Ron Paul to Make Major Announcement Next Week

[Bartholomew Roberts]

That's registered Republican voters hearing what [establishment republicans] had to say about Ron Paul and they spread their message (not Paul's) through his [detractors in the media], and much of the GOP public followed along.

It doesn't really matter whether Citizen Carrier's explanation or yours is the correct one. Both of them say exactly the same thing - if you can't draw better than 6% in the primaries, you have absolutely no chance at all of winning the general election. Why you couldn't draw 6% doesn't really matter because you won't be changing it dramatically between the primary and the general election.

 

[FireMax]

stagger lee
2. The major media will shrug it off because they know that he's just an attention whore

I have little confidence that you would dare refer to Ron Paul with such juvenile language in a room full of Ron Paul supporters.

 

[Silver Bullet]

And its this reason why I think Paul tanked so hard.

But not as hard as Giuliani or Thompson.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I have little confidence that you would dare refer to Ron Paul with such juvenile language in a room full of Ron Paul supporters.

And if I refrained from speaking so bluntly in front of such an audience, it would only be because I suspect that many of them aren't mature enough to control themselves when they hear ideas that they don't agree with.

But it sounds as if you're making my point, that RuPaul koolaid-drinkers will resort to physical attacks on people who try to exercise a First Amendment right to speak in opposition to their God. That in itself says volumes about RuPaul's core constituency.

 

[MeekAndMild]

Quoate from the Paul website

On the heels of his historic three-day rally in Minneapolis that drew over 12,000 attendees

Gee, that is interesting.

 

[FireMax]

Stagger lee
But it sounds as if you're making my point, that RuPaul koolaid-drinkers will resort to physical attacks

I said nothing about physical attacks. You assumed it and posted it to try to back up some mundane belief you have. My supposition was more along the lines of a gauge of your own bravery and determination, not the results of what would happen. It's easy for us to sit behind keyboards and call people koolaid drinkers and to childlishly change a name from Ron Paul to RuPaul. The theory in my question was.... would you do it if you were in person?

Something tells me you would not. So, why do it here? Why not speak and debate in a civil manner with those you disagree with, rather than to disparage their beliefs with such highschool behavior???

 

[Danzig]

the vehemence that some here display when talking about Ron Paul astounds me. He's not a perfect individual..but nobody is.

I hear so often that Dr. Paul has done this..or done that. But the most interesting charge is that he has done nothing.

It's obvious to me that these individuals prefer politicians who are actively working to, and extremely accomplished in, shredding our freedoms. They might have a lot more to list on their political resumes than Dr. Paul...but is that what we really need?

Again, Ron Paul is not perfect. But no politician in national office today shows a higher regard for the Constitution than he does.

As far as him just sitting around to collect a congressional paycheck...what a crock. Yes, he does collect a paycheck..the same as anyone else in his position would. But unlike those that are in it for the money, Dr. Paul has refused to take advantage of the congressional pension program. That decision could cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars..but it's more important to him that that money stay in OUR wallets. More politicians should follow his lead.

 

[STAGE 2]

On earmarks. He's never voted for one. Read this defense-

But he requests them, which in my mind is even worse. He gets to have a clean conscience because he has a vote on record but then gets to take the cash. I'm sorry, but a principled man would not accept unconstitutional spending. Your second article (which I had never read before) says exactly this...

Ron Paul knows his vote against his own earmarks for pork is meaningless to the actual outcome. He's going to get his pork because every member of Congress gets his pork. But Ron Paul gets the psychic satisfaction of voting against it – after, of course, he proposed it.

As the author says... "This is actually as ingenious as it is immoral."

My favorite part however is from Paul himself when he says, ""I've never voted for an earmark in my life," he explained. "I'm against the tax system, but I take all my tax credits. I want to get their money back for the people."

Sorry, but thats just dishonest. Pork is pork and not a "tax credit". That right there is right out of the democratic doublespeak playbook.

They (apart from hatred) are able to think for themselves too, and are not supporting Ron Paul because they believe he hates the same people as they do. I would hope that no one would be a part of any hate group, but they vote too, and why not try to understand why they like Ron Paul, instead of assuming that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. You might as well run from the light of the Sun, because I'm almost positive that Hitler liked a nice summer day.

You miss the point. To quote george washington..."associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company."

Why they like Paul is irrelevant. Why Paul didn't make a clear an unequivocal statement about them and why he kept taking their money is.

Yes STAGE2- Some things are black and white, but if you don't even bother to check to see if they might be grey, then your going to pass judgment with no proof, which would coincidentally be quite the American way as it stands, so you'll be in good company.

When someone gives his word, there is no grey. Its only so for people who don't have integrity. Should Paul break his word, then that makes him no different than Obama, who promised to accept public funding, or any other policitian who has said A and done B.

 

[STAGE 2]

I would think you would be working on the reasons why your man Duncan Hunter tanked sooo much harder than Ron Paul. Wouldn't that be both more important and more productive?

No. Hunter (though my first choice) was always a long shot for the presidency. Thats no shock there.

It looks to me like Paul changed his mind on earmarks, in much the same way I have changed my mind on FEMA. I oppose FEMA. When I became eligible for FEMA assistance after hurricane Andrew, I did not go down and apply. All I had to do was sign, and they'd hand me a 5-figure chunk of money. I didn't sign, because I oppose FEMA on principle.

Principled, but stupid.

If Ike hits me, I'm applying. My reasoning? I also oppose the income tax, but it's not optional. If I could opt out of paying, I'd opt out of receiving. I can't, so I'll join the porkwagon. Paul reached the same conclusion regarding his district.

Looks like I'm a hypocrite, and so is Paul, but only because we're both stuck in a big-government system with which we disagree.

Sorry, but your logic doesn't hold. There isn't anyone forcing Paul to request the earmarks. He does that of his own free will. It is TOTALLY optional. If Paul truly was the constitutionalist, he would not partake in unconstitutional spending. Its really that simple.

 

[FireMax]

Stage 2
Sorry, but your logic doesn't hold. There isn't anyone forcing Paul to request the earmarks. He does that of his own free will. It is TOTALLY optional. If Paul truly was the constitutionalist, he would not partake in unconstitutional spending. Its really that simple.

As a strict conservative, I found very little to argue with Ron Paul about when I learned about him. I certainly didn't jump on a bandwagon against him because he wanted to end the occupation of Iraq. Though I disagreed with him, I listened to him and his reasons. It turns out that Ron Paul had $500 billion reasons to dislike this republican and democrat war. Before it's over, it may be $1 trillion reasons.

And there you have it. If you want to find out why a republican does not like Paul, it is because RP is against the war in Iraq. To many republicans.... anti-war = liberal and they "mindlessly" begin attacking Ron Paul just as if he is a liberal whom they are used to attacking. Forget the fact that Ron Paul is closer to Ronald Reagan than any other candidate in the race..... Ron Paul is against the war and he must be disparaged because Fox News says so.

It would be laughable if it weren't so incredibly sad.

Just remember that, when you attack Ron Paul, you are attacking what republicans in this country used to consider an ideal republican. Why has that changed.... do you think?

 

[STAGE 2]

the vehemence that some here display when talking about Ron Paul astounds me. He's not a perfect individual..but nobody is.

No one requires perfection. However when the candidate in question makes the core of his campaign being that he ALWAYS votes the constitution with such a fervor as Paul has, and there is such a glaring example of him NOT doing that it makes for a hypocrite.

I hear so often that Dr. Paul has done this..or done that. But the most interesting charge is that he has done nothing.

After more than 2 decades in congress the man should have at least a couple of things to show for himself.

This is especially the case as the presidency is a different job than a legislator. Begin able to make decisions and get things done is far more paramount than a congressman who can fade into the crowd of more than 400 of his comrades.

 

[STAGE 2]

And there you have it. If you want to find out why a republican does not like Paul, it is because he is against the war. To many republicans.... anti-war = liberal and they begin attacking Ron Paul just as if he is a liberal whom they are used to attacking. Forget the fact that Ron Paul is closer to Ronald Reagan than any other candidate in the race..... Ron Paul is against the war and he must be disparaged because Fox News says so.

Actually, the biggest reason why I think Paul was a flunkie (other than his terrible debate performances) was his foreign policy. This idea that if we leave our enemies will just stop is ridiculous.

More importantly however, I can't stand Paul's diatribe about how the war was unconstitutional. I'm sorry, but the constitution doesn't require wars to be moral, wise or just. It merely requires congress to sign off on it, and they did so here.

Just remember that, when you attack Ron Paul, you are attacking what republicans in this country used to consider an ideal republican. Why has that changed.... do you think?

Thats funny. I don't recall Reagan saying that if we left europe, that the soviets would just go home.

 

[FireMax]

No one requires perfection. However when the candidate in question makes the core of his campaign being that he ALWAYS votes the constitution with such a fervor as Paul has, and there is such a glaring example of him NOT doing that it makes for a hypocrite.

Which candidate do you support? Let's see how much they follow the constitution compared to Ron Paul. Care to play? I assure you without reservation that Ron Paul would look like a founding father to the candidate whom I most assuredly assume you are voting for. But, hey, let's play if you dare.

Stage 2
More importantly however, I can't stand Paul's diatribe about how the war was unconstitutional. I'm sorry, but the constitution doesn't require wars to be moral, wise or just. It merely requires congress to sign off on it, and they did so here.

Have you actually read the constitution stage 2? You do realize, then, that the constitution calls for a declaration of war, not that the congress "sign off" on it. The "declaration of war" was intentional as a "higher bar" so that it would keep us out of trifle conflicts. If you would like, I can post that part of the constitution here for you to read.

I shudder to think that some people think we should just allow our leaders to ignore the constitution without questioning them.

Darn'd pesky constitution.

stage 2
Thats funny. I don't recall Reagan saying that if we left europe, that the soviets would just go home.

Soviets? Oh. You mean Russia.

Well, some of our leaders do want us to police the world at US taxpayer expense. I guess you are among those who believes that we need troops in Germany, and Italy, and Japan, and Iraq, and Kuwait, and South Korea, and Pakistan (oh yes, they're there) and Georgia, and the Ukraine, and Britain, and Saudi Arabia, and..... did I leave a country out???

