Even Santorum’s own family is turned-off by his neoconism, lol…

Ron Paul 2012!

But the real important question is who does Rick Santorum’s nephew’s friend’s neighbor support?

Obama’s cousin, a doctor, recently wrote a column about Obamacare, which he is very much against. But what does it matter what some relative thinks?

So the young man speaks his mind and truthfully so.. now his part of the family is the “black sheep” ? hey, he knows his uncle and knows there is no change in Washington without Paul.

Amazing how the Republican party does not see the changes.. THE PEOPLE are tired of policing the world when they lose liberties at home! We are not the WAR mongering country OLD Republican party wants to believe in.. We do believe Diplomacy before WAR.. We do believe in less regulations and less Government and we do believe the time for CHANGE has come..We want our Constituion to mean something again. We fought the british to get it.. we will vote out politicians against it to reclaim it!

Ron Paul 2012 and Beyond..

If this kid isn’t a stoner and isn’t a black sheep, is it really necessary to trash your own blood on election day?  He couldn’t wait until after tonight’s vote?

The Republican party was hardly ever the party of war.  Look it up.  Democrats to this day are more philosophically open to foreign entanglement and using the country’s forces in perceived interests of the world or in nation building.  Yet the Republican party is also no longer the isolationist party a good number of Ronpaulbots would have it become – should it swing such way, they would lose, decisively, as history informs.  And the sooner such supporters realize that America has a role to play in the world, and confine their desire for change to limiting the scope of our world reach to that which most effects our interests, the sooner will they begin to affect serious, needed, structural change to how the country is governed.  The founders bombarded the Barbary coast, for cryin’ out loud, because our interests were directly, adversely threatened from a foreign source.

 He has a right to speak his opinion just like any American. If your Uncle was totally opposite of you, would you stay silent so he can push his agenda?

WE all have a voice and a VOTE and should use it.

And how do you know it aint Ricky that’s the black sheep? and for that matter why would either view make you a “black sheep”?

When is some PAC going to make a commercial with two campaign posters or magazine covers on the floor to see which one a taco bell dog takes a dump on?

Hey Rick, Dr. Paul is going to get Honey-Badger to be his VP… Disgusting! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg

come on.. your smarter then this are you not? Those in paul’s corner are. He is not an isolationist pushed by media. He is a non-interventionist.. Diplomacy and war through congress not by a kings order. He would fight when needed as “last” resort. And this is bad why?

Please, turn off the TV and READ about people.. you may learn something.

Why should our country PAY the bill to protect other countries? You don’t buy friends..others can then buy the same friends. You use diplomacy to expand freedoms. You really believe Israel would fall if we didn’t strike Iran ? Come on… Israel will take care of Israel.   It’s time American politicians take care of Americans.

Democrats like republicans have ruined what we knew as a free nation.. let’s turn it back around if we can or we are doomed as a nation.

I think that after the news that the Tea Party made and because of all the emphasis that they placed on the constitution that the more people learn about the constitution and our governments history of ignoring the constitution, you will see more and more youth who oppose the progressive agenda align themselves with libertarians rather than the republican party.  Establishment republicans have no more respect for the constitution than do progressives democrats….  the only difference that I can discern between the two parties is that the republicans try and hide this fact from us…  just look at the beating that Ron Paul is taking from the republican establishment, they call him crazy for his constitutional principles?  I really get a kick how rather than discuss his issues and having an intellectual argument about National Defense Central Banking and our National Debt they prefer to make that argument that Paul is crazy… because they know that there is no sane or reasonable argument for the path that Bush or Obama have lead us down, nor can they deny their complicity in this country’s bankruptcy and the intrusion on our constitutional rights over the last decade…  How foolish as a nation we are, in the last 11 years we have mounted 11 trillion dollars in new debt, we have lost our pride as a nation, and have seen that our leadership is helplessly lost as they have demonstrated no ability to lead us forward as they have shown themselves to be unprincipled spineless politicians who would rather destroy our country rather than lose an election.  

Paul is the only one talking about the real issues that if this country does not quickly face head on we will soon see what remains of our economic power continue its shift overseas.  We watched our government collude with the banks and large corporations as they sent our manufacturing overseas…   somehow they seemed to think that our economy would be fine as our financial sector would make up for the loss of manufacturing…  Well that has not worked out so well, and now we have the Fed robbing our bank accounts while they prop up not only our government’s reckless spending, but also wall street and the large banks, what is worse is that they do so in a number of ways not noticed by the general public….  Paul wants to stop the merry-go-round and for that the mainstream would have you believe that he is crazy…  I think that it is the other way around as the next decade promises our national debt to approach $30 trillion, now tell me, who is really crazy in this scenario?

“Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate trying to win the election for a reason other than simply winning the election.”

Uh, yeah.  From Real Clear Politics, November 16, 2011:

When RealClearPolitics asked Paul Wednesday morning, after a speech sponsored by the Cato Institute, if he actually wanted to be president, he shrugged and said, “Sure.”

Asked by RCP later in the day, as he was leaving a health
care-related event in the Rayburn Building in Washington, why he wanted
to be president, Paul responded, “I think that’s a silly question.”

Pressed on the matter, he answered, “It’s obvious.”

Asked what the obvious answer is, Paul said, “Well if it’s not
obvious, I think there’s a problem with the question. . . . It doesn’t
make any sense to me.”

Would you support your uncle after hearing about how he brought his miscarried child home to see the kids?  Seriously, think about it. 

http://presstv.com/usdetail/219170.html
the Iowa caucus is fixed

http://presstv.com/usdetail/219170.html
the Iowa caucus is fixed

Okay, you guys dropped the ball in the comments here.  No one’s even used the word “sheeple” in an article that has the phrase “black sheep” in it?  Shame on all of us! That’s like an article about a Republican without someone using the word RINO!

Yeah, but he’s a racist.

I know the points one seeks to portray to differentiate oneself between being an isolationist and a non-interventionist – I’m the latter.  I see the necessity to retrench somewhat to conserve our military, affect eventual savings through a new approach towards international commitments and the need to build stronger relationship with allies and business partners – committed to security of a world which benefits them – by ending American suzerainty and through fostering their self-reliance.  But one doesn’t shock the world with a sudden major shift in policy, and certainly not in a way which would sabotage our own interests.  BTW, I didn’t mention whether I think Paul himself was or wasn’t isolationist; I can leave that for another day.  But many who support Paul, indeed, are, being exposed to leftist strains of libertarian pacifism – and want for their votes to be counted as support for that policy.

I like Paul on many points.  I’d rather have him on the stage over some others in the party for as long as reasonably necessary, if only to continue to push the above points.  What he brings to the Republican party is good and needed in greater measure, but should be tempered before it finds future success.  I don’t see one man, especially this one, as being the sole salvation for America.

And, once again, as if to continually prove something, I wasn’t one to raise the point of Israel.

Even Santorum’s nephew knows he has no chance of winning!!

Dr Paul 43%

When you say that the founders bombarded the Barbary coast you are really talking about Jefferson sending the navy over to protect our merchant ships from piracy, not quite what I would compare to today’s standing armies stationed all over the world.  We have become what the founders including Jefferson warned against. 

As a nation we have become accustom to having the largest military in the world and our involvement in worldwide conflict, something that our founders also warned against as they foresaw that standing armies and imperialism would lead to never ending debt and central banking something that the Anti-Federalist founders fought against as did those who followed them.  They were well versed on the history of republics and democracies and had foreseen much that contemporary America does not give them credit for…  Our politicians today would have us believe that the principles fought for by our founders are outdated and cannot possibly be applicable to the modern world…  They are simply wrong. Our founders studied the nature of man and the governance of man and laid down a frame work not to govern the people but to govern those who would govern…  something that our modern politicians have cast aside and to many of our people are acting like sheep and accepting of the governments claim of their rights to do so…  Contemporary government is made up of the sleaziest of the sleaze, and we allow them to trash our economy and our freedoms, and to brainwash us into believing that things are what the have to be.  

