Last night, the only candidate who spoke truthfully was Ron Paul.
He's certainly no friend of the Jews, as he's recently revealed.
However, the other Republicans are merely nothing more than "the same, and more of the same".
It's clear that if you love W, vote for any of them but Ron Paul.
It's the oldest trick in the world to state "I strongly favor enforcing border security!"..."I am opposed to treaties such as NAFTA!", etc... Then, immediately after being elected, they change their tune to "I am opposed to NAFTA, but the treaty was signed long before I was in office, and I am duty sworn to obey it!"..."I have always called for border enforcement, but the issue must be carefully studied first, and that's why I'm appointing to newly created high-pay positions, some good old friends of mine from back home, who are going to study the border problem carefully over the next two years, and then report back to me their conclusions!".
Those of you out there who are trying to decide the "best choice" for your vote, are wasting very valuable time. After the next election, the policies of W will continue full steam ahead should any Republican but Ron Paul be elected, and the policies of W will seem ultra-conservative should any of the Democrats be elected.
It is clear to me that most posters on this forum have no familiarity whatsoever with the Constitution of the United States of America, and no understanding of the nation designed by our Founding Fathers.
You're being duped again.
Big time.
Wake up!
p.s.-- Any ideas from anyone on the best possible candidate based on actual reality?
If you ask me, things don't look too good! Any thoughts given to who's going to pay off the infinite war and domestic spending debt that W has amounted? I get the feeling that most here judge their candidates based on "how well they look on MTV."
Let me get this straight.
Your version of reality is that Ron Paul is truthful ?
Do you agree with Ron Paul's assertion that America's foreign policy is responsible for 9/11 and Muslim aggression against America ?
Is Ron Paul being truthful or correct when he states that the best way to deal with the genocidal Moozies is to sit down and talk with them, negotiate with them and trade with them ?
Who is the one that's being duped here ?
You state: "Those of you out there who are trying to decide the "best choice" for your vote, are wasting very valuable time. After the next election, the policies of W will continue full steam ahead should any Republican but Ron Paul be elected...."
So are you endorsing the Moozie bootlicking, Jew hating [censored] Ron Paul ?
After all, Paul is the only one, according to you, that's any different from Jorge Wahabi. And Paul is the only one that is truthful.
Since in this instance, you consider trying to decide the best choice for one's vote a waste of time--- why bother to watch the debates, or listen to what the candidates say---- because anything other than a vote for Paul just guarantees a continuation of more of Bush's policies, right ?
What brilliant thinking !!
I think there's definitely a difference between Duncan Hunter and Jorge Wahabi.
I think there's a difference between Tancredo and Jorge Wahabi.
I'd prefer to see either one of them as President before I'd vote for the Israel hating, Jew hating scumbag Ron Paul.
Do either of them have much of a chance of securing the Republican nomination? No.
Then again, thankfully the scumbag Ron Paul has no chance either.
If it comes down to it I'll vote for Guiliani or Romney and hope for the best.
One thing is for sure, I'm not going to be voting for Hitlery, Osama or the moronic scumbag RuPaul, and I'd urge everyone on the JTF forum to consider the candidates (despite your nonsensical assertion that it's a waste of time to do so) and make the best choice possible.