All of that empire is costly. It is impossible to sustain on the backs of the American people.

 

[STAGE 2]

Which candidate do you support? Let's see how much they follow the constitution compared to Ron Paul. Care to play? I assure you without reservation that Ron Paul would look like a founding father to the candidate whom I most assuredly assume you are voting for. But, hey, let's play if you dare.

When you have to change the subject off of Paul, thats a sure sign of a losing argument.

That said, I'm not "supporting" anyone. I will be casting my vote for McCain because he's clearly less of a danger to the constitution and even when compared to Ron Paul, is the best in regards to foreign policy/war.

Part of operating in the real world is having a legitimate chance to win. Paul was never a legitimate candidate and thus never merited my consideration. Thats not my fault, thats Pauls.

So many Paul supporters made the statement during the primary that it was the job of other republicans to "earn their vote". Well it was Pauls job to garner enough support to be taken seriously. He failed on a grand scale.

 

[STAGE 2]

Have you actually read the constitution stage 2? You do realize, then, that the constitution calls for a declaration of war, not that the congress "sign off" on it. The "declaration of war" was intentional as a "higher bar" so that it would keep us out of trifle conflicts. If you would like, I can post that part of the constitution here for you to read.

I shudder to think that some people think we should just allow our leaders to ignore the constitution without questioning them.

Darn'd pesky constitution.

Please re-read your constitution. Art 1 sec 8 clearly states that "congress shall have the power to declare war". It does not say how congress is to exercise this power. It does not say that the legislation has to be entitled "declaration of war".

Anyone who contends otherwise is reading something into the constitution that is NOT there.... and that would be unconstitutional.

 

[Revelation76]

You miss the point. To quote george washington..."associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company."

Why they like Paul is irrelevant. Why Paul didn't make a clear an unequivocal statement about them and why he kept taking their money is.

I absolutely disagree. It's OK to take money with no strings attached. Libertarians are not looking to favor any groups. That's a major attraction for most of his supporters. All people in this country are to be treated fairly by their government and it's officials, whether they have outrageous beliefs or not. If Paul turned away support from anyone he would be turning his back on the concept of a truly free society. If the hate groups aren't criminal, then they have the same rights as any other non criminal, and should be treated equally. Freedom from the many chains of the federal government is very attractive to both sides of the political spectrum. It's a large umbrella.

BTW-talking to racists, is MUCH better than turning your back on them.

Unfortunately Paul did end up stating in an interview (PBS?) that he doesn't want their money. He did so reluctantly.

When someone gives his word, there is no grey. Its only so for people who don't have integrity. Should Paul break his word, then that makes him no different than Obama, who promised to accept public funding, or any other policitian who has said A and done B.

I certainly agree that Paul isn't perfect. Though with the earmark situation, there is more grey than the critics want to see. There is more of a grey area with the RP earmarking than Obama's yes vote on FISA, or so many other promises broken by the rest of our elected officials.

If the earmark criticism is the only major failing of Ron Paul, I'm not horribly bothered by his record.

 

[FireMax]

Stage 2
When you have to change the subject off of Paul, thats a sure sign of a losing argument.

Wrong, Pal. I kept the subject directly on Paul and his strong belief in the constitution. The fact that you claim you are not "supporting anyone" smells like a refusal to take my challenge.

I don't blame you stage 2. I wouldn't go up against Ron Paul in a "who's a stronger constitutionalist" either. That would be like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

 

[FireMax]

Stage 2
Please re-read your constitution. Art 1 sec 8 clearly states that "congress shall have the power to declare war". It does not say how congress is to exercise this power. It does not say that the legislation has to be entitled "declaration of war".

So, when the USA declared war on Germany and Japan in 1941, then they were just showing off? You mean, it turns out that that the US government didn't need to do that?

Who knew!

 

[Revelation76]

More importantly however, I can't stand Paul's diatribe about how the war was unconstitutional. I'm sorry, but the constitution doesn't require wars to be moral, wise or just. It merely requires congress to sign off on it, and they did so here.

Congress decided to give one person the ability to start a war. That is outrageous! Now we have a war that is not moral, wise OR just. Paul did call for a Congressional vote to declare war, and it was voted down.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html

 

[copenhagen]

Actually, the biggest reason why I think Paul was a flunkie (other than his terrible debate performances) was his foreign policy. This idea that if we leave our enemies will just stop is ridiculous.

I think there was one debate which the media used particularly harshly against Dr. Paul. I remember with Rudy Giuliani attacked Dr. Paul for inferring that the United States actually caused the attacks of September 11. At the time, I thought that Dr. Paul might have had some credibility- if you ask the people over there why they don't like the U.S. many will say because of our support of Israel- I already knew this from time I spent in Afghanistan. But, I hadn't found a fact that backed up Dr. Paul's answer yet. Today I did by accident:

Michael Scheuer, first chief of the CIA's bin Laden unit is quoted as saying:

Bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with or freedom, liberty, and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world.

So, I put that in my pipe and smoked it, and by golly, Dr. Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy, though attractive to me before, seems to have even more credibility to me now.