Jump to content

Ron Paul Is Out


Recommended Posts

I watched the debate, he didn't sell me on his view not being isolationism. No biggie anyway, he won't win.
I hate a bunch of things about ron paul, but I was really rooting for him because we need people to realize that alternatives exist. I guess people still haven't woken up to the fact that neither party is really for smaller and more accountable government, despite what the republicans have spouted for years now. Hopefully that will come in my lifetime.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I hate a bunch of things about ron paul, but I was really rooting for him because we need people to realize that alternatives exist. I guess people still haven't woken up to the fact that neither party is really for smaller and more accountable government, despite what the republicans have spouted for years now. Hopefully that will come in my lifetime.
This is what sort of cracks me up about so many "3rd Party" supporters, they are more interested in the "Idea" of the candidate than the actual positions of the candidate himself (Herself?). I loved the idea and bluntness of Ross Perot - but strip away the candy coating and he was a serious world class flake and would have made a horrible President.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ron Paul campaign is everything about the ideas. It's funny, though, I had a recent discussion regarding person vs. ideas. We both agree that Ron Paul's ideas in Obama's body, personality, etc... would make a relative super-candidate that would finally destroy the two party lines for the 2008 presidential election.As much Ron Paul crap as you see on my pic and sig, my personal political beliefs go far beyond just the guy.I believe there needs to be a relative power shift from the government back to the people. The centralized government is running fast with too much power making too many decisions on issues they have nothing to do with. With him as president, I believe you will get the logical shift to put America back on the right track. I find it amusing that so many people view him as so radical. Sure, a lot of his viewpoints have an overall goal that are not very close to where our country is today, but I've seen him be the first person to admit that to achieve these goals requires a gradual process in the right direction instead of a head-spinning shove that people treat him to be.Many agree that there wouldn't be THAT much change if you throw in a Giuliani, a Clinton, a Huckabee, an Edwards, etc... then why assume that Ron Paul would just drive this country out of control? I see him in office making gradual changes that help the country. Yeah, he would LIKE to get rid of the IRS immediately... so would I, but it's obviously not going to happen like that even if he was voted in office. Other then Ron Paul, though, the only other candidate (of the two parties which I despise) that I, actually, see affecting this country in any way is Obama. And not necessarily on his many stances on issues, but more on the type of guy that he is and how it will work the mindset of this country. I, personally, feel that if Obama was elected, politics in this country would change drastically for the future. I don't think people would look at politicians as they, historically, have after 4 years of Obama in office. Beyond good or bad, but just think of the "game of politics" in general after a tern of him in office. I don't honestly have the answers, but I really think there is a legit discussion regarding this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what sort of cracks me up about so many "3rd Party" supporters, they are more interested in the "Idea" of the candidate than the actual positions of the candidate himself (Herself?). I loved the idea and bluntness of Ross Perot - but strip away the candy coating and he was a serious world class flake and would have made a horrible President.
I like the idea that we might see some change in the rate at which our government is becoming larger and less accountable. I guess I should stop worrying about it... my vote is meaningless here in Kansas.If you'll excuse me, american gladiators is on.
Link to post
Share on other sites

George Bush invaded a country with the justification that the 9/11 terrorists were the same race as the people living there. All these other fools voted for that. This is bad stuff, but he's still my man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what sort of cracks me up about so many "3rd Party" supporters, they are more interested in the "Idea" of the candidate than the actual positions of the candidate himself (Herself?). I loved the idea and bluntness of Ross Perot - but strip away the candy coating and he was a serious world class flake and would have made a horrible President.
Really? Third party candidates? Let's ask 100 Obama supporters what he stands for. I haven't found one yet who knows his political philosophy or his specific position on any issue.I think he wins the "no more old white guys" vote, regardless of what he stands for. This isn't a problem of third party candidates.
