Just because he’s mostly wrong doesn’t mean he’s always wrong.Rick Santorum, taking another broad swipe at Ron Paul.
letthetruthlaugh asks: Can you explain to me how that comment by Ron Paul is part of an "isolationist streak" ? As far as I'm aware, isolationism refers to not making alliances or economic relationships with other countries, not refusing to make war with other countries. Wouldn't ending the hostility with Cuba and opening back up dialogue and trade be the opposite of an isolationist streak?
» SFB (Chris) says: When you got us, you got us. This live-blogging stuff sort of demands we play a little faster and looser than we normally would, but you’re absolutely right — isolationism by definition very heavily refers to conditions of economics, trade and diplomacy, and as such, the Cuban example would be the opposite. What we should’ve said is that Paul is both an ardent, “traditional” conservative, while being firmly opposed to foreign military intervention (at least, we haven’t heard him argue otherwise), which gives him some strange political bedfellows. Thanks for keeping us on our toes!
» Everyone else is kind of in the middle: With Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul hovering around the $4 million mark, and Herman Cain around $2.5 million, all pale in comparison to the Mittster, who is unemployed. Newt, who raised $2 million, was saddled with massive debt as a result of much of his senior campaign staff leaving; he has just $225,000 in the bank, which is extremely low. Newt, this presidential thing isn’t gonna work out.
fuckyeahlibertarian asks: The NY Times?! Are you kidding me!? You can't get more mainstream then those fucks!
Quit perpetuating the lies and disinformation! Your job is to inform the populace by using your own god given judgement to determine that which is false from true - quit regurgitating the mainstream agenda!
» SFB says: The poll you’re citing from (where Paul has 10 percent) is a poll of likely Republican voters in New Hampshire. We actually posted it. The CBS/NYT poll, meanwhile, is amongst members of the general public in the U.S., of which Republican voters were culled from for that particular question. Again, being disrespectful is not our style. Disagreement is not disinformation. — Ernie @ SFB
Don’t screw this up Yahoo.
In 2007, I was...
I started tumblr when I was at one of the lowest points of...
fuckyeahlibertarian asks: what's more suprising about that stupid fucking poll of yours?
How boout the fact that RON MOTHAFUCKING PAUL wasn't included?
» SFB says: He was. He had 1 percent in the CBS/NYT poll we used. Paul has done well in other polls we’ve covered, but not this particular one; he was covered in the “one of seven other candidates” part. And come on. No need to be rude. Not our style. — Ernie @ SFB
Given Governor Romney’s past flip-flops on the Right to Life issue and his support for Obamacare-like individual mandates, this stance is very troubling. Right to Life conservatives must question Gov. Romney’s commitment to our cause.Jesse Benton, Ron Paul’s campaign manager • Voicing doubts about Mitt Romney’s commitment to the conservative anti-abortion movement. This line of attack on Romney from the right isn’t unusual, as the former Massachusetts governor was at one time avowedly pro-choice, but now says he’s changed his mind. This highlights an interesting contradiction between professed political ideology and reality, though — there’s a certain inescapable strangeness about a Ron Paul adviser, of all the possible campaigns, being the one to voice this charge. Making abortion illegal (and defunding institutions that provide) is, regardless of one’s feelings on the issue, an enormously “big government” solution. And if there’s one thing Ron Paul opposes in nearly every other circumstance, it’s big government. source (via • follow)