, but with Sarah and Herman out of the action, I'm leaning Santorum or maybe Perry.
Ran
I've been a Santorum guy from the beginning.
I am voting in an hour.
Now THAT is a scary thought...
Why?
Santorum the most ANTI-LIBERTARIAN candidate out there. He is for stiffer drug laws, a Pat Robertson acolyte, wants to snuff out porn, for free trade, voted for bank bailouts and voted to repeal of Glass Stegal. How much more insider Anti-Libertarian can you get?
The Republicans deserve Santorum as their candidate. Even Trump can't believe it.
For free trade? Hehe.
Thank you.
Why? Kuz yoor a nutter, Jim!
: ]
. . .
Free Trade is anti-libertarian? Wow. The stuff you learn each day. Being "anti-libertarian" meselfs, methinks I'll vote Santorum when my turn comes. Certainly keep it in mind.
Santorum isn't a libertarian, but he's an upright guy with a pretty good record. He has some lousy ideas just like every other candidate, but overall, he's a mainstream guy.
Mainstream is good? Hasn't "mainstream" brought us $15 trillion plus of debt?
Brakabama and the rest of the democrats you're working to elect did that.
"Free Trade is anti-libertarian?"
According to the paleocons who've renamed themselves "libertarian" it is.
Other than Birchers, who are you talking about?
Really?
My precinct in votes top three:
Ron Paul 43
Santorum 35
Romney 29
Drudge:
RICK 24.3%
MITT 23.6%
RON 21.8%
Santorum declares himself against individualism, libertarianism, & “this whole idea of personal autonomy" at http://bit.ly/uhTL3x
***and***
"The idea ... that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' passions -- I disagree with that" -- Rick SANcTORUModious at http://tinyurl.com/ControlFreeek
... And you know how this creepy weenie lost his re-election campaign. BIG time. 'nuff said.
Not anymore.
Mark Levin is largely irrelevant. I'm not saying I don't like him, Savage, Limbaugh, or any of those other Conservative talk radio hosts. But I do wish the average Republican would understand that they are shock jocks, and should never represent our party.
And no... Ron Paul's 2012 run is in no way damaging Rand Paul. If anything it's helping him. Ron will bring anti-war lefties & Indies into the Republican Party. They'll become more moderate over time and become the backbone of Rand Paul's future Presidential campaign.
And yeah.. I wish people would stop pretending that Rand was Ron. Rand has a much more realistic approach to foreign policy.
Rand learned his free market economics and his respect for the US Constitution from his father. But he doesn't necessarily agree with Ron on foreign policy -at least not the extreme isolationist stance of his father --or, as Ron calls it "non-interventionist." Sons should not be blamed for the sins of the fathers so Mark is wrong to take out his disgust with the father on the son.
Ron Paul will not run 3rd party --it would be stupid as well as a violation of everything he claims to stand for--any vote he siphons off of the Repubs only benefits Obama and his statist policies. In other words, he would be supporting exactly what he claims to oppose.
I would consider a 3rd party run by Ron Paul an act of treason against the Republic for it would give aid and comfort to those who would tear down the Republic in favor of a Euro-socialist type state, or worse.
Post a Comment