It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CNN: Gingrich wouldn't vote for Ron Paul (Ummm Duh)

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   

(CNN) - Newt Gingrich said Tuesday he wouldn't vote for Ron Paul if the Texas congressman won the 2012 GOP nomination. Speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Gingrich slammed Paul as out of line with mainstream Republican viewpoints, including his stance on Israel, Iran, and September 11. "I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American," Gingrich said on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer."


CNN

How the H**L is this even news?

I am really starting to find the "do anything it takes to bring down Dr. Paul" tactics a little old.

Whether you are for or against Dr Paul, you should realize that this is far from a fair election. I have the utmost respect for Dr Paul right now, it takes a strong man to put up with all this. I don't know if I'd have the heart survive such attacks on a daily basis.




posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
I wouldn't vote for Paul either.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


I see that you are anti Ron Paul.

No problem, it's a free country.

But would you be more specific as to why you think someone else should be President? I'd love to hear someone who doesn't like Ron Paul finally give specifics as to why someone would be better.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by tw0330
 


What you gotta love about that article, as well as all similar articles from all the "mainstream" publications lately, clearly trying to bash Ron Paul is.... when you scroll down to the comments section.

In each and every one, 95-99% of the comments support Ron Paul, and bash the article for it´s obvious bias and misdirection attempts. Now, how can this bee, if what they say in those articles are even remotely true?



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
(Double post, remove pls mods)
edit on 28-12-2011 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
I wouldn't vote for Paul either.


I see that you are just like every other "anti-Paul" people and can't backup your reasoning.

TROLL



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by tw0330
 


What you gotta love about that article, as well as all similar articles from all the "mainstream" publications lately, clearly trying to bash Ron Paul is.... when you scroll down to the comments section.

In each and every one, 95-99% of the comments support Ron Paul, and bash the article for it´s obvious bias and misdirection attempts. Now, how can this bee, if what they say in those articles are even remotely true?


Yep. But you know, we are "organized" unlike other supporters, and according to the media that is a bad thing.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by tw0330
 
This indecent american just donated to Ron Paul again last night.

These people kill me...Gingrich thinks "decent" americans will vote for a serial adulterer who was kicked out of the House for scores of ethics violations and fined over a quarter-million dollars, who wants to continue the same kind of covert foreign policy douchebaggery that caused so many of our problems in the first place while trumping up unrealistic threats from third-world countries, and claims to be a born-again (neo)conservative - with all the big-government intrusion into our lives that usually entails.

While it's good marketing on his part, I think he's got his terminology a bit mixed up.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
As others have posted on other sites, and to which I agree: Does Newt then think that our Troops are indecent?? Paul gets more support from our Troops than all other candidates combined...and more than Obama, as well.
Star for you...



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


I don't know. I think telling someone twice is necessary when people refuse to see the truth in front of them out of fear or being inconvenienced. I find no exceptions to stories being printed opposing the views of those that actually read them. You would think they would have picked up on that by now.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join