republican Billionaires Won't Contribute To rand paul

[g5000]

It's too bad Ron Paul didn't have Rand Paul's looks and hair. He would have gotten a lot further. His son is doing a bad job of communicating the Libertarian gospel.

If you understand the way Libertarians think, Ron Paul was really something. But since most journalists have the comprehension of a cockroach, Ron may as well have been speaking Martian.

If it wasn't for the racist shit in his newsletters, I might have felt even more supportive of him.

Rand Paul strikes me as an acorn which didn't fall far from the tree but wishes he was a raspberry bush.

 

[Porker]

I've been a registered Independent since I first registered to vote in 1978. I don't follow parties.

I'm a liberal and I vote for the person who most matches my views.
So stop the hypocrisy.

That would be every dimocrat who ever ran against a Republican.

 

[Moonglow]

So, I guess this means the Dems here will ditch the Hildebeast for Paul?

Well first you have to consider voting for Shillary, I never would...

 

[JimH52]

This is a story that I find very interesting.

Out of countless issues, this is one of very few that I actually agree with rand paul.

The patriot act never should have been passed or renewed. It's a lot of things but patriotic isn't one of them.

The republicans throw around words like liberty and tyranny yet they turn a blind eye to the legislation they wrote and passed into law in the bush boy years.

Some GOP donors willing to give to many, just not Paul - AOL.com

Not surprising. If Paul got elected, and did some of the things he proposes, that'd result in less profits for corporations. Donors and most of the Republican party don't want fixes or changes but simply a sustaining of the status quo. Why the GOP has zero chance in 2016.

Rand Paul would not play "war games" with the GOP mainstream. He is dead in the water.

 

[peach174]

This is a story that I find very interesting.

Out of countless issues, this is one of very few that I actually agree with rand paul.

The patriot act never should have been passed or renewed. It's a lot of things but patriotic isn't one of them.

The republicans throw around words like liberty and tyranny yet they turn a blind eye to the legislation they wrote and passed into law in the bush boy years.

Some GOP donors willing to give to many, just not Paul - AOL.com

You mean the legislation that the Obama boi wants passed & placed on his desk?

Oops

You're making the mistake of thinking I'm a Democrat. I'm not. I never have been a member of either of the 2 political parties.

I've been a registered Independent since I first registered to vote in 1978. I don't follow parties.

I'm a liberal and I vote for the person who most matches my views.

I can support Obama without supporting his stance on the patriot act. He's wrong for wanting it to be renewed. Especially since there was just a court ruling part of it is illegal. I believe all of it is unconstitutional. And I've believed that the first time I read the law.

Keep in mind, that the law was written by republicans, was passed in both houses of congress by republicans and signed into law by republican president the bush boy.

If they had not done that there would be no patriot act to object to.

In the bush boy years all you conservatives demanded and supported the patriot act. Your standard reply to objections to it was if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. Which was always a bunch of garbage.

The difference between you and I is that I've always objected to the patriot act no matter who was president.

You and the rest of the conservatives only became upset about it when we elected a Democrat to be in the White House.

So stop the hypocrisy.

No it's what the Democrat did with his executive order that expanded it to all Americans rather than just terrorists.

 

[OnePercenter]

Paul wants us out of the middle east war business. Which I'm all for. But that'll negatively effect the various war profiteers. Less war means less profits for those many companies who directly benefit from chaos and misery at the expense of human lives.

Since Reagan put us in the world economy, what effect will a war have on the world economy, and how will that effect us.

Like Rand and his merry wack-jobs, there is no rational thinking in Iran.

 

[Contumacious]

This is a story that I find very interesting.

Out of countless issues, this is one of very few that I actually agree with rand paul.

The patriot act never should have been passed or renewed. It's a lot of things but patriotic isn't one of them.

The republicans throw around words like liberty and tyranny yet they turn a blind eye to the legislation they wrote and passed into law in the bush boy years.

Some GOP donors willing to give to many, just not Paul - AOL.com

Not surprising. If Paul got elected, and did some of the things he proposes, that'd result in less profits for corporations. Donors and most of the Republican party don't want fixes or changes but simply a sustaining of the status quo. Why the GOP has zero chance in 2016.

Yes, indeed.

ANYTHING that will adversely affect the Military Industrial Complex, the war profiteers parasites, is unacceptable.

.

 

[OnePercenter]

It's too bad Ron Paul didn't have Rand Paul's looks and hair. He would have gotten a lot further. His son is doing a bad job of communicating the Libertarian gospel.

If you understand the way Libertarians think, Ron Paul was really something. But since most journalists have the comprehension of a cockroach, Ron may as well have been speaking Martian.

If it wasn't for the racist shit in his newsletters, I might have felt even more supportive of him.

Rand Paul strikes me as an acorn which didn't fall far from the tree but wishes he was a raspberry bush.

How can you effectively communicate Libertarian's naivety and stupidity? It's wack-job!

 

[Misty]

If rand Paul starts looking like he might win, millionaires from both parties will throw money all over him. That's how it works.

 

[Contumacious]

It's too bad Ron Paul didn't have Rand Paul's looks and hair. He would have gotten a lot further. His son is doing a bad job of communicating the Libertarian gospel.

