From John Hawkins at Town Hall:

"Even though he's not one of the top tier contenders, I thought it might be worthwhile to go ahead and write a short, but sweet primer that will explain why so many Republicans have a big problem with Ron Paul. Enjoy!

#1) Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative: I have nothing against libertarians. To the contrary, I like them and welcome them into the Republican Party. But, conservatives have even less interest in seeing a libertarian as the GOP's standard bearer than seeing a moderate as our party's nominee. In Paul's case, his voting record shows that he is the least conservative member of Congress running for President on the GOP side. So, although he is a small government guy, he very poorly represents conservative opinion on a wide variety of other important issues.

#2) Ron Paul is one of the people spreading the North American Union conspiracy: If you're so inclined, you can click here for just one example of Paul talking up a mythical Bush administration merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, but you're not missing much if you don't. Reputable conservatives shouldn't be spreading these crazy conspiracy theories and the last thing the GOP needs is a conspiracy crank as our nominee in 2008.

#3) Ron Paul encourages "truther" conspiracy nuts: Even though Ron Paul admits that he does not believe in a 9/11 government conspiracy, he has been flirting with the wackjobs in the "truther movement," like Alex Jones and the "Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth." Republican politicians should either ignore people like them or set them straight, not lend credence to their bizarre conspiracy theories by acting as if they may have some merit, which is what Ron Paul has done.

#4) Ron Paul's racial views: From the Houston Chronicle, Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

..."Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

...He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote."

Ron Paul has since claimed that although these comments were in his newsletter, under his name, he didn't write them. Is he telling the truth? Who knows? Either way, those comments don't say much for Paul.

#5) A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating: There are, without question, plenty of decent folks who support Ron Paul. However, for whatever reason, his supporters as a group are far more annoying than those of all the other candidates put together. It's like every spammer, truther, troll, and flake on the net got together under one banner to spam polls and try to annoy everyone into voting for Ron Paul (which is, I must admit, a novel strategy).

#6) Ron Paul is an isolationist: The last time the United States retreated to isolationism was after WW1 and the result was WW2. Since then, the world has become even more interconnected which makes Ron Paul's strategy of retreating behind the walls of Fortress America even more unworkable than it was back in the thirties.

#7) Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq: Even if you're an isolationist like Ron Paul, the reality is that our foreign policy isn't currently one of isolationism and certain allowances should be made to deal with that reality. Yet, Paul believes we should immediately retreat from Al-Qaeda in Iraq and let that entire nation collapse into genocide and civil war as a result. Maybe, just maybe, Paul's motives are better than those of liberals like Murtha and Kerry, who want to see us lose a war for political gain, but the catastrophic results would be exactly the same.

#8) In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so far, Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attack on America with this comment about 9/11:


"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."

In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda.

This is the sort of facile comment you'd expect to hear from an America-hating left winger like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, not from a Republican running for President -- or from any Republican in office for that matter. If you want to truly realize how foolish that sort of thinking is, imagine what the reaction would be if we had bombed Egyptian or Indonesian civilians after 9/11 and then justified it by saying "We attacked them because those Muslims have been over here."

#9) Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party: Libertarianism simply is not considered to be a mainstream political philosophy in the United States by most Americans. That's why the Libertarian candidate in 2004, Michael Badnarik, only pulled .3% of the vote. Even more notably, Ron Paul only pulled .47% of the vote when he ran at the top of the Libertarian ticket in 1988. Granted, Paul would do considerably better than that if he ran at the top of the Republican Party ticket, but it's hard to imagine his winning more than, say 35%, of the national vote and a state or two -- even if he were very lucky. In other words, having Ron Paul as the GOP nominee would absolutely guarantee the Democratic nominee a Reaganesque sweep in the election.

Summary: Is Ron Paul serious about small government, enforcing the Constitution, and enforcing the borders? Yes, and those are all admirable qualities. However, he also has a host of enormous flaws that makes him unqualified to be President and undesirable, even as a Republican Congressmen.

Almost none of that is true, and it sounds exactly like the coordinated talking points that seem to be coming out of mainstream Ra Ra Rightist websites like WND, Townhall, and Newsmax lately. I will do a point by point rebuttal of that after I finish my workout, but for now, who elected John Hawkins the official gatekeeper of what is or isn't a conservative, American, or a Republican?

Well one thing I personaly don't like about Ron Paul is his idea for the War on Terror falls into the same line of thinking with Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and a few others..

He believe's the best answer for war is cut & run..


Not my idea of a victory..

THOMPSON -/-/- 2008

There is one thing I can agree with you on. If you go on to YouTube and look up any video relating to any candidates you will find everything spammed with Ron Paul garbage. If I wanted to vote Ron Paul I would vote Ron Paul because I feel he is the best candidate. Not because some 22 year old kid from Bum**** Idaho, who knows jack **** about politics, wants me to.

They have tried to fix a few online polls by sending all their supporters on YouTube and other sites to vote for Ron Paul. Like that would actually make a difference in him winning the nomination or not.

Ron Paul has already said that if he did not get a Republican nomination he would not run as Independent. That could be a good thing or a bad thing for the Republican party. I would say the majority of those boo-hooing after he loses, and he will lose, will run over to the Democrat side.

Fred Thompson '08!

From John Hawkins at Town Hall:

"Even though he's not one of the top tier contenders, I thought it might be worthwhile to go ahead and write a short, but sweet primer that will explain why so many Republicans have a big problem with Ron Paul. Enjoy!

Even though John Hawkins is not a top tier pundit/commentator, I thought it would be worthwhile to go ahead and write a short, but sweet primer that will explain why so many mainstream "Republicans" are just globalist socialists, and why Ron Paul is the only one of the crop who stands for America. Enjoy!

#1) Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative: I have nothing against libertarians. To the contrary, I like them and welcome them into the Republican Party. But, conservatives have even less interest in seeing a libertarian as the GOP's standard bearer than seeing a moderate as our party's nominee. In Paul's case, his voting record shows that he is the least conservative member of Congress running for President on the GOP side. So, although he is a small government guy, he very poorly represents conservative opinion on a wide variety of other important issues.
Libertarian, Conservative, Constitutionalist, Republican, these are just semantics that shift with political agendas, and don't mean anything, and again, John Hawkins does not decide who is the standard bearer for any of these philosophies.

#2) Ron Paul is one of the people spreading the North American Union conspiracy: If you're so inclined, you can click here for just one example of Paul talking up a mythical Bush administration merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, but you're not missing much if you don't. Reputable conservatives shouldn't be spreading these crazy conspiracy theories and the last thing the GOP needs is a conspiracy crank as our nominee in 2008.
The NAU is no more of a "conspiracy theory" than the EU was back in 1999. If John Hawkins were not afaid to come to his own conclusions about world events, he would see that.
#3) Ron Paul encourages "truther" conspiracy nuts: Even though Ron Paul admits that he does not believe in a 9/11 government conspiracy, he has been flirting with the wackjobs in the "truther movement," like Alex Jones and the "Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth." Republican politicians should either ignore people like them or set them straight, not lend credence to their bizarre conspiracy theories by acting as if they may have some merit, which is what Ron Paul has done.
Way to take a complete lie and just run with it, John. Ron Paul, LIKE THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, probably just wants to see an independent investigation. If certain groups show up at his campaign events, it is not his fault. Alex Jones has six websites, and one of them gets more traffic than RushLimbaugh.com, has a radio show 6 days a week, made 15 documentary films and predicted the events of 9/11 six weeks prior on his television show. What have you done John Hawkins, other than write a bunch of Ra Ra Republican articles on the same dumbed down irrelevant topics that every other right wing pundit writes about every single day?

#4) Ron Paul's racial views: From the Houston Chronicle, Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

..."Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

...He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote."

Ron Paul has since claimed that although these comments were in his newsletter, under his name, he didn't write them. Is he telling the truth? Who knows? Either way, those comments don't say much for Paul.
Don't know about these comments, but these are the types of things that always get taken out of context to demonize presidential candidates. We'll see about it I guess.
#5) A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating: There are, without question, plenty of decent folks who support Ron Paul. However, for whatever reason, his supporters as a group are far more annoying than those of all the other candidates put together. It's like every spammer, truther, troll, and flake on the net got together under one banner to spam polls and try to annoy everyone into voting for Ron Paul (which is, I must admit, a novel strategy).
TROLL: Someone who won't kiss my a$$ and mounts arguments I have difficulty refuting.

#6) Ron Paul is an isolationist: The last time the United States retreated to isolationism was after WW1 and the result was WW2. Since then, the world has become even more interconnected which makes Ron Paul's strategy of retreating behind the walls of Fortress America even more unworkable than it was back in the thirties.

Wrong, it is neocon style globalist policies that got us into both of those wars, a true conservative would have kept us out of both.

#7) Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq: Even if you're an isolationist like Ron Paul, the reality is that our foreign policy isn't currently one of isolationism and certain allowances should be made to deal with that reality. Yet, Paul believes we should immediately retreat from Al-Qaeda in Iraq and let that entire nation collapse into genocide and civil war as a result. Maybe, just maybe, Paul's motives are better than those of liberals like Murtha and Kerry, who want to see us lose a war for political gain, but the catastrophic results would be exactly the same.

Not really. He voted against the war and is just sticking to his guns.

#8) In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so far, Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attack on America with this comment about 9/11:


"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."

In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda.
That is not even close to what he said or meant, that is just you dumbing it down for mass consumption in Ra Ra Righter-dumb. Not intevening with radical, irrational governments in the ME is what he is talking about.


This is the sort of facile comment you'd expect to hear from an America-hating left winger like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, not from a Republican running for President -- or from any Republican in office for that matter. If you want to truly realize how foolish that sort of thinking is, imagine what the reaction would be if we had bombed Egyptian or Indonesian civilians after 9/11 and then justified it by saying "We attacked them because those Muslims have been over here."
Have Egyptian and Indonesian government ministers been "over here" fomenting war and upheaval, supplying western goverments with chemical and biological weapons? Poor example.
#9) Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party: Libertarianism simply is not considered to be a mainstream political philosophy in the United States by most Americans. That's why the Libertarian candidate in 2004, Michael Badnarik, only pulled .3% of the vote. Even more notably, Ron Paul only pulled .47% of the vote when he ran at the top of the Libertarian ticket in 1988. Granted, Paul would do considerably better than that if he ran at the top of the Republican Party ticket, but it's hard to imagine his winning more than, say 35%, of the national vote and a state or two -- even if he were very lucky. In other words, having Ron Paul as the GOP nominee would absolutely guarantee the Democratic nominee a Reaganesque sweep in the election.

So in other words, John Hawkins, the average person can do nothing, go back to sleep, keep swilling your Mountain Dew and eating Doritos while the next globalist errand boy gets elected President. You really inspire the common man.

ShadoutMapes, thank you for clearing that up a bit. I really didn't want to go through that whole list. Being a Libertarian myself, I feel that Ron Paul is one of the best Libertarian candidates I have seen in the past years. His views on the Fed and such are dead on in my opinion. Have you ever read the reports issued from the world bank? Give them a read, they are quite interesting.

Yes, he said a few things about blacks. But, they were taken way out of context. He was also speaking candidly and joking. Have none of you ever told a racial joke?

His views on Iraq are in line with his belief that we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. He wanted to shut down the borders and fight the war on terror through clandestine and special ops. Not invade a completely unrelated country and spend amounts of money that you or I can't even comprehend.

Why his marriage status is an issue, I do not understand. I know, that is what you have to do in order to get respect from your peers and higher ups. In the military, you probably will not make O-7 unless you are married. But, have you seen the divorce rate in America. Maybe he is just trying to protect his person. Rather than risk writing a check every month.

Hey, he also wants to get rid of the income tax and the IRS. Makes sense to me considering that it was unconstitional to begin with. It is clear as day when you read the powers of the Congress and then compare it to the 16th amendment. That is what Libertarianism is all about. Sticking to the damn Constitution. It seems that isn't as important in today's world.

I like him! I am not saying that I am voting for him. But, he is high on my list.

The following would be examples of what's wrong with Ron Paul:

quote:

Libertarian, Conservative, Constitutionalist, Republican, these are just semantics that shift with political agendas, and don't mean anything, and again, John Hawkins does not decide who is the standard bearer for any of these philosophies.

---So, what is he? You tell us.

"The NAU is no more of a "conspiracy theory" than the EU was back in 1999. If John Hawkins were not afaid to come to his own conclusions about world events, he would see that."

---Please show us other members of Congress or any influential figures who are talking about this as a reality.

"Way to take a complete lie and just run with it, John. Ron Paul, LIKE THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, probably just wants to see an independent investigation. If certain groups show up at his campaign events, it is not his fault. Alex Jones has six websites, and one of them gets more traffic than RushLimbaugh.com, has a radio show 6 days a week, made 15 documentary films and predicted the events of 9/11 six weeks prior on his television show. What have you done John Hawkins, other than write a bunch of Ra Ra Republican articles on the same dumbed down irrelevant topics that every other right wing pundit writes about every single day?"

---Wow, then I guess you believe Alex Jones? Your president is the most corrupt of all time, he killed 3000 people knowingly and was happy to do it.

Yet you still live here, as if nothing happened. Shame on you or shame on him?

"Don't know about these comments, but these are the types of things that always get taken out of context to demonize presidential candidates. We'll see about it I guess."

---Yeah, they would be way out of line for him.

"Wrong, it is neocon style globalist policies that got us into both of those wars, a true conservative would have kept us out of both."

---Wow, neocons got us into WWI & WWII! Who knew?

"Not really. He voted against the war and is just sticking to his guns."

---Thus ingnoring the ramifications of us just cutting and running. Nicely done.

I am of the opinion that we will never reach our stated goal in Iraq. That is, it will never be a government that mirrors ours. If we stay in, it may see a more peaceful government than it had before. But, most likely not what we had in mind. But, that is at our GREAT expense in terms of money, lives, and world opinion towards us.

If we leave, then it will probably see a full fledged civil war. But, eventually some form of government will rise to power. More than likely a less stringent Islamic Republic. That is unless Iran gets their hands on Iraq. I think that is why we are looking at them so closely at this moment. In which case, we will still not see our end goal.

But, it is my belief that this war is helping to put us in the position that the Fed and the World Bank want. It is allowing banks and businesses to grow at the taxpayers expense, while our economy sinks. Everybody has seen our national debt rise over the past 5 years. It is incomprehendible how much it has grown. And, it doesn't take into account interest or inflation. So, essentially, we will probably be forced into uniting our monetary system with other nations. Meanwhile, we still get screwed as the everyday American.

Exactly 10tenths, they will have to hedge the dollar with foreign currency. Depending on how cynical you are, you might say the Iraq war is going exactly as planned, in a precision manner. We know North Korea and China are much more of an immediate threat, but they aren't part of the business plan so we don't talk about them. I'm not purporting to be an expert on the subject, but I don't think the idea of isolationism is as ridiculous as the establishment rightists want you to think. No one ever forced us over there to start making Faustian deals with the devil 60 years ago, and there is nothing that is stopping us from getting out now.

quote:

Originally posted by hgary2003:
THOMPSON -/-/- 2008

ABSOFREAKINLUTLY!!!

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoutMapes:
Exactly 10tenths, they will have to hedge the dollar with foreign currency. Depending on how cynical you are, you might say the Iraq war is going exactly as planned, in a precision manner. We know North Korea and China are much more of an immediate threat, but they aren't part of the business plan so we don't talk about them. I'm not purporting to be an expert on the subject, but I don't think the idea of isolationism is as ridiculous as the establishment rightists want you to think. No one ever forced us over there to start making Faustian deals with the devil 60 years ago, and there is nothing that is stopping us from getting out now.

It is essentially everything that Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Dwight Eisenhower regretted and warned us about. But, we either didn't heed their warnings or we completely forgot. In either case, the proponents of what we were warned of are definately the guys that have been playing chess with our America.

I always thought Woodrow Wilson was an advocate for the League of Nations, perhaps I am misinformed. Eisenhower was a Republican and a five star General, yet he kept himself at a safe distance from the military industrial complex ideologically.

quote:

I'm curious, what do you think the ramifications of "cutting and running" in Iraq are? I notice a lot of rightists saying that without going into detail of what these dire consequences are.

If we leave there will be a mass slaughter of innocent civilians greater by far than anything that is happening now.

Plus, it will allow terroists to claim victory over gutless America and give them great courage knowing that the US will no longer be going on the defensive against them in any meaningful way and it will free them up to attack us on our home soil once again.

You seriously believe that the EU came about without any public discussion? Riiiight.

"Summary: Is Ron Paul serious about small government, enforcing the Constitution, and enforcing the borders? Yes, and those are all admirable qualities. However, he also has a host of enormous flaws that makes him unqualified to be President......" Not much more needs to be said about Paul. An execlent summary!

Fred 2008

What came before the EU? Could it have been the EFTA? Yes. The NAU is coming, as far as I know its already signed off on. If you want to be a slave on the global plantation, then the other candidates are great choices. If you've been paying attention, you can see Europe is becoming a complete police state, losing their most basic freedoms incrementally every day. They are shutting down free speech and criticism of the government in the UK right now, and I'm sure the establishment rightists here would love to follow their lead. I guess any conclusion about the day's headlines that isn't informed by a multi billion dollar media empire or the Pentagon is a "tin foil hat conspiracy theory."

I'm curious, what do you think the ramifications of "cutting and running" in Iraq are? I notice a lot of rightists saying that without going into detail of what these dire consequences are.[/QUOTE]

Ever hear of Vietnam? What happened after we cut and ran from there? A bloodbath that the press and those on the left are reluctant to acknowledge. The same fate could very well be in store for Irag.

quote:

The NAU is coming, as far as I know its already signed off on.

Really? Who has signed off on it?

Enjoy your delusions for as long as you can.

Here, even your own fake conservative websites are confirming this:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/7/3/181336.shtml

Here is the relevant passage from that link:

"The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), signed by President Bush with Mexico and Canada in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005, was fundamentally an agreement to erase our borders with Mexico and Canada. ... The SPP 'working groups' organized within the U.S. Department of Transportation are signing trilateral memoranda of understanding and other agreements with Mexico and Canada designed to accomplish the open borders goal incrementally, below the radar of mainstream media attention, thereby avoiding public scrutiny. Congress is largely unaware that SPP exists, let alone knowledgeable about the extensive work being done behind the scenes by the executive branch to advance the agenda articulated by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) to establish a North American Union as a new regional super-government by 2010."


Wow, sounds exactly like what I"ve been saying all along. BTW, that was written by Jerome Corsi, a mainstream conservative. All this stuff is mainstream news, hidden in plain sight.

quote:

Originally posted by bounceandburst:

quote:

Originally posted by hgary2003:
THOMPSON -/-/- 2008

ABSOFREAKINLUTLY!!!

I'm in.

quote:

THOMPSON 2008

Why? What exactly is his platform?

Tell me in your OWN words...

I really think a lot of you all are excited about this guy because you've been told to be excited about him.

This thread is little more than an exercise in the No True Scotsman logical fallacy.

quote:

Wow, sounds exactly like what I"ve been saying all along. BTW, that was written by Jerome Corsi, a mainstream conservative. All this stuff is mainstream news, hidden in plain sight.

Right, that's why they have a website here that covers the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Because it's all super secret.

It's not a treaty and nothing has been signed.

It has nothing to do with erasing borders but please continue with your delusions.

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoutMapes:
I always thought Woodrow Wilson was an advocate for the League of Nations, perhaps I am misinformed. Eisenhower was a Republican and a five star General, yet he kept himself at a safe distance from the military industrial complex ideologically.

Yes, he was. But, he was seeing the negative side of things. He was mostly regrettful of the Fed and it's power. He didn't see it until after he signed it. I typically read both men's transcripts rather than read opinions about them. They warned us about private banks controlling the money and the Military Industrial Complex was a term coined by Ike. They were essentially fearful that our capitalist economy was going to get control of our government. It has and is.

Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.

--Mayer Amschel Rothschild

"Right, that's why they have a website here that covers the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Because it's all super secret."

"It's not a treaty and nothing has been signed."

"It has nothing to do with erasing borders but please continue with your delusions"

Hey Max: Thanks for bringing facts to the discussion!!!!!! However these "Glob-Bowl-Ists & CFR are evil fanatics" won't listen. They actualy belive that there is not a dimes worth of difference between 18-20 possible Prez canadites. Only RP can save us from the evils of the CFR and Glow-Bowl-Ism. Keep trying sir, but understand these folks are truely ill. They need professional help.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: scwestusmc,

"GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul spoke earlier today of the need for a stricter isolationist policy. "America needs to stop interfering with other countries. In fact, we need to stop interacting with any foreign nation. As long as America has made eye contact with any foreigner, we can hardly blame them to attack us on our own soil."

"Still, even if we were to finally cease all contact with other countries, the mere existence of America is provocative and could cause us to be invaded or attacked. Thus, I propose the most time-tested method of disengagement: Hiding under a rock. For complete security, America must hide its very existence. Of course, there is no rock on earth large enough for America to hide under, so, when I am President, I will fund the science into pulling the moon towards us and crash into America."

"I project half the country will be killed -- and they shall be mourned -- but the other half will finally be safe living under the giant rock that is the moon." Ron Paul concluded his speech by wearing his pants on his head while dancing a merry jig to the applause of the three supporters and eight mannequins in attendance."

"A recent Gallup poll found that 100% (+/- 0%) are against crashing the moon into America, but online polling has approval of Ron Paul's plan at 74%."

His "what if?" spech is brilliant. Maybe someday conservatives (and democrats) will take note.