Ron Paul Mega-Thread (Mergeness)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, its just Ron Paul. Great on taxes, horribly naive on foreign policy. He makes a great Rep. for Texas, would make a HORRIBLE president. He makes John Edwards look like a tough defender of America.
 
Well, its just Ron Paul. Great on taxes, horribly naive on foreign policy. He makes a great Rep. for Texas, would make a HORRIBLE president. He makes John Edwards look like a tough defender of America.
Click to expand...

I resent your characterization of Ron Paul. The better term, perhaps would be horribly optimistic on foreign policy.

Do you honestly want another undeclared war ? I could see the next Republican perhaps intervening in Iran. And on the flip side, if we get a Democrat, you can bet your sweet ass they will intervene in Sudan - which will require toppling their government and more 'nation building'.

I want an exit from Iraq, but a good exit. Not a Saigon-style exit. But I also dont want to see us bogged down there for years and years.
 
There's no such thing as a perfect candidate, get over it. I personally would like to find something between isolationist and world policeman but at this point it's kind of either-or.

Choosing the lesser evil is exactly what politics is these days. God help us.
 
Ron Paul makes sense on a lot of ideas, but we also have to ask how much he could realistically get done with the current batch of Congresscritters. I think that once he had an idea of the awesomeness of the responsibilities that the position brought and the treaty obligations we have signed up to, he would honor those. I wouldn't expect any new treaties out of him, but I would expect to see some kind of Rennaissance in foreign policy.
 
I'm not sure there's much point arguing with Marshall. He has advanced several completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theories already; it seems pretty clear that he's going to believe what he believes, regardless of the facts. For example, he even cited a pause in one of RP's answers as proof that he believes 9/11 truthers' conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...


LOL, RP supports calling someone else a conspiracy theorist. That's pretty damn funny.


:rolleyes: Len, Len, Len, shame on you for still trying to advance that. Besides, I never offered it as proof, I offered it as a possibility and one that has merit from many more than just I, but that's obvious and apparent. And it wasn't just his pause, it was his whole reply. I made that very clear. Now wise up and quit slumming.

Can you point to any evidence that suggests this? Or are you just making broad assumptions based on your own opinion?
Click to expand...

Neither. Can you prove there are no RP supporters infiltrating websites, such as this one? I think it would be naive to think there isn't. After all, that's part of the whole grassroots org. operation. Get out there (internet included) and advance the cause. Anyhow, it's my opinion which I'm able to speak anytime I wish. Just like the following opinions from several..............

Opinion, not fact.
He supports statist neo-conservative candidates, which, while marginally better than supporting a statist Democrat, is not the solution to our nation's problems.
Click to expand...

Opinion, not fact.
Because Ron Paul stands against everything they believe in
Click to expand...

Opinion, not fact.
It's funny the anti Paul folks are always yelling about the wacko, tin foil hat wearing Ron Paul supporters and then they are the ones pushing the conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Definitely opinion, not fact.
I'm just lettin you know that if you think Thompson's novelty is enough to win him the general election, you've got another think comin'. He's really just a more-polished Dubya and in case you haven't noticed, the electorate doesn't think highly of neo-conservatism. Hillary will rip him to shreds.
Unless you've got a candidate who can pull support from the left, I think you've already seen the precursor of the whuppin' that will be bestowed.
Click to expand...

Opinion, not fact
If you don't like Bush, voting for Fred Thompson is not the answer.
Click to expand...

Opinion, not fact.
Ron Paul is the only one who can beat Hillary or Obama
Click to expand...

I could go on and on and on. But anyway, if you'll deny that RP supporters flooding the text call in polls didn't exist, and RP supporters aren't all over the internet doing their thing, well, then, call me a conspiracy theorist in that regard if it will make your feel better. Why you would deny it, I have no idea? I mean, that is a strong point of his campaign. And he is very well known for having a "following".


Besides, if rabid Ron Paul supporters have infiltrated this forum, how come Fred Thompson is winning this THR poll?
Click to expand...

Obviously it doesn't mean everyone here came for that purpose. :rolleyes: But thanks for showing again that the majority of us gun owners that voted in that poll see Fred as the best candidate. And I'm sure best is described