Ron Paul as a leader
- Thread starter dwc1973
- Start date
- Status
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
Ron Paul as a leader...
The fundu pot as a nuclear reactor...
The accordian as a combat infantry weapon...
Sharp cheddar cheese as a high explosive...
The fundu pot as a nuclear reactor...
The accordian as a combat infantry weapon...
Sharp cheddar cheese as a high explosive...
oldbillthundercheif
Moderator
He would have to run any of his oddball monetary schemes through congress, so it would get watered down or sunk completely. I do believe that he has the mustard to get us the hell out of Iraq, though.
I bet he would be a pretty good leader. Better than any of the others, anyway.
I bet he would be a pretty good leader. Better than any of the others, anyway.
ForksLaPush
New member
News flash for Ron Paul:
There are two things you need to do to be a leader,
1. be right
2. win
You are perfect and have 1 in the bag.
Now you need to figure out number 2. We understand that the conspiracies against you and the stupidity of the electorate, etc., are troublesome, but you still need to overcome them. If you can't get votes, we will have to evaluate the candidates who are not 100% right but can get a signifcant number of votes. Thank you, and good luck with your retirement.
There are two things you need to do to be a leader,
1. be right
2. win
You are perfect and have 1 in the bag.
Now you need to figure out number 2. We understand that the conspiracies against you and the stupidity of the electorate, etc., are troublesome, but you still need to overcome them. If you can't get votes, we will have to evaluate the candidates who are not 100% right but can get a signifcant number of votes. Thank you, and good luck with your retirement.
This man, in my opinion, is a man of integrity meaning his actions match his words and his words match his actions. That deserves respect regardless of whether you agree with the words or actions. Integrity is a character trait that deserves respect.
He is also a man of principle. He holds the Constitution as a measure higher then his own and it is his measuring stick for his values.
He does however have a marked lack of leadership skills. I've watched and waited for him to start demonstrating some leadership. He has audacity but not leadership. His strong message resonates but Paul doesn't. He doesn't seem to posses the ability to influence people. His message does but he does not. Vision without leadership is unfortunately not enough to hold any executive position let alone the Presidency. He doesn't do well at garnering cooperation among peers or influencing decisions. I wish he did. He would sweep up handily if he did.
His strong attributes serve well as a Representative. The traits he has serve his constituents well as reflected by his multiple terms. Perhaps some time exposed to the Executive Branch in a cabinet position would help him get a better grasp on how to influence people. It is a nuanced ability and can be learned given the right exposure.
This is why Governors are better equipped then legislators for President. A proven track record of leadership. A well developed ability in the nuances that distinguish a leader from a 'boss'. The ability to influence others to your vision, deal with the inevitable attacks and at the same time delegate responsibility and accept accountability while all the while maintaining a demeanor of authority, dignity, and conveying confidence is no small matter.
He is also a man of principle. He holds the Constitution as a measure higher then his own and it is his measuring stick for his values.
He does however have a marked lack of leadership skills. I've watched and waited for him to start demonstrating some leadership. He has audacity but not leadership. His strong message resonates but Paul doesn't. He doesn't seem to posses the ability to influence people. His message does but he does not. Vision without leadership is unfortunately not enough to hold any executive position let alone the Presidency. He doesn't do well at garnering cooperation among peers or influencing decisions. I wish he did. He would sweep up handily if he did.
His strong attributes serve well as a Representative. The traits he has serve his constituents well as reflected by his multiple terms. Perhaps some time exposed to the Executive Branch in a cabinet position would help him get a better grasp on how to influence people. It is a nuanced ability and can be learned given the right exposure.
This is why Governors are better equipped then legislators for President. A proven track record of leadership. A well developed ability in the nuances that distinguish a leader from a 'boss'. The ability to influence others to your vision, deal with the inevitable attacks and at the same time delegate responsibility and accept accountability while all the while maintaining a demeanor of authority, dignity, and conveying confidence is no small matter.
i think Mr.Paul would thank you for kind words....(most of them anyway!).
http://www.ntu.org/main/index.php - then type in Ron Paul.
http://www.ntu.org/main/index.php - then type in Ron Paul.
this one seemed an unbiased opinion (atleast as far as i can tell)....
http://www.reason.com/news/show/120767.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/120767.html
All the RP detractors are right
People who believe in a constitutional republic and adhering to that republics constitution are whack jobs.
Just look at these loony constitutional terrorists from our countrys past
No, big government socialism, lose adherence to the constitution and unquestiong loyalty to the big monied interests i.e. private banks,oil companies, big corprate media,foreign lobbyists,ect currently running things is the way to go.
It is way too dangerous to try and change things, besides we might have to think and plan for ourselves instead of having the Soc Security administration, the IRS. and the Federal Reserve http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329002339531 do it for us.
People who believe in a constitutional republic and adhering to that republics constitution are whack jobs.
Just look at these loony constitutional terrorists from our countrys past
No, big government socialism, lose adherence to the constitution and unquestiong loyalty to the big monied interests i.e. private banks,oil companies, big corprate media,foreign lobbyists,ect currently running things is the way to go.
It is way too dangerous to try and change things, besides we might have to think and plan for ourselves instead of having the Soc Security administration, the IRS. and the Federal Reserve http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329002339531 do it for us.
45Marlin carbine
Moderator
IMO the man has enough smarts to listen to his advisers (generals and such) and keep his mouth shut until they finish speaking, then ask questions.
I'm recently unsure whether the problem is the current government/leaders of this country, or the people in it who vote for them.
By definition, a president is a leader. The ideals, beliefs and knowledge are important at this stage. Ron Paul will only become president if people allow him to. They will ultimately get what they deserve, good or bad.
I'd take a pro freedom, true conservative, pro liberty, constitutionalist who dares to talk about peace, prosperity and non intervention, who dares to talk about a dollar that has value, about the bankrupt economy, about lack of border security, about regulations forcing jobs out of the country.... I'd take someone talking about these things even if they used sign language or talked monotone. My point is that from the others, it's hype and rhetoric, no substance. You come away from each speech inspired and lost as to what any real plans are. Ron Paul isn't fancy, young or stylish, he's not a good actor like the others, he's just himself, honest, aware and right!!
He'll only win when people can evaluate what's really important and stop buying the ideas sold to you but government PR, ( main stream media ). If you think we need more laws, less freedom, more taxes, bigger government, more war and more of the same...vote for anyone but Ron Paul. If you think the role of government needs to be rethought and we need to protect rights and freedom and at least try to avoid world conflicts, vote Ron Paul.
By definition, a president is a leader. The ideals, beliefs and knowledge are important at this stage. Ron Paul will only become president if people allow him to. They will ultimately get what they deserve, good or bad.
I'd take a pro freedom, true conservative, pro liberty, constitutionalist who dares to talk about peace, prosperity and non intervention, who dares to talk about a dollar that has value, about the bankrupt economy, about lack of border security, about regulations forcing jobs out of the country.... I'd take someone talking about these things even if they used sign language or talked monotone. My point is that from the others, it's hype and rhetoric, no substance. You come away from each speech inspired and lost as to what any real plans are. Ron Paul isn't fancy, young or stylish, he's not a good actor like the others, he's just himself, honest, aware and right!!
He'll only win when people can evaluate what's really important and stop buying the ideas sold to you but government PR, ( main stream media ). If you think we need more laws, less freedom, more taxes, bigger government, more war and more of the same...vote for anyone but Ron Paul. If you think the role of government needs to be rethought and we need to protect rights and freedom and at least try to avoid world conflicts, vote Ron Paul.
+1 Nate45...
Here's a thought for everyone. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Hancock...etc... All the founding fathers for that matter:
They come back today for some reason. What's there take on the state of America and this world???
I'd bet they'd be considering going back to England which is at least more stable and not headed for implosion.
We're at this brink of socialism, imperialism and losing it all.
If Clinton wins, that's a full 10 years of:
CBush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton.... That's change??????Common?? Hillary sells change??? Change is what we'll all be asking for on the streets in 10 years.
Here's a thought for everyone. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Hancock...etc... All the founding fathers for that matter:
They come back today for some reason. What's there take on the state of America and this world???
I'd bet they'd be considering going back to England which is at least more stable and not headed for implosion.
We're at this brink of socialism, imperialism and losing it all.
If Clinton wins, that's a full 10 years of:
CBush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton.... That's change??????Common?? Hillary sells change??? Change is what we'll all be asking for on the streets in 10 years.
ForksLaPush
New member
Ben Franklin and John Hancock are good examples, they weren't elected president either.
Unregistered
Moderator
Are you sure you will stand by that statement?
Before you answer, let me remind you that George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter were all governors before they became president.
Um, you do realize that our current system of fiat money is the oddball system. Fiat money has a horrible track record. While the Gold standard wasn't a perfect system, Fiat money is worse.
http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com/Archives/2007/20070807.html
Fiat money has a 2000 year history of failure. We are currently heading in the direction that every other Fiat money nation has gone, devaluation and collapse of the currency.
I have never posted a criticism of Ron Paul. I have posted criticisms of supporters who treat the nomination process as if it were a soccer match in England where the supporters of the losing team act like a howling mob, but those are not criticisms of the candidate, and such criticisms apply to any howling mob regardless of whom they support.
My question concerns the math involved in winning the nomination. For Ron Paul:
IA = 10%
WY = 0%
NH = 8%
On this forum, the IA and WY results have been criticized as caucuses, not primaries. WY was also criticized as being "tightly controlled." I'm not sure what RP-supporters' explanation is for the 8% result in NH.
Ultimately, though, none of that really matters, nor do any articles praising or condemning RP as a leader. If RP really is a leader who would be the best candidate to oppose the Dems, he needs to do what great leaders do: Defeat the obstacles in his path. He needs to get the math going in his favor.
There's a saying that, "It is what it is." The flip side is, "It isn't what it isn't." Thus far, the math isn't currently there for RP.
Mondale beat Hart by asking, "Where's the beef?" Regarding RP, I want to know, "Where's the math?"
My question concerns the math involved in winning the nomination. For Ron Paul:
IA = 10%
WY = 0%
NH = 8%
On this forum, the IA and WY results have been criticized as caucuses, not primaries. WY was also criticized as being "tightly controlled." I'm not sure what RP-supporters' explanation is for the 8% result in NH.
Ultimately, though, none of that really matters, nor do any articles praising or condemning RP as a leader. If RP really is a leader who would be the best candidate to oppose the Dems, he needs to do what great leaders do: Defeat the obstacles in his path. He needs to get the math going in his favor.
There's a saying that, "It is what it is." The flip side is, "It isn't what it isn't." Thus far, the math isn't currently there for RP.
Mondale beat Hart by asking, "Where's the beef?" Regarding RP, I want to know, "Where's the math?"
What I'm about to say is not really about Ron Paul, it's about the "but he's not a leader" argument in it's broad sense.
Folks, I'd much rather have someone in the White House who's not a leader but has right ideas than a leader with ill conceived ideas. Leadership, as a virtue, is only as good as the direction of the man. It's a catalyst, a magnifier, and an enforcer - but what good is it if there is nothing decent to catalyze, to magnify, and to enforce? Adolf Hitler had great leadership skills, so did Pol Pot, and so did Joseph Stalin. Would you vote for them on the merit of their leadership skills?
Lack of leadership, besides other things, means inability to screw up - and screwing up became one of the favorite pastimes of US presidents, almost as a tradition. I, on the other hand, would much prefer government that treats me with benign neglect - be it by lack of leadership or by intent.
It's hard to grasp this argument: "this guy doesn't understand economics, is eager to start wars left and right, doesn't give damn about personal liberties, and will put nation further in the debt - but thanks G-d, he'll show great leadership in doing so"
P.S. Now, here is a simple test to check the strength of your preconceived ideas: how many of those who read this still thought that it was about RP, despite the first sentence?
Folks, I'd much rather have someone in the White House who's not a leader but has right ideas than a leader with ill conceived ideas. Leadership, as a virtue, is only as good as the direction of the man. It's a catalyst, a magnifier, and an enforcer - but what good is it if there is nothing decent to catalyze, to magnify, and to enforce? Adolf Hitler had great leadership skills, so did Pol Pot, and so did Joseph Stalin. Would you vote for them on the merit of their leadership skills?
Lack of leadership, besides other things, means inability to screw up - and screwing up became one of the favorite pastimes of US presidents, almost as a tradition. I, on the other hand, would much prefer government that treats me with benign neglect - be it by lack of leadership or by intent.
It's hard to grasp this argument: "this guy doesn't understand economics, is eager to start wars left and right, doesn't give damn about personal liberties, and will put nation further in the debt - but thanks G-d, he'll show great leadership in doing so"
P.S. Now, here is a simple test to check the strength of your preconceived ideas: how many of those who read this still thought that it was about RP, despite the first sentence?
Leadership can be used for either good or bad. If the person who is supposed to lead does not have leadership, either someone will fill the void or there will be chaos when lots of wannabees attempt to fill the void.
Either way, the void will be filled. One person's lack of leadership won't change that fact.
Either way, the void will be filled. One person's lack of leadership won't change that fact.
- Status