http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmU0ZDFhYjIxM2VlMTEzMjkyY2ZiNDA3Y2RiZmU1YTc=
2007-11-18 11:49:52 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. I STILL think he is a kook.
2007-11-18 11:56:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
If is funny if you look at you tube at all the fans of Ron Paul, they are very much just like him, bold with out a clue. But he is grunt force with no working plan.
I agree with a lot of things he says, has alot of great points-Our Constitution was been well almost overridden completely--with us fighting hard to keep what we were told we would have in the Constitution-But Paul just can't carry it out. I can't even see him as a adviser.
Many many comments for Ron Paul have made me give him a new name:
Ru Paul.
2007-11-19 10:49:05 · answer #2 · answered by Blaze 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not much. He already seems a little off center. However, since "center" equates to lies, corruption, and war, that may be a good thing.
Basically, people such as I state that they are tired of the "status quo". Yet when the rubber meets the ballot box, these same individuals usher in four more years of the same.
2007-11-18 19:55:13 · answer #3 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Very few Republicans would run on the platform he has chosen. I really respect someone who can stand that kind of scrutiny from the party he belongs to. I still feel that he is running scared of what he thinks is the majority of Americans view to the war(s) and thinks the only way the Republicans can win is to side with the Anti-War crowd. For that I disagree.
2007-11-18 19:55:26 · answer #4 · answered by rance42 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
LOL...That was great stuff! Thanx for the laugh. I never thought much of him anyway. I think he's just there as a Court Jester.
2007-11-19 13:41:12 · answer #5 · answered by DesignDiva1 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No opinionated editorial from national review is going to impact my opinion on anything.
2007-11-18 19:57:42 · answer #6 · answered by Boss H 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I've always thought him a funny faced little weasel.
2007-11-20 04:07:11 · answer #7 · answered by wider scope 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it makes me more likely to vote for him. Such lies, half-truths and distortions only indicate that the National Review is against him. If they're against him it certainly means that he has to be doing something right!
2007-11-18 20:04:46 · answer #8 · answered by wordweevil 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
nope.
and for what it's worth, i consider questions that consist solely of a link to be sort of propagandist.
if you have something to say - say it...
2007-11-18 19:53:55 · answer #9 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No...please...you have to consider the source.
2007-11-18 20:08:41 · answer #10 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
OK, so some journalists are idiots. Your point?
2007-11-18 19:57:09 · answer #11 · answered by You 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