Re: Does Ron Paul have a chance?

"Hugh Gibbons" <hugh_gibbons@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:hugh_gibbons-3E0404.21260913092007@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <SVOFi.3828$ed1.2556@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>
>> >> >>>>     He has NO "real" sup****t in the Republican party. His 
>> >> >>>> sup[****t
>> >> >>>> is
>> >> >>>> from
>> >> >>>> whack left wing bloggers who, in the end, would never vote for 
>> >> >>>> him
>> >> >>>> in
>> >> >>>> an election.
>> >> >>>> The "sup****t" he has is fabricated by election dirty
tricksters.
>> >> >>>> You'd have
>> >> >>>> to be INSANE to vote for him.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> So you're telling us you'd have to be insane to vote for a 
>> >> >>> candidate
>> >> >>> who * favors smaller government
>> >> >>> * wants to reduce taxes
>> >> >>> * wants to reduce government interference in your life
>> >> >>> * opposes social programs
>> >> >>> * thinks the US military should be for defense
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Which of those policies do you think is insane?
>> >>
>> >> >>     None as you state them. Sadly they are not the entire 
>> >> >> definition
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> what
>> >> >> Ron Paul believes.
>> >>
>> >> > What evidence of your conjecture can you present in its sup****t?
>> >>
>> >>     Haven't you actually listened to him on Iraq, Viet Nam, etc?
>> >
>> > I summarized that under "thinks the US military should be for
defense."
>> > His views on the subject are as sane or saner than anybody else 
>> > running.
>>
>> Yes HIS idea of defense.
>>
>> The U.S. Army on horseback with bows and arrows.
>> The NAVY in canoes, but without paddles.
>> The Air Force flying kites!
>
> Idiot.

You see, finally we agree on Ron Paul.