Link to post
Share on other sites
George Bush invaded a country with the justification that the 9/11 terrorists were the same race as the people living there. All these other fools voted for that. This is bad stuff, but he's still my man.
Do people REALLY think this simplisticly? We can think 2nd, 3rd level poker, but can't see that this statement is wrong?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Do people REALLY think this simplisticly? We can think 2nd, 3rd level poker, but can't see that this statement is wrong?
Dude, that's exactly what happened.Terrorists destroy twin towers.Bush thinks, "That sucks, but now I can invade Iraq. I've always wanted to do that. Maybe I can use this."Bush says, "WMD. [waves hands]. 9/11. mumble, mumble, mumble. Freedom!"The voters say, "Yeah, get them towel heads."Bush invades Iraq.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude, that's exactly what happened.Terrorists destroy twin towers.Bush thinks, "That sucks, but now I can invade Iraq. I've always wanted to do that. Maybe I can use this."Bush says, "WMD. [waves hands]. 9/11. mumble, mumble, mumble. Freedom!"The voters say, "Yeah, get them towel heads."Bush invades Iraq.
And it's hilarious if you turn that into a sock puppet show.Queue Beans with mspaint drawings.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude, that's exactly what happened.Terrorists destroy twin towers.Bush thinks, "That sucks, but now I can invade Iraq. I've always wanted to do that. Maybe I can use this."Bush says, "WMD. [waves hands]. 9/11. mumble, mumble, mumble. Freedom!"The voters say, "Yeah, get them towel heads."Bush invades Iraq.
Wow, just wow...Iraq was barely related to the 9/11 attacks. Clinton had ignored sanctions violations by Hussein his entire persidency, their was a lot of debate on whether to go into Iraq at that point because we were still in Afghanistan searching for Bin Laden. When we defeated Iraq in 1991 there were certain guidelines that they had to follow for us to give their country back to them, they did not follow those and so we invaded, removind one of the most dangerous men of the late 20th and 21st centuries.WMDs was only a portion of why we went in there.
Link to post
Share on other sites
WMDs was only a portion of why we went in there.
Were you alive during the buildup for the war and the justifications that the administration used, or were you living under a cave somewhere.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Were you alive during the buildup for the war and the justifications that the administration used, or were you living under a cave somewhere.
That is what the media blasted all over everything, but the repeating of sanction violations is why we went there.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That is what the media blasted all over everything, but the repeating of sanction violations is why we went there.
The reason we went there was because we had many people in charge at the time with many varying reasons to go into Iraq. There was no one consensus why it was the good idea, but the easiest way to sell it was through WMD's.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason we went there was because we had many people in charge at the time with many varying reasons to go into Iraq. There was no one consensus why it was the good idea, but the easiest way to sell it was through WMD's.
As always, LLY with the sound reasoning. I don't blame it all just on one person (although the decision make does ultimately rest on yada yada yada). From what I saw while watching the debacle unfold is that it seemed like a mass of different reasonings from many people at the top levels of the executive branch of government. The Congress only said that they wanted a say... they didn't say they objected and the American people had no clue. I, sadly, think at that time most people didn't care and just wanted blood.Of course, I could be completely retarded and have misconstrued everything because i was 15/16 at the time... a complete idiot who twisted everything to fit my way of thinking and logic and maybe I'll never see the start of the Iraq War the same because of it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason we went there was because we had many people in charge at the time with many varying reasons to go into Iraq. There was no one consensus why it was the good idea, but the easiest way to sell it was through WMD's.
I don't disagree, but the legal reason and what was voted on in congress was to uphold sanctions that were not being met, and a befuddled UN who walked aorund blind as they moved missles from one location to the next right in front of there inspectors of which gave them notice weeks ahead of time which areas they would be searching and what they were looking for.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate a bunch of things about ron paul, but I was really rooting for him because we need people to realize that alternatives exist. I guess people still haven't woken up to the fact that neither party is really for smaller and more accountable government, despite what the republicans have spouted for years now. Hopefully that will come in my lifetime.
