Armed Polite Society
November 27, 2020, 08:46:49 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: R.I.P. Scout26
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
  Print  
Author Topic: I'm voting for Ron Paul  (Read 19653 times)
Manedwolf
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,516



« Reply #50 on: October 24, 2007, 12:15:24 AM »

Paul is the Republicans' counterpart to Kucinich.

Kucinich is not a pro RKBA candidate, has a completely different approach to abortion (he claims to support abortion but really wants the state to be able to make the decision for you), argues for more environmental regulations, amnesty for illegals, and other stances which could not be further from Ron Paul's talking points.

The merits of these issues or ideas is another thing entirely, but it suffices to say "counterpart" implies either that Kucinich is the evil Ron Paul doppelganger (probably what Manedwolf actually meant), or that they both share these views and one just happens to be a Republican and the other a Democrat.  I'm sure it's the former and not the latter but I sincerely challenge that statement if that is not the case.

You're thinking too hard about it. What I meant was that they're both naive, gibbering loons who are completely disconnected from the economic and geopolitical realities of the world we live in.

One is the darling of drum-circle visualize-world-peace hippies smoking pot and holding hands, the other is the darling of anarchist hippies smoking pot, cradling their $89 SKS and babbling about freemason and zionist conspiracies and "Building 7!"  cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
Euclidean
friend
Member
***
Posts: 293


« Reply #51 on: October 24, 2007, 12:33:12 AM »

You're thinking too hard about it. What I meant was that they're both naive, gibbering loons who are completely disconnected from the economic and geopolitical realities of the world we live in.

Yet the other candidates are sane, wise, people we should put our trust in.  You do realize that Ron Paul is running for president of the USA on planet Earth right, not this other planet where you imagine things to be so different that a RINO candidate looks attractive?

One is the darling of drum-circle visualize-world-peace hippies smoking pot and holding hands, the other is the darling of anarchist hippies smoking pot, cradling their $89 SKS and babbling about freemason and zionist conspiracies and "Building 7!"  cheesy

Let's see, none of the RP supporters in my meetup group are anarchists, none are what I'd consider to be hippies at all (I personally despise damn dirty hippies), none of the RP supporters I've met actually smoke pot (I don't either), my father was a Mason as was my grandfather and I can assure you all there's nothing of much interest going on there, I have no idea what Building 7 is, and while I can see myself cradling an $89 SKS (because that would be a damn good deal in today's market), I prefer my franken AR.

In fact I think only six or seven of the twenty something people who organize local RP fundraisers lack a master's degree and an annual net income below $40,, of which I'm one.  Most of these people wear a coat and tie to work and are actually rather pedestrian in their appearance and demeanor.

I don't know where you get these ridiculous ideas of who RP's supporters are Manedwolf.  Everything you've ever said about them, I defy, as do all of the RP supporters I've ever met.  I'm sure there's some kooks in the works, but there are going to be some for every candidate.  I've heard people say they're voting for Fred Thompson because he was such a good DA on Law and Order, he'd be tough on crime.  But you don't see me coming on here and making an asinine fool out of myself by painting all Thompson supporters as drooling TV fanboys.
Report to moderator   Logged
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #52 on: October 24, 2007, 12:56:53 AM »

I don't know where you get these ridiculous ideas of who RP's supporters are Manedwolf...

It has a meager kernel of truth: some "9/11 Truthers" also support Ron Paul. This is seized upon by folks who violently oppose Ron Paul, but can't actually refute his arguments--or who couldn't bear the contradiction of claiming to support the Framers' vision, while trashing the Constitution. So they smear RP, and all of his supporters, as "conspiracy kooks" and all manner of "loonies."

Interestingly, I've never seen it turned around the other way. Who do skinheads support? I have no idea, but if I had to guess, I'd say Giuliani. So RP's supporters could start calling all of Giuliani's supporters "redneck KKK neonazi skinhead bastards," and it would be no more nor less factual than Maned's over-generalizations.

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
Manedwolf
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,516



« Reply #53 on: October 24, 2007, 01:08:30 AM »

The "generalizations" are due to the sort here, in New Hampshire, the primary state.