Eisenhower warned us against the military industrial complex and military adventurism, our country did not heed his warnings and now we find ourselves near bankruptcy as our military out spends the next 14 largest militaries in the world, even as our country nears bankruptcy.  We have been raised to think that this is our only solution when indeed it is not, it was manufactured by our politicians and those would would benefit, those hungry to extend America’s and their own power and influence to areas of the world where it did not belong.  Do you really believe that we can afford to continue to protect those modern industrial nations who refuse to adequately protect themselves…  do we really owe them American blood and treasure?  Who benefits from the oil coming from the straits of Hormuz?  Does not the bulk of that oil make its way to France, England, Germany and the rest of the European countries? Do you not believe that those countries have Navies capable of dealing with Iran’s Navy?  Why do we believe that the US is always the one and only answer…  It is time to stop!

thank you for your honesty John Garver

“When the power of love
overcomes the love of power
the world will know peace” 

What’s 43% of nothing?

Good choice…smart man…buy him a beer!

How come you’ve never written a single word about what President Barack Hussein Obama’s cousin, Dr. Milton Wolf, has been writing about him on his blog http://wolffiles.blogspot.com/, as well as on the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times? This is lame-o by comparison. 

I bring up the action to demonstrate the fallacious reasoning to the rhetoric of many Paul supporters – because the issue that faced them is fundamentally the same as that which we face today.  There are dozens of situations going on in the world today where we shouldn’t be concerning ourselves, but because of the election season, and the questions of the day, Iran is often on their lips – put there by Paul himself   Yet Iran is threatening the freedom of the seas, and our way of life is tied to the that.

I do it too to distinguish between a reluctance to use force first and foremost from the strain of isolationism and pacifism evident in a good deal of Ron Paul supporters.  No doubt, this is influenced by people more attracted to his stances which appeal to socially liberal libertarians, or even leftists willing to stomach Ron’s core conservatism to arrive at a pacifist goal.  (In evidence, many Paul supporters goes on and on on about our foreign interventionism yet remain silent on outlandish domestic expenditures owing to entitlements that amounts to the same as the cost of an unending military campaign (not saying this is what you’re doing with your post)).  Pacifism is a terrible idea, though, a utopian fairytale, and its adherents push for unreal solutions to real problems.

Case in point – it’s a nice thing to contemplate to not have “standing armies” and the thought of living in a world totally absent of a military industrial complex has appeal, but such things are luxuries no modern country can afford.  These aren’t the principles of governance, they’re the realities of the world  Oceans which once presented months of travel time to a foreign power; to which may be added years for any plan to deliver forces significant enough with which to exert power – now is overcome in a matter of days and months.  Military forces with which to defend against this can’t be assembled in so short a meantime – hardware takes years to build, even longer to develop.  So there need be standing armies, and a military industrial complex.  There need, too, be vigilance.

To the point of Iran.  It doesn’t matter physically which gas tanks oil which flows through the Straits of Hormuz ends up in.  It’s tied to the same benchmark; if the flow of oil is interrupted in one region of the world, the cost of its byproducts goes up in all of the world.

So France, England, Germany, Europe – Djibouti – America – everybody is affected.  The problem, then, is how to involve them in the defense of that which sustains the world (not just the shipment of an important resource, oil, but freedom of the seas across peaceful oceans).  Its not that “they refuse to adequately protect themselves.”  It’s a situation to which they’re habituated.  Call it the unintended consequence of our world reach, the byproduct of our interventionism of these last hundred years (even as it may not be unintended).  These countries are only exhibiting the same behavior an individual does when addicted to the “helping hand” of an invasive government imbued with a welfare state mentality.  As such governments makes dependents of people, we’ve made dependents of powers.  The responsible solution isn’t to take people, as with foreign governments, who’ve been denied the impulse to self-reliance and throw them out into the street, or the world – but to engage in a program to gradually reduce the dependency.

You would, as evidenced by the terms in which you speak, in one fell swoop deliver to the world a shocking geopolitical change in environment, undercutting standing alliance systems (not to mention disrupting the rationality to the non-alligned movement), loose long standing barriers to nations with venturesome ambitions and send all into an unknown future.  Such a move would generate nothing but chaos – the world’s reaction to chaos is generally to resort to war.  As I said earlier; pacifism is a terrible idea and in pursuance of a more responsible course, one’s arguments oughtn’t smack of it.

So it’s not time to stop.  Stopping is a sudden and radical change in momentum, and its effects are quite often violent.  One stops when one travels 60mph into a brick wall.  What it’s time to do is begin to stop.

I think if a family member votes for the opponent, that speaks volumes
without a word being uttered, but adding the trash talk about a family
member in front of a big audience makes it appear to be just a cheap shot and could lead many to question this nephew’s principles and credibility. Sometimes silence is golden.

http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/01/ben-swanns-reality-check-the-story-behind-the-ron-paul-newsletters-jan-4-2012/

 They are just a bunch of Neo Con RINO sheeple. What do you expect.

” And the sooner such supporters realize that America has a role to play in the world”

Utter nonsense. Thankfully, most countries don’t think that way, otherwise it would be global chaos.

There were some fishy things, but we’re looking into them.  If it was fixed, we’ll know soon enough.  As it is, one precinct recorded 22 for Romney when he only got 2, making Santorum the “winner” … for now.    http://watchthevote2012.com

We are not and never have been one among “most countries.”

If you think otherwise, it’s hard to suppose why you’d be in support of Ron Paul.  Unless the only thing you’re on board with is the isolationism and pacifism – in which case, I hope you read what I wrote and didn’t just cherry pick it.

Rick Santorum trash talked his nephew when he said his opinion and exercise of free speech was “just a phase”. Sorry Rick, you believe in the Empire of the United States, your brilliant nephew upholds the Republic.

Thanks for your well articulated response. I may not agree with your position, but I do appreciate your knowledge and understanding of history and current events as well as your honesty and thoughtfulness. I am by no means a pacifist as I believe that a strong defense which is second to none is paramount in an increasingly dangerous world, but I think that our global presence and meddling is hurting our country not only by making enemies throughout the world, but by draining our treasury as well. I also believe that that same presence will eventually place us in even greater wars in which we really won’t belong.

I agree with your position that our country must for our own survival stay at the cutting edge of technologies and technological warfare, but I don’t see the need to export that overseas, we do not need to project our military nor our might all over the world… In fact I would argue that our present posture and political attitude weakens our military as there are many who do not serve who would be more willing to serve their country if our military were more focused on the defense of this country rather than imposing our political and economic will on the world. It is rare that I meet anyone willing to serve in this military, but I can’t imagine meeting anyone not willing to defend this country were we to be threatened on our own soil, I argue that were our motives more pure then we would have a stronger military as more would feel the obligation to serve for a deserving cause.

Iran and the middle east must sell their oil so no matter what problems arose over there they would be temporary and things would eventually stabilize, other countries would have to step up and get involved rather than sitting back waiting for American blood and treasure to solve their problems for them. Look at the oil of Iraq. We spent over a 1/2 trillion dollars to liberate that country and re-open those oil fields only to be shunned by that country with no further obligation for reparations. Look to China’s refusal to deal with North Korea, why should they, we have taken that responsibility away from them, they are certainly a larger threat to Asia than they are to us, but yet we are the ones who have chosen to be the responsible party in that mess and have I might add been totally ineffective in dealing with it.

IMO, it is time to inform NATO that we will not continue to pay for some 70% of the alliance that protects Europe and their oil sources, it is time to tell the UN that we are done with the games that they love to play at our expense, and it is time to focus on America and healing our own wounds and deficiencies.

If you want to know more about someone, always talk to a family member, they know best.

Uh, how does that prove your point? Of course he wants to be President. Reading comprehension fail. The guy pointed out that Paul wasn’t running for office ONLY to get elected. He’s running on ideas. He’s trying to get them out there. Watch one of his campaign events. Obama is rarely mentioned. The horse race aspect and trivialities are not mentioned. It’s almost like a college professor delivering a lecture. His events are completely different than the others.