If you understand the way Libertarians think, Ron Paul was really something. But since most journalists have the comprehension of a cockroach, Ron may as well have been speaking Martian.

If it wasn't for the racist shit in his newsletters, I might have felt even more supportive of him.

Rand Paul strikes me as an acorn which didn't fall far from the tree but wishes he was a raspberry bush.

How can you effectively communicate Libertarian's naivety and stupidity? It's wack-job!

WRONG AGAIN , VERN.

ONLY SOCIALISTS, FASCISTS AND GOVERNMENT SUPREMACISTS ARE NAIVE AND STUPID.

THEY BELIEVE IN FREE LUNCHES AND ANGELICAL BUREAUCRATS.


.

 

[OnePercenter]

If rand Paul starts looking like he might win, millionaires from both parties will throw money all over him. That's how it works.

That's a big 'IF.' Keep in mind that the GOP doesn't want the White house.

 

[OnePercenter]

It's too bad Ron Paul didn't have Rand Paul's looks and hair. He would have gotten a lot further. His son is doing a bad job of communicating the Libertarian gospel.

If you understand the way Libertarians think, Ron Paul was really something. But since most journalists have the comprehension of a cockroach, Ron may as well have been speaking Martian.

If it wasn't for the racist shit in his newsletters, I might have felt even more supportive of him.

Rand Paul strikes me as an acorn which didn't fall far from the tree but wishes he was a raspberry bush.

How can you effectively communicate Libertarian's naivety and stupidity? It's wack-job!

WRONG AGAIN , VERN.

ONLY SOCIALISTS, FASCISTS AND GOVERNMENT SUPREMACISTS ARE NAIVE AND STUPID.

THEY BELIEVE IN FREE LUNCHES AND ANGELICAL BUREAUCRATS.

I regard the Libertarianism as a kind of business-worshiping cultism religion which churns out annoying flamers who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk.

 

[Contumacious]

It's too bad Ron Paul didn't have Rand Paul's looks and hair. He would have gotten a lot further. His son is doing a bad job of communicating the Libertarian gospel.

If you understand the way Libertarians think, Ron Paul was really something. But since most journalists have the comprehension of a cockroach, Ron may as well have been speaking Martian.

If it wasn't for the racist shit in his newsletters, I might have felt even more supportive of him.

Rand Paul strikes me as an acorn which didn't fall far from the tree but wishes he was a raspberry bush.

How can you effectively communicate Libertarian's naivety and stupidity? It's wack-job!

WRONG AGAIN , VERN.

ONLY SOCIALISTS, FASCISTS AND GOVERNMENT SUPREMACISTS ARE NAIVE AND STUPID.

THEY BELIEVE IN FREE LUNCHES AND ANGELICAL BUREAUCRATS.

I regard the Libertarianism as a kind of business-worshiping cultism religion which churns out annoying flamers who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk.

I regard the socialists/fascists as a kind of government supremacy religion which churns out annoying flamers who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk.

 

[OnePercenter]

It's too bad Ron Paul didn't have Rand Paul's looks and hair. He would have gotten a lot further. His son is doing a bad job of communicating the Libertarian gospel.

If you understand the way Libertarians think, Ron Paul was really something. But since most journalists have the comprehension of a cockroach, Ron may as well have been speaking Martian.

If it wasn't for the racist shit in his newsletters, I might have felt even more supportive of him.

Rand Paul strikes me as an acorn which didn't fall far from the tree but wishes he was a raspberry bush.

How can you effectively communicate Libertarian's naivety and stupidity? It's wack-job!

WRONG AGAIN , VERN.

ONLY SOCIALISTS, FASCISTS AND GOVERNMENT SUPREMACISTS ARE NAIVE AND STUPID.

THEY BELIEVE IN FREE LUNCHES AND ANGELICAL BUREAUCRATS.

I regard the Libertarianism as a kind of business-worshiping cultism religion which churns out annoying flamers who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk.

I regard the socialists/fascists as a kind of government supremacy religion which churns out annoying flamers who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk.

Nothing original? See, you are stupid.

 

[Contumacious]

It's too bad Ron Paul didn't have Rand Paul's looks and hair. He would have gotten a lot further. His son is doing a bad job of communicating the Libertarian gospel.

If you understand the way Libertarians think, Ron Paul was really something. But since most journalists have the comprehension of a cockroach, Ron may as well have been speaking Martian.

If it wasn't for the racist shit in his newsletters, I might have felt even more supportive of him.

Rand Paul strikes me as an acorn which didn't fall far from the tree but wishes he was a raspberry bush.

How can you effectively communicate Libertarian's naivety and stupidity? It's wack-job!

WRONG AGAIN , VERN.

ONLY SOCIALISTS, FASCISTS AND GOVERNMENT SUPREMACISTS ARE NAIVE AND STUPID.

THEY BELIEVE IN FREE LUNCHES AND ANGELICAL BUREAUCRATS.

I regard the Libertarianism as a kind of business-worshiping cultism religion which churns out annoying flamers who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk.

I regard the socialists/fascists as a kind of government supremacy religion which churns out annoying flamers who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk.

Nothing original? See, you are stupid.

REPEATING

I regard the socialists/fascists as a kind of government supremacy religion which churns out annoying flamers who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk.