A Ron Paul thread...........hopefully without flames
- Thread starter DonR101395
- Start date
Raises another issue tho':
Do you really want a candidate who will "get things done" and will "work with" the Senate and Congress we're about to face?
If that's what you want, I can direct you to a few other candidates with established track records for that. Paul wouldn't fit that bill at all.
Do you really want a candidate who will "get things done" and will "work with" the Senate and Congress we're about to face?
If that's what you want, I can direct you to a few other candidates with established track records for that. Paul wouldn't fit that bill at all.
DonR101395
New member
GS thanks for the info it's helpful.
To everyone else, once again, this isn't about the other candidates. I've been able to find info on them to form an opinion on them. How is he better than XX isn't the question posed. If you don't have info about what he's accomplished, that's cool; don't respond.
Pubulis,
The comment you mentioned wasn't intended as a flame, it's simply an observation. When I ask about accomplishments and support from colleagues I continually get "He got principles." and "He's libertarian" The funny thing is when I have mentioned his libertarian connections I've been chastised and been told he's republican and has never been a libertarian. That tells me that many who are following him are doing so without knowing much about him. In other words blindly following. The veracity of his following IMO boarders on cult like behavior. Like I said, I would like to support him, I just don't know why I should and with few exceptions(GS) nobody can tell me a sound reason to support him. If he were to somehow get the nomination and win the election; I'm not sure I want a four year stalemate any more than I want four years of Hillary or Rudy.
To everyone else, once again, this isn't about the other candidates. I've been able to find info on them to form an opinion on them. How is he better than XX isn't the question posed. If you don't have info about what he's accomplished, that's cool; don't respond.
Pubulis,
The comment you mentioned wasn't intended as a flame, it's simply an observation. When I ask about accomplishments and support from colleagues I continually get "He got principles." and "He's libertarian" The funny thing is when I have mentioned his libertarian connections I've been chastised and been told he's republican and has never been a libertarian. That tells me that many who are following him are doing so without knowing much about him. In other words blindly following. The veracity of his following IMO boarders on cult like behavior. Like I said, I would like to support him, I just don't know why I should and with few exceptions(GS) nobody can tell me a sound reason to support him. If he were to somehow get the nomination and win the election; I'm not sure I want a four year stalemate any more than I want four years of Hillary or Rudy.
Seems to me like you'd be better served to figure out just what it is you do want before you worry about who (if any) is best suited to deliver it.
As for me, I'm quite comfortable with a 4 year stalemate. Seems to me that every time Washington "accomplishes" something it's bad news.
And before we delve into the subject of "cult-like" followings, you might want to compare and contrast supporters of the different campaigns directly to each other. This candidate is putting out a message echoed by Thomas Jefferson (founder of the Republican party), Barry Goldwater(father of modern conservatism), Ronald Reagan (the greatest Republican president of our time), Pat Buchanan(the spokesman of modern conservatism), Newt Gingrich (the man responsible for the Republican resurgence), and Alan Greenspan (the most respected economist of our times).
There are other campaigns out there who's supporters are swayed by the likes of Chuck Norris (who the boogeyman checks his closet for nightly) and Ric Flair (an ex-wrestler).
Apologies for following this off-track. I just find the term "cult-like" unnecessarily inflammatory.
DonR101395
New member
That's cool GS. To be honest right now I'm leaning towards Thompson or Huckabee in the primary, but Paul keeps popping up in the back of my mind. To be honest the Chuck Norris thing actually turned me off instead of energizing me.
Well gotta get back in the kitchen. The turkey is almost done and it's time for other stuff to go in the oven. The wife is out of the country and the kids are coming home for Thanksgiving
Edit:
I know what I want, I just don't know who can deliver. That is the reason for the questions.
Well gotta get back in the kitchen. The turkey is almost done and it's time for other stuff to go in the oven. The wife is out of the country and the kids are coming home for Thanksgiving
Edit:
I know what I want, I just don't know who can deliver. That is the reason for the questions.
Don, your observation could have been worded better, IMO.
From what I have heard, I believe it's true that he remained a Republican while running as the Libertarian nominee, so that part is actually true. Maybe his supporters know a bit more than you think.
He also took a long break from Congress, and has represented 3 different districts in his ten terms, in one case winning against the best efforts of virtually the entire Texas GOP establishment. So, if Paul supporters say something truthful yet somewhat contradictory, it's about the same as when anti-Paul cultists like Fremmer wrongly characterize him as "remaining entrenched" in Congress all these years. That is not what happened, and blindly repeating something that is not true without learning any different is the sign of a cult, but it's the anti-Paul cult.
Do you see now that maybe that isn't the best word to use?
With the government growing at twice the rate we saw under Bill Clinton, which I thought was plenty fast enough, I am really hoping for some stalemate and gridlock to put in the brakes. Just why do you believe it would be a bad idea to have a stalemate instead of the explosive growth of government?
azredhawk44
Moderator
What has Ron Paul done?
He caused my girlfriend to de-register as a lifelong democrat to be a republican in this election so she can vote for him in the primaries.
He caused me to de-register as a libertarian and return to the republican party in this election so I can vote for him in the primaries.
He is the candidate to vote for if you hate all the remaining democratic and republican candidates. Neither of us endorse Rudy McRomney, and neither of us endorse HillBama. I don't like any of their policies. I want NOTHING done in Washington. I am best served by that. Rudy wants to give away healthcare just as much as Hillary does. Everybody's itching to buy the next wave of voters, between Illegal Immigration and College Tuition and Health Care. It's a race for who can draft the fastest bills to do so.
Except Paul.
I'd be ecstatic over a 4 year stalemate.
It also demonstrates Ron Paul's lack of support for our military and for our national security. He wants to eliminate the CIA and the FBI. National security, indeed.
Ron Paul consistently misinterprets the Constitution. He voted against the
Second Amendment when he voted agains the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects gun manufacturers, distributers, and dealers from being sued for the wrongful acts of third parties. That was Paul's most anti-gun vote, and gun owners should remember it, regardless of the weak excuse that it is somehow unconstitutional. You can't keep and bear arms if you can't buy guns and ammo in the commercial market. Thankfully, the other Republicans (and some Democrats) passed the Act, and the President signed it into law. Like I said, even some of the Democrats voted for the Act. But not Ron Paul.
He sued Bill Clinton. And he's been in congress forever. If you want to call those accomplishments, be my guest. Let us know if they convert you.
And here we made it nearly two whole pages of enlightening, mutually beneficial discussion.
Looks like that's finished.
So please explain to us how gun control lite was a shining political achievement. We're all dying to hear about it.
And I forgot all about the "suing Clinton" thing. At least somebody's consistent and doesn't change their tune where partisan politics are concerned.
I'm also sure the folks here will rise up in indignant anger over how he treated Bill Clinton over the whole Bosnia thing.
But where are my manners?....
Can I get you anything to drink?
Looks like that's finished.
So please explain to us how gun control lite was a shining political achievement. We're all dying to hear about it.
And I forgot all about the "suing Clinton" thing. At least somebody's consistent and doesn't change their tune where partisan politics are concerned.
I'm also sure the folks here will rise up in indignant anger over how he treated Bill Clinton over the whole Bosnia thing.
But where are my manners?....
Can I get you anything to drink?
DonR101395
New member
Thanks guys. After two pages of what I think was a pretty non flame thread. I appreciate the effort you've put into it, but I still don't have a "warm fuzzy" about RP. I've thought about it today and won't be voting for him in the primaries, but if he gets the republican nomination I will. I've come to the conclusion that a 4 year stalemate would be better than 4 years of Hillary or Obama. The lesser of two evils triumphs again.
Thanks and I hope you all had a great Thanksgiving.
Thanks and I hope you all had a great Thanksgiving.
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."-Ronald Reagan
Is your search toolbar malfunctioning? I distinctly remember posting this for you before. Did you just miss it the first 2 times I posted it, or are you just being intentionally obtuse again?
See, there's no rational explanation for his anti-gun vote, no matter how many times you try to explain it away. Paul voted against legislation that now protects the firearms industry from being sued out of existance.
I'm not trying to flame Ron Paul, but Ron Paul voted against the Act, pure and simple. You'll hear how Ron Paul is a 'strict constitutionalist', but his vote against the Act reveals his fundamental lack of knowledge of the Constitution, and of what is constitutional. It also shows his inability to act to prevent serious problems threatening our right to keep and bear arms.
I'm not trying to flame Ron Paul, but Ron Paul voted against the Act, pure and simple. You'll hear how Ron Paul is a 'strict constitutionalist', but his vote against the Act reveals his fundamental lack of knowledge of the Constitution, and of what is constitutional. It also shows his inability to act to prevent serious problems threatening our right to keep and bear arms.
If you really want to know what Ron Paul has done and what he is about, check out:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
Unregistered
Moderator
Just because something sounds like a good idea, does not mean it is something the Federal government has the constutitional authority to be involved in. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is one example.
There was already a mechanism in place to deal with frivolous lawsuits, and the judges who allow the cases to proceed. But we chose not to follow the law. The correct way to have dealt with this issue was to throw the frivolous cases out, and impeach judges who allowed frivolous cases to proceed.
Instead, we simply banned these lawsuits entirely.
But lets just say, for a minute, that this Law was unconstitutional and RP voted for it anyway. What is the big deal? One law? Come on, we have a whole city full of politicians who consistenly vote for un-constitutional laws. Look at McCain-Feingold, Patriot Act, etc to see un-constitutional laws that congress has been happy to vote for. Ron Paul is not perfect or infallible, but he is better on Constitutional issues than anyone else in the race.
Last edited: