Ron Paul Thread

[ishii]

I do not believe the world will end four years from now. This same line of reasoning was used four years ago for McCain, and we got Obama anyway. At my age, I try to think of more than just this day, this year, this election. Republicans will continue to pay lip service to the anti-abortion crowd while always seeking business as usual and abortion will continue until the nation falls.

This defeatist attitude utterly fails to understand the political reality of Roe V Wade and the process of nominating and approving supreme justices. The four good justices we have now - Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts goes back to Reagan, then Bush and finally Bush 2. To expect a party to somehow get in power and roll back supreme court decisions without a majority on the bench is the height of ignorance. To use the fact that regrettably legal abortion is still the law of the land - in order to advance your candidate Ron Paul - is disengenuous or ignorant. It does matter who gets elected president. We can have four more years of Obama - and justices like Sotomayer and Kagan - or we can get a Republican in there and likely get another Scalia. That is the reality.

Ishii

 

[pnewton]

This defeatist attitude utterly fails to understand the political reality of Roe V Wade and the process of nominating and approving supreme justices. The four good justices we have now - Scalia,

It is not defeatist, not in the least. I just refused to think beyond the present. That was the mantra four years ago. Now that was a defeat. There is nothing at all defeatest in seeking victory of substance over some token short-term symbol. I was here four years ago when the same arguements now being advanced got us Obama. Ignorant and disingenuous??? You call* me* ignorant. It seems most of the Ron Paul opposition boils down to name-calling. Sorry, but I am done with kindergarten politics. I prefer Catholic adults sharing opinions.

If Ron Paul is such a “crazy” idea, why is it so many threads about the other candidate devolve into Ron Paul threads? If there is substance to his short-comings (and I agree there is some), why do ad hominems abound around him? Maybe instead of bemoaning the Republican failure four years ago, we should learn from Obama, a now-chance, crazy candidate that now sits in the White House. A blase’ moderate may not be the best way to go. It might take some one who challenges the political oligarchy.

 

[ishii]

It is not defeatist, not in the least. I just refused to think beyond the present. That was the mantra four years ago. Now that was a defeat. There is nothing at all defeatest in seeking victory of substance over some token short-term symbol. I was here four years ago when the same arguements now being advanced got us Obama. Ignorant and disingenuous??? You call* me* ignorant. It seems most of the Ron Paul opposition boils down to name-calling. Sorry, but I am done with kindergarten politics. I prefer Catholic adults sharing opinions.

If Ron Paul is such a “crazy” idea, why is it so many threads about the other candidate devolve into Ron Paul threads? If there is substance to his short-comings (and I agree there is some), why do ad hominems abound around him? Maybe instead of bemoaning the Republican failure four years ago, we should learn from Obama, a now-chance, crazy candidate that now sits in the White House. A blase’ moderate may not be the best way to go. It might take some one who challenges the political oligarchy.

A short-term symbol? Is that what you call Scalia? Alito? Thomas? Roberts? Just “short-term symbols” ? If that is short term symbols then I will take that over the feel good, true-believer candidate Ron Paul with no viable chance to win. He lost Iowa and New Hampshire. He is running 4th in both S. Carolina and Florida. Talk about Kindergarten politics. I think kindergarteners have a better grasp on reality than the average Ron Paul supporter. The republicans failed in 2008 partly because it was a Democrat year - bad economy, wars, 8 years of GOP president. And, it is not an ad hominem to say that Ron Paul’s attacks on Santorum’s pro-life credentials are shameful.

Perhaps the focus on Ron Paul on these threads is a desire to avoid Ron Paul voters from helping Obama win a 2nd term.

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

If Ron Paul is such a “crazy” idea, why is it so many threads about the other candidate devolve into Ron Paul threads? If there is substance to his short-comings (and I agree there is some), why do ad hominems abound around him? Maybe instead of bemoaning the Republican failure four years ago, we should learn from Obama, a now-chance, crazy candidate that now sits in the White House. A blase’ moderate may not be the best way to go. It might take some one who challenges the political oligarchy.

Because there is a small group of paul supoprters who hijack every canidate thread. I ask again -what are the accomplishments of Ron paul during his political career?

 

[pnewton]

Because there is a small group of paul supoprters who hijack every canidate thread.

Really? It seems to be the opposite to me. In fact, that is also my experience, where those who like to throw insults at Ron Paul seem to go out of their way to do it.

I ask again -what are the accomplishments of Ron paul during his political career?

As far as electability, he has been in Congress longer than the guy that won last time. He is not known for what he has done, as a constitutionalist, he is known for the stand that less government is always preferable. Thus, his nickname, “Dr. No.” Hopefully, as president, he can be known more for what he did not do, e.g. bills with his name on it, new agencies, new programs, etc., instead of spending money like printing it made it valuable, as did Bush and Obama.

 

[estesbob]

Really? It seems to be the opposite to me. In fact, that is also my experience, where those who like to throw insults at Ron Paul seem to go out of their way to do it. As far as electability, he has been in Congress longer than the guy that won last time. He is not known for what he has done, as a constitutionalist, he is known for the stand that less government is always preferable. Thus, his nickname, “Dr. No.” Hopefully, as president, he can be known more for what he did not do, e.g. bills with his name on it, new agencies, new programs, etc., instead of spending money like printing it made it valuable, as did Bush and Obama.

But what has he accomplished?

 

[ishii]

. As far as electability, he has been in Congress longer than the guy that won last time.

How does victory in a conservative Texas congressional district translate into electability on the national level?

Ishii

 

[Seamus_L]

Ron Paul has the second most votes after Romney and it’s like so many news networks refuse to even say his name. When people tell me that we don’t have a totally controlled newsmedia, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. I’ll take the Russia Today Network over any major network in the USA, at least for American and Middle Eastern news.

 

[Roy5]

I am not a supporter of Ron Paul, but I agree with the charge that he is deliberately sidetracked by the media.

 Why? Two reasons. (1) They know he won't win the nomination because he is a man of convictions and principle, certainly not typical of politicians. (2) His foreign policy doesn't have the approval of those who consider it a major sin to be critical of Israel. Paul has had the courage to challenge our unfortunate, short-sighted, biased policy in the Middle East, which was the main initial cause of the hatred radical Islamist terrorists are out to get us.This policy has led to two wars with the danger of a third to come.

  We would do a major favor for both Israel and the Palestinians, as well as serve peace and justice, if we insisted upon a solution in that conflict that would be fair to both sides. Instead, Israel keeps grabbing more and more of what is left of Palestine while the paid-off politicians totallyside with Israel and vote her billions every year. In addition, we have provided Israel with the latest military equipment and acted as her puppet at the UN. Meanwhile, Israel has 100 or more nuclear weapons, won't allow inspectors in to see them, while making all sorts of threats against Iran.

   I have no affection for the extremist regime in Iran, but they aren't so stupid as to use a bomb on Israel unless attacked first. Iran would be pulverized very soon thereafter. Iran is interested in defending itself after seeing what happened to Saddam who had no WMDs and Ghadaffi who agreed not to develop them. Iran figures that if they have such a bomb maybe it will be left alone. They also recall how the US aided Iraq in its costly war against Iran 20+ years ago. 

   Matt. 5:9.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Because there is a small group of paul supoprters who hijack every canidate thread. I ask again -what are the accomplishments of Ron paul during his political career?

HE has changed the entire focus of conversation in the REpublican party to one of fiscal responsibility, size and scope of government, deficit spending, military adventurism, sound monetary policy. WHat has Romney done for the Republican Party?

 

[estesbob]

HE has changed the entire focus of conversation in the REpublican party to one of fiscal responsibility, size and scope of government, deficit spending, military adventurism, sound monetary policy. WHat has Romney done for the Republican Party?

Scott -really? i dont think he changed the debate much at all. At any rate the question is what he has accomplished in his political career? I cant discerb him accomplishing any thing at all-voting no several hundred times a year is not leadership-kinda like Obama constantly voting present. At any rate we have about another 6 weeks of having to listen to paul and then we are done with it until his some decides to run for presadient

 

[Yerusalyim]

HE has changed the entire focus of conversation in the REpublican party to one of fiscal responsibility, size and scope of government, deficit spending, military adventurism, sound monetary policy. WHat has Romney done for the Republican Party?

Fiscal responsibility, size and scope of government, deficit spending, military adventurism, and monetary policy have all been topics of conversation for Republicans for YEARS and is the life breath of the Tea Party movement which doesn’t necessarily support Paul.

What has Romney done? CREATED JOBS!

 

[rlg94086]

Fiscal responsibility, size and scope of government, deficit spending, military adventurism, and monetary policy have all been topics of conversation for Republicans for YEARS and is the life breath of the Tea Party movement which doesn’t necessarily support Paul.

What has Romney done? CREATED JOBS!

I think credit is due to Ron Paul for putting an emphasis on the proper role of the federal government. I’m no Ron Paul supporter, but he has done a good job of pushing the debates in that direction. What Republican would try to fight his movement on that aspect?

I hope he is able to deliver a speech at the convention and focuses on the federal/state role aspect. I think his foreign policy is nutty, so he would just marginalize himself by taking his military isolationist (note the “military” modifier, Paulbots. It is the same as “non-interventionalist”) stance. We are a super power, for better or worse. We have to do what is best for our country, and that requires involvement in foreign power struggles.

 

[exnihilo]

If that is short term symbols then I will take that over the feel good, true-believer candidate Ron Paul with no viable chance to win. He lost Iowa and New Hampshire. He is running 4th in both S. Carolina and Florida.

Ron Paul has a better chance of winning than any candidate other than Romney. Huntsman just dropped out of the race. Gingrich, Santorum and Perry poll below Paul in many states and aren’t even on the ballot in many. Paul has ceded Florida to Romney because it is a winner take all state. Paul actually knows how to run a campaign for US president. These other candidates, other than Romney with his personal millions, cant even run a campaign. What kind of president would they make?

Scott -really? i dont think he changed the debate much at all. At any rate the question is what he has accomplished in his political career? I cant discerb him accomplishing any thing at all-voting no several hundred times a year is not leadership-kinda like Obama constantly voting present.

Dr. Paul consistently got reelected by wide margins for many years. That is certainly an accomplishment. His constituents were obviously very happy with what he accomplished.

If you measure accomplishments by crafting bills that create a massive increase in government then no, Dr Paul has not accomplished much. One of the fundamental problems in our government is the need for politicians to accomplish something. Men like Bush II need a legacy. His legacy of massive government and wars is an accomplishment. But not the kind I value in any way. Just keeping things as they are is the better option over creating huge messes.

I think his foreign policy is nutty, so he would just marginalize himself by taking his military isolationist (note the “military” modifier, Paulbots. It is the same as “non-interventionalist”) stance. We are a super power, for better or worse. We have to do what is best for our country, and that requires involvement in foreign power struggles.

The US starts and inflames more wars than it stops. There is no clear principle in US foreign policy other than to support foreign powers that support the US. Therefore we can support the brutal monarchy of Saudi Arabia while instilling by war democracy in Iraq. We can threaten war on Iran for possibly making a nuclear weapon, which is their right, while giving money to Pakistan an unstable country with nukes which was ruled by a military dictator who we were in league with. Whatever we are we are an unprincipled merchant of death. If that is what is required of a super power (empire) then I’d like no part in it.

Fiscal responsibility, size and scope of government, deficit spending, military adventurism, and monetary policy have all been topics of conversation for Republicans for YEARS and is the life breath of the Tea Party movement which doesn’t necessarily support Paul.

I’m amazed that the Tea Party does not overwhelmingly support Paul. Dr Paul started the Tea Party movement. It was his ideas, his speeches, and his campaign that launched it. Of course it was quickly latched on to and perverted by the neocons.

 

[jam070406]

How does victory in a conservative Texas congressional district translate into electability on the national level?

Ishii

It shows he won’t turn around and betray the constitution or the American people by voting for such expansion of the Fed gov like The Patriot Act, NDAA, TSA, raising the depth ceiling, preemptive war, etc.

 

[jam070406]

Fiscal responsibility, size and scope of government, deficit spending, military adventurism, and monetary policy have all been topics of conversation for Republicans for YEARS and is the life breath of the Tea Party movement which doesn’t necessarily support Paul.

What has Romney done? CREATED JOBS!

It’s not the Fed’s job to create jobs.

 

[jam070406]

Scott -really? i dont think he changed the debate much at all. At any rate the question is what he has accomplished in his political career? I cant discerb him accomplishing any thing at all-voting no several hundred times a year is not leadership-kinda like Obama constantly voting present. At any rate we have about another 6 weeks of having to listen to paul and then we are done with it until his some decides to run for presadient

If people had listened to him then we woudn’t have the Iraq war, giant gapping black hole of debt, Patriot Act, NDAA, Obamacare…

 

[jam070406]

A short-term symbol? Is that what you call Scalia? Alito? Thomas? Roberts? Just “short-term symbols” ? If that is short term symbols then I will take that over the feel good, true-believer candidate Ron Paul with no viable chance to win. He lost Iowa and New Hampshire. He is running 4th in both S. Carolina and Florida. Talk about Kindergarten politics. I think kindergarteners have a better grasp on reality than the average Ron Paul supporter. The republicans failed in 2008 partly because it was a Democrat year - bad economy, wars, 8 years of GOP president. And, it is not an ad hominem to say that Ron Paul’s attacks on Santorum’s pro-life credentials are shameful.

Perhaps the focus on Ron Paul on these threads is a desire to avoid Ron Paul voters from helping Obama win a 2nd term.

Ishii

Santorum is so pro life he thinks it’s wonderful when scientists are killed.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Santorum is so pro life he thinks it’s wonderful when scientists are killed.

It only counts as pro-life when we’re talking about the unborn. Once you’re out of the womb, life doesn’t count any more, apparently.

 

[Roy5]

Ron Paul doesn’t have a prayer when it comes to being the GOP nominee. He is too extreme for me.

I do salute him, however, for offering an alternative to the 'bomb 'em' talk of so many other Republicans. Santorum, Perry and Gingrich all sound like they are ready to attack Iran the day after they are inaugurated. Haven''t we witnessed enough killing? There always seem to be some who want to rush into another war.

It has interested me as to why? Some seem to be paranaoid, always looking for an enemy and alarming us about that enemy. Some are poorly informed, brain-washed by neocons and warhawks who seem to want the US to rule and restructure the world. Some are under the influence of the Israel lobby and/or Biblical Zionists who are convinced that America's highest purpose is to be a puppet of Israel. Some appear to be loaded with the type pf testerone that makes them cocky and always eager for a fight.Then there are those who make money of wars, who care much less about soldiers and civilians dying and more about feathering their own nests.

 Matt. 5:9.