They're a bunch of hippie anarchist carpetbaggers of the professional unemployed protester sorts who call themselves "free staters", and if they're not parading around shouting about Ron Paul at any civic event or game, they're parading around in front of the jail protesting the repeated arrests of their members for declaring that they don't need a license or auto registration to drive.

Bunch of wild-eyed kooks whom I wish would go away...and take their shrilly whining messiah with them. Did you not see the last debate with all the shrill out-of-control flailing from him, or the resultant boos?

That is NOT presidential material!

And then there's the fact that his absolutely loony idea of how the world works would just get us run over and killed by expanding jihadists within one term. He has no concept of what this war involves, or the threat to all of Western civilization. At all. Totally naive moonbat in that regard.
Report to moderator   Logged
Paddy
Guest
« Reply #54 on: October 24, 2007, 01:59:46 AM »

Pejorative labels such as "Bushbot" are ever so substantive.  smiley 

It's just shorthand for the kneejerk reactionaries who blindly support this administration's destructive policies

Quote
The only tangible indication of "anti-Paul" bias would be opposition to positions [he espouses] as indicated by a survey response.

Paul won the post debate phone poll done by Fox, by a clear margin no less

Quote
  Without getting into an argument over where the Republican party should be, I think it evident that Paul is more ideologically aligned with the Libertarian party.  Clearly, he has a different stance on issues than the organizers of the Orlando debate (and a good deal of the Republican party, I might add).

Yes, the Republican party (of which I've been a member since 1968) has long since abandoned any conservative principles whatsoever.  They are now the party of big borrowing, big spending, intrusive liberty grabbing imperialism.  They just lost both Houses of Congress in the last election, yet still can't read the writing on the wall, as they continue to lose support.

Quote
  Anyone who takes umbrage at the audience at a partisan debate being screened in a partisan fashion is being somewhat naive.

What you're saying here is that unless we're in lockstep with the Bush administration, we're not good Republicans.  How arrogant.

Quote
Finally, I don't really care about the audience reaction.  Ron Paul backers are almost exclusively backing an ideology first and candidate second.  Regrettably, the candidate (and to a lesser extent, ideology) is somewhat lacking in broader appeal.

'Lacking in broader appeal'?  Like Bush and his administration and his war?

Quote
  More than anything else, televised debates measure a candidate's public presence.  Ron Paul's has been underwhelming IMO.  I wonder if those who champion Paul's "performance" in a debate refer to the political opinions expressed (maybe) or his effectiveness in expressing them (not).  I have a good deal of sympathy or support for many of Paul's opinions, but I cannot stand watching him debate.

So to you, it's about 'performance' rather than principles?   Here's hoping the American people are not as vacuous.
Report to moderator   Logged
Paddy
Guest
« Reply #55 on: October 24, 2007, 02:10:10 AM »

Quote
And then there's the fact that his absolutely loony idea of how the world works would just get us run over and killed by expanding jihadists within one term. He has no concept of what this war involves, or the threat to all of Western civilization. At all. Totally naive moonbat in that regard.

Apparently you haven't noticed, but the American people aren't buying this hysteria any longer. This country is overwhelmingly opposed to this war, and this administration's approval numbers are in the toilet.

I don't agree 100% with libertarian philosophy, either, but at least this guy wants to go in a different direction, and that's a good thing.  If we keep voting for tweedle dee and tweedle dum, they'll both take us down the path to socialism, debt and destruction.
Report to moderator   Logged
Manedwolf
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,516



« Reply #56 on: October 24, 2007, 02:22:01 AM »

No, the people are opposed to the mishandling of the war, as in the asinine strategies used when it started. They're opposed to dorks who never read Sun Tzu or Caesar, civilians running a war.

If we had put bin Laden's head on a pole in 2001, if we had gone into Iraq and done it RIGHT, kept the Iraqi Army in place to keep order, and sent more troops from the get-go, and let soldiers HAVE A WAR instead of making them take mincing PC-controlled steps to avoid offending people, (Sniper in a mosque minaret? Take the @#%! thing down!), they'd be 100% behind it.

People are opposed to mismanagement. People are not opposed to effectively destroying our enemies until they no longer have the ability to wage war on us, which is the point of why you have a war.

And leftists keep confusing the two.
Report to moderator   Logged
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #57 on: October 24, 2007, 02:35:27 AM »

People are opposed to mismanagement. People are not opposed to effectively destroying our enemies until they no longer have the ability to wage war on us, which is the point of why you have a war.

Except for the teensy detail that the Iraqi people are not our enemies--or at least weren't, until we started slaughtering them by the bushel. Launching this asinine invasion against a non-threat was the "mismanagement" in question. You're making it sound like we're all for slaughtering Iraqis; we just don't think Bush is doing it right.

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
CAnnoneer
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 2,136


« Reply #58 on: October 24, 2007, 02:50:43 AM »

until we started slaughtering them by the bushel.

Huh? We are slaughtering innocent Iraqi civilians? Please explain.
Report to moderator   Logged
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #59 on: October 24, 2007, 02:53:37 AM »

Bunch of wild-eyed kooks whom I wish would go away...and take their shrilly whining messiah with them. Did you not see the last debate with all the shrill out-of-control flailing from him, or the resultant boos?

Are you referring to this debate?

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #60 on: October 24, 2007, 02:56:53 AM »

until we started slaughtering them by the bushel.

Huh? We are slaughtering innocent Iraqi civilians? Please explain.

Oy. A question you already know the answer to. Between 30K and 1M Iraqis have been killed, depending whose numbers you take. If we take Bush's own number, 30K, you're suggesting that there were thirty thousand Al Qaeda members in Iraq? Obviously not; the vast majority of the Iraqis killed were in no way connected with terrorist activity against the United States. Which makes them innocent.

You can try dodging by calling it "collateral damage," but you can't begin to deny that innocent Iraqis have been slaughtered by the bushel.

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
Manedwolf
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 14,516



« Reply #61 on: October 24, 2007, 03:33:30 AM »

until we started slaughtering them by the bushel.

Huh? We are slaughtering innocent Iraqi civilians? Please explain.

Oy. A question you already know the answer to. Between 30K and 1M Iraqis have been killed, depending whose numbers you take. If we take Bush's own number, 30K, you're suggesting that there were thirty thousand Al Qaeda members in Iraq? Obviously not; the vast majority of the Iraqis killed were in no way connected with terrorist activity against the United States. Which makes them innocent.

You can try dodging by calling it "collateral damage," but you can't begin to deny that innocent Iraqis have been slaughtered by the bushel.

--Len.


Yes. BY TERRORISTS, nicely referred to as "insurgents".

Or are you saying that our troops are willingly slaughtering Iraqi civilians? Think carefully before you answer, Len.
Report to moderator   Logged
Patriot
New Member

Posts: 27


« Reply #62 on: October 24, 2007, 04:08:13 AM »

Pejorative labels such as "Bushbot" are ever so substantive.  smiley 

It's just shorthand for the kneejerk reactionaries who blindly support this administration's destructive policies

Maybe, but it comes across as name-calling.  Are they 'kneejerk' because they support rather than oppose the president and 'blind' because they don't agree with you? 

Quote
  Anyone who takes umbrage at the audience at a partisan debate being screened in a partisan fashion is being somewhat naive.

Quote
What you're saying here is that unless we're in lockstep with the Bush administration, we're not good Republicans.  How arrogant.

No, that's how you interpret what I said. What I said was that it's entirely expected that that the organizers of a partisan debate are going to screen the audience in accordance with their own position, and anyone who pretends to be dismayed by this is kidding themselves.  Draw what conclusions you will, but Paul is clearly at odds with quite a bit of party leadership.  Party National Committees almost always back "their" president officially, however peeved they might be privately. 

Quote
Finally, I don't really care about the audience reaction.  Ron Paul backers are almost exclusively backing an ideology first and candidate second.  Regrettably, the candidate (and to a lesser extent, ideology) is somewhat lacking in broader appeal.

Quote
'Lacking in broader appeal'?  Like Bush and his administration and his war?

I'm really not a big fan of "scientific" polls but they at least partially preclude sampling bias.  Ron Paul's numbers in 'Republican candidate' polls haven't been promising (not even double digits). 

Quote
Quote
  More than anything else, televised debates measure a candidate's public presence.  Ron Paul's has been underwhelming IMO.  I wonder if those who champion Paul's "performance" in a debate refer to the political opinions expressed (maybe) or his effectiveness in expressing them (not).  I have a good deal of sympathy or support for many of Paul's opinions, but I cannot stand watching him debate.

So to you, it's about 'performance' rather than principles?   Here's hoping the American people are not as vacuous.

Read it again.  I support or sympathize with many of Ron Paul's positions, but his persona leaves much to be desired.  I don't care how ideologically pure he is if he isn't electable.  It isn't just about "star power" either.  Watching him in the debates left me decidedly underwhelmed primarily because of his failure to effectively communicate his platform on any level. 

Ha!  You do realize that in the 2004 elections, which showed record numbers, only 60% of those eligible voted?  4 out  of every 10 ELIGIBLE voters didn't even bother to vote.  Among those who vote, informed voters are a huge minority.  Time and time again people display their ignorance and misinformed state (street interviews, polls, conversation).  Most people form their opinions of candidates based on what they hear from friends, colleagues, and media (the internet is growing in influence as well) + their party affiliation + what they see and hear of a candidate.  Guess what people are evaluating in staged debates, video clips, and sound bytes?  It isn't policy.  Rather, it's all about pithiness, plausibility, posturing, and presentation (the 'P's are incidental).  In a word, it's about 'performance.'  Joe Public:  "Well, uh, he sounds like someone I'd support"  "How so?"  "Well, he was really convincing in the debate last night, y'now, said some good things"  rolleyes 
Report to moderator   Logged
CAnnoneer
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 2,136


« Reply #63 on: October 24, 2007, 04:33:02 AM »

You can try dodging by calling it "collateral damage," but you can't begin to deny that innocent Iraqis have been slaughtered by the bushel.

I am not dodging anything, just pushing you to defuzz and dehype your position.

Terrorist damage and sectarian damage are NOT US collateral damage. US collateral damage is when one of our bombs or bullets strays and kills a civilian. Therefore the numbers that you are quoting are not our responsibility any more than we are responsible for 9/11.
Report to moderator   Logged
Paddy
Guest
« Reply #64 on: October 24, 2007, 05:01:11 AM »

Quote
I don't care how ideologically pure he is if he isn't electable.

And therein lies the problem.  Screw principles, it's about 'electability' (power).  Republicans have become Democrats.  That's why I'm done with them.  In the meantime, you keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result.

Good luck with that.
Report to moderator   Logged
Euclidean
friend
Member
***
Posts: 293


« Reply #65 on: October 24, 2007, 05:43:41 AM »

No, the people are opposed to the mishandling of the war, as in the asinine strategies used when it started. They're opposed to dorks who never read Sun Tzu or Caesar, civilians running a war.

If we had put bin Laden's head on a pole in 2001, if we had gone into Iraq and done it RIGHT, kept the Iraqi Army in place to keep order, and sent more troops from the get-go, and let soldiers HAVE A WAR instead of making them take mincing PC-controlled steps to avoid offending people, (Sniper in a mosque minaret? Take the @#%! thing down!), they'd be 100% behind it.

People are opposed to mismanagement. People are not opposed to effectively destroying our enemies until they no longer have the ability to wage war on us, which is the point of why you have a war.

And leftists keep confusing the two.

You know, I actually agree with that.  But the problem is that the pooch has been screwed, and Iraq is now a Money Pit.  It's not salvageable.  I sincerely believe that any "success" in Iraq is directly attributable to the fact our military is competent even if their civilian commanders are not, but the whole thing has been so bungled it's beyond fixing.

It also doesn't make a damn bit of sense to be "over there" trying to kill those people when we have a huge open border allowing for those same people to waltz right in and form God knows how many sleeper cells.  That's not alarmist paranoid conspiracy rhetoric either, they are already carrying out attacks (Beltway Sniper for a quick example).  I am not being racist when I say this, but the cold hard fact is that an Arab does not look out of place in the middle of a crowd of Mexican and OTM illegals to most Americans.  Ron Paul is the only candidate talking about real border security.

And realistically, the war is done, one way or the other.  I realize there is bias in the media, but it's gotten to the point where most people want it to end, and they will vote Democrat to make it happen.  Now, you can either concede the POTUS to the Democrats by insisting on a Republican candidate who will keep throwing money after an unsalvageable mess, or you can beat them to the punch and decide the question of the war before November 2008 ever gets here and make the election about the issues, a fight the Democrats will have a hard time winning.
Report to moderator   Logged
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #66 on: October 24, 2007, 05:58:39 AM »

Terrorist damage and sectarian damage are NOT US collateral damage. US collateral damage is when one of our bombs or bullets strays and kills a civilian. Therefore the numbers that you are quoting are not our responsibility any more than we are responsible for 9/11.

So you're claiming that of the 30,000 that Bush mentioned, US forces killed only a few hundred to a couple thousand--the maximum believable number of terrorists present in Iraq at the time of the invasion--and the rest were all killed by sectarian violence? Yep, there's a plausible theory.

Or are you saying that our troops are willingly slaughtering Iraqi civilians? Think carefully before you answer, Len.

Nice way to try and put words in my mouth. "Willingly"? As in, "Yo, d00d, lets go slaughter us some innocent ai-raqis!" With a few exceptions, that's obviously not the way it works, and you're only phrasing it that way in hopes that I'll bite, and tick off the veterans on the board. Puh-lease.  rolleyes

The vast majority of targets aren't "selected" in the first place by the soldier pulling the trigger. They're sent to certain coordinates with orders to fire a missile, or drop a payload, or "secure" an area, and they do what they're told. The majority of the dead weren't terrorists, but that isn't the fault of the soldiers simply following orders. It's the fault of the ones higher up the chain of command that use a cruise missile as a flyswatter.

But more importantly, it's the fault of the ones who ordered the invasion in the first place. It's understandable that soldiers will return fire when fired upon. But the ones firing upon them are, many of them, simply defending their homes from an invader. Having defined the invasion as part of a "war on terror," Iraqis defending their homes are (intentionally) confused with actual terrorists. To a soldier on the ground trying to survive, there is no important difference; either way, he must kill them or be killed by them. Those men, and the US soldiers killing and being killed by them, are all innocent victims of an invasion which is criminal on every level: as an aggressive war, it violates the Nuremberg criterion established by the US and allied powers; for the same reason, it is immoral and contrary to international law; as an undeclared war, it violates the Constitution; since it expends military resources on a non-threat, it violates US interests; in prosecuting the war, the Geneva conventions are routinely violated; etc.

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
CAnnoneer
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 2,136


« Reply #67 on: October 24, 2007, 06:28:21 AM »

The above opinion is in no way substantiated by the press, the official line, or the informal reports from the ground. You are free to hold it, but if you try to sell it to others, you must provide proof.

As best it can be seen from this side of the ocean, most troops are engaged in police action patrolling transportation corridors, checking out reports for sighted terrorists or weapons caches, and answering calls from areas where sectarian violence bursts out. Most of our casualties are from IEDs, rather than gunfire exchange. The reported Iraqi casualties are routinely of two types:

1) Today in the city of Sandhill, 300 Iraqis died in violent clashes between shia and sunni over disputed territory
2) Today in the city of Sandhill, 150 Iraqis died of two large car bombs

I very much doubt that the leftist media would not immediately report on "Sgt Slaughter ordered the tank platoon to open direct fire with H.E. rounds at an Iraqi village to flush out two enemy combatants, resulting in 1,000 innocent Iraqi civilian casualties among unsuspecting bystanders."

To me it is extremely conspicuous that the doomsayers and bushhaters that foam at the mouth quoting astronomical figures have been completely incapable of coming up with a single major example of "war crimes" committed by our forces in the field. 650k? Where? How? By whom? When? Any mass graves?
Report to moderator   Logged
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #68 on: October 24, 2007, 07:00:01 AM »

The above opinion is in no way substantiated by the press, the official line, or the informal reports from the ground. You are free to hold it, but if you try to sell it to others, you must provide proof.

Note, though, that I contentedly use the number that Bush officially copped to: 30,000. I'm positive that number is way low by now, but I have no idea what the right number is. I also avoid mentioning the 500K that Madeleine Albright copped to, since they died before Bush took office.

Within that context, you are the one making the unlikely claim: that only a small minority of those 30,000 were killed by US troops. If you accept that Bush's own number reflects mainly those killed in direct action, then you're stuck trying to explain how Iraq came to have 30,000 terrorists in it, when for example Al Qaeda is known to have only a few hundred, or at most a couple thousand, members.

Quote
To me it is extremely conspicuous that the doomsayers and bushhaters that foam at the mouth quoting astronomical figures have been completely incapable of coming up with a single major example of "war crimes" committed by our forces in the field. 650k? Where? How? By whom? When? Any mass graves?

Which is precisely why I take the high-end estimates with salt. We can use the lowest estimates and still make the point: even Bush's number, which is the rock-bottom estimate, is at least an order of magnitude larger than the number of actual terrorists in Iraq.

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
Patriot
New Member

Posts: 27


« Reply #69 on: October 24, 2007, 08:44:20 AM »

Quote
I don't care how ideologically pure he is if he isn't electable.

And therein lies the problem.  Screw principles, it's about 'electability' (power).  Republicans have become Democrats.  That's why I'm done with them.  In the meantime, you keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result.

Good luck with that.

It's kind of funny, because I strongly suspected that you would fixate on this line.   grin  Principles are dangerous things unchecked.  What is a candidate?  In this case, it is someone seeking to be elected to office.  Therefore, I think a candidate should be evaluated based on a combination of their 'electability' and and their platform.  Frankly, my evaluation of Ron Paul is that he has low electability in the primary election, [assuming he won the nomination] insufficient electability to win a national election, and that his platform is way too far out of line with the mainstream to be viable.  All the crap that has been foisted on America can't be undone just like that.  Look at Schwarzenegger, he tried taking on a whole bunch of things in the special election and got his butt handed to him.  Targeted, incremental change is necessary (a process, not a fell swoop).  Whether he is 'right' is largely irrelevant compared to whether he can win support and what he can accomplish.  There are only two ways of accomplishing something worthwhile:  in office or out of office.  I strongly doubt he will ever be in office.  If Paul loses, his sole accomplishment will be measured in how much he motivates either party to shape up. 

Suppose both Rudy (centrist) and Paul (FAR right) lose the Republican primary.  Rudy is going to win more votes period.  So when the Republicans lose the national election, who are they going to cater to more in the next election?  The center or the far right?  The largest position with the most secure votes.  Because Ron Paul types have this annoying habit of throwing up their hands and threatening to (a) not vote, (b) repudiate their party affiliation, (c) go Libertarian, they aren't going to be considered secure votes.  Unless Paul runs in the general election (either major party or third party) and gets a disproportionately large percentage of votes, nothing's going to change.  If he gets 4% or more of the vote, a larger party might try and accommodate his platform.  Otherwise, nada. 

Stating you're done with Republicans while championing a nominally Republican candidate speaks volumes. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Len Budney
Senior Member
**
Posts: 1,023


« Reply #70 on: October 24, 2007, 09:13:18 AM »

Principles are dangerous things unchecked.

Depends on the principle in question. Is the principle is a refusal to murder--where I said "murder," not "kill"--"dangerous" if left unchecked? Would you say, "He's dangerous, because he refuses to murder anyone regardless of the circumstances!" Or would you call someone else dangerous because he refuses to admit that sometimes rape is a pragmatic necessity?

Now the principle of assuming that all wild animals are harmless is indeed a dangerous one. But which of Ron Paul's principles would you liken to that, or consider "dangerous if left unchecked"?

--Len.
Report to moderator   Logged

In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.
Paddy
Guest
« Reply #71 on: October 24, 2007, 09:35:00 AM »

First, Rudy is not 'centrist'.  Rudy is a big city antigun liberal, and probably a big spender on the order of GWB (who has managed to outspend LBJ of 'Great Society' fame, btw).

Second, a lot of the 'crap that has been foisted on America' was so foisted during a Republican administration with a Republican congress. Why is there any reason to expect a continuing Republican majority will unfoist it?

Quote
Because Ron Paul types have this annoying habit of throwing up their hands and threatening to (a) not vote, (b) repudiate their party affiliation, (c) go Libertarian, they aren't going to be considered secure votes.

Again, it's this kind of arrogance that may very well result in a Dem POTUS andCongress come 2009. And if you don't think that's possible, I've got two words for you. Ross Perot.  I experienced that arrogance personally in a phone call with the California Republican chairman just before the 2004 elections.  I was expressing my concern regarding the President's and Congress' departure from the principle of big spending, intrusive government.  His answer?  "So, what are ya gonna do, vote for Kerry?  You've got nowhere else to go".   

People who have nowhere to go usually stay home. And I suspect there are many, many more like me who will do the same.  And frankly, whatever Democrat is elected can't possibly do more damage than Bush has.

Quote
Stating you're done with Republicans while championing a nominally Republican candidate speaks volumes.

Ron Paul is only 'nominally Republican' in a world where George Bush is considered a conservative, and Rudy a centrist.  These guys are to the left of JFK.  That's the Republican party I'm done with.  And I may have a lot of company.
Report to moderator   Logged
fistful
Lifestyle Editor: Gorilla Channel
friend
Senior Member
***
Posts: 55,873


Unsightly Primate Head


« Reply #72 on: October 24, 2007, 09:43:18 AM »

Quote
To read your attempt to explain away who controls the media....


What?  I made no such attempt.  LAK, I really haven't tried to take issue with your views about who controls the media, or whether the media is for or against the war.  I'm not interested in that.  Most of what you've posted, I have let go unopposed.  I simply thought it was odd to claim that the media was somehow discomfited by having to report on Ron Paul. 

You've mentioned some interesting facts about media coverage of Paul that helps me understand your point of view.  Thank you.  However, you still haven't explained why the media felt that it was now forced to report on him.  Or, if Paul is a threat to them, why they would report anything positive about him under any circumstances.

If there's been any outburst of coverage on Ron Paul, my guess is that the media has figured out that he's a hot topic that will help them sell ad-space.  But since I'm not a consumer of popular news outlets, I wouldn't know. 
Report to moderator   Logged

Republican: Woke since 1854
Soybomb
New Member

Posts: 35


« Reply #73 on: October 24, 2007, 09:59:17 AM »

Thats a grand delcaration but do you really think you'll see his name on the ballot?  The republicans are going to run another of the same old kind of candidate and all the anti-republican backlash by the relatively politically uninformed will lead to them voting democratic because they aren't republicans.  Ron Paul isn't perfect but he's the closest thing to a candidate I agree with.  If you actually want a chance to vote for him though you're going to have to put in a massive amount of work between now and then and accomplish what I think is probably an impossible task.  People are closer to wanting change but we aren't quite there yet.

Harry Browne said "Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free."  Until more people start to feel that republicans and democrats are largely the same I think you're just going to get more of the same. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Tuco
Fastest non-sequitor in the West.
friends
Senior Member
***
Posts: 2,446


If you miss you had better miss very well


« Reply #74 on: October 24, 2007, 10:37:04 AM »


Bunch of wild-eyed kooks whom I wish would go away...and take their shrilly whining messiah with them.

That is NOT presidential material!


Several around these parts (West Michigan) felt the same way about the banner waving sycophants attending dubya's 2004 visit / city shutdown. 

Fact is, Manedwolf, if you move in next to the zoo, you're gonna smell elephants.   


Steve
Report to moderator   Logged

7-11 was a part time job.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
ankara escort ataşehir escort pendik escort şişli escort kurtköy escort ankara escort ankara escort avcılar escort istanbul travesti escort bayan escort avcılar escort antalya escort ankara escort istanbul escort türk porno İstanbul Escort ankara escort Ankara Escort Bayan taksim escort maltepe escort Ankara Escort Eros Porno Bahçeşehir Escort ankara escort Sincan Escort Bayan Etlik Escort Kurtköy Escort Demetevler Escort Ümraniye Escort Escort ankara Keciören Escort Escort Ankara Umraniye Escort Kadıköy Escort Escort bayanlar Ankara Escort Bayan Kurtköy Escort Eryaman Escort Kurtköy Escort Escort İzmir Beylikdüzü Escort Çankaya Escort escort izmir Ankara escort Antalya escort Ankara Escort Altyazılı Porno Türkçe Altyazılı Porno Beylikdüzü Escort istanbul escort Bahçeşehir Escort Ankara escort Porno izle izmir escort Pendik escort Bostancı Escort Anadolu Yakası Escort mersin escort kocaeli escort izmir escort izmir escort Altyazılı Porno izmit escort fmovies casino siteleri yabancı dizi ankara escort PORNO buca escort Antalya escort Mersin escort Pendik Escort Tuzla Escort Kartal Escort Kurtköy Escort Beylikdüzü Escort