I agree with this completely. We need smaller federal government, more state power, and much less hypocrisy. FYI, since Ron Paul finished 5th, he was invited to tomorrow nights debate.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with this completely. We need smaller federal government, more state power, and much less hypocrisy. FYI, since Ron Paul finished 5th, he was invited to tomorrow nights debate.
I honestly feel like he hasn't done well in the recent debates. RP has many issues where he's got the opposition killed and he doesn't use them. In NH, he kept cornering himself with his Iraq policy... it's not necessarily a bad plan, but it takes time to explain and defend, and all of his opponents have shown a willingness to jump in during his time with the standard republican lines about honor and freedom. Like it or not, that stupid shit strikes a chord with the public, so why give those guys license to use it?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I honestly feel like he hasn't done well in the recent debates. RP has many issues where he's got the opposition killed and he doesn't use them. In NH, he kept cornering himself with his Iraq policy... it's not necessarily a bad plan, but it takes time to explain and defend, and all of his opponents have shown a willingness to jump in during his time with the standard republican lines about honor and freedom. Like it or not, that stupid shit strikes a chord with the public, so why give those guys license to use it?
I agree. In my opinion he blows all the other candidates away on the economy. He's the only one who understands the Federal Reserve. He destroyed Ben Bernanke in a debate.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Ron Paul was invited on this post-debate show. The question towards Ron Paul about his supporters shows that Fox News might not be so fair and balanced. The issue about Ron Paul believing that 9/11 was a conspiracy has been brought up over and over again and the answer is still no.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I honestly feel like he hasn't done well in the recent debates. RP has many issues where he's got the opposition killed and he doesn't use them. In NH, he kept cornering himself with his Iraq policy... it's not necessarily a bad plan, but it takes time to explain and defend, and all of his opponents have shown a willingness to jump in during his time with the standard republican lines about honor and freedom. Like it or not, that stupid shit strikes a chord with the public, so why give those guys license to use it?
Mittens only makes himself look more rude and condescending the way he reacts and treats RP at the debates. God I despise Mittens.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Last nights debate was fucking disgusting.The ignorance these candidates displayed was baffling. It made me sick how both the moderators and other candidates were treating Ron Paul. He's the only true conservative on that stage. The rest are war-mongering dimwits unaware of economic structure, foreign policy history, or the principles of the constitution.Romney: "I think Ron Paul needs to stop reading Ahmadinejad's press releases" - with regards to the speadboat incident when Ron Paul was advising caution about all the aggressive rhetoric.Thompson: "...one more step and they would've been introduced to those virgins they're looking forward to seeing." What kind of talk is this from a presidential candidate!?McCain: "I don't want to trade with Al Qaeda all they trade in is burkas...they only like one-way tickets" - a sleazy insinuation that Ron Paul was advocating trade with Al Qaeda. Asshole. I won't even go on about Rudy or Huckabee - I'd be here for hours. Great choices people have here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Last nights debate was fucking disgusting.The ignorance these candidates displayed was baffling. It made me sick how both the moderators and other candidates were treating Ron Paul. He's the only true conservative on that stage. The rest are war-mongering dimwits unaware of economic structure, foreign policy history, or the principles of the constitution.Romney: "I think Ron Paul needs to stop reading Ahmadinejad's press releases" - with regards to the speadboat incident when Ron Paul was advising caution about all the aggressive rhetoric.Thompson: "...one more step and they would've been introduced to those virgins they're looking forward to seeing." What kind of talk is this from a presidential candidate!?McCain: "I don't want to trade with Al Qaeda all they trade in is burkas...they only like one-way tickets" - a sleazy insinuation that Ron Paul was advocating trade with Al Qaeda. Asshole. I won't even go on about Rudy or Huckabee - I'd be here for hours. Great choices people have here.
Welcome to politics. This is nothing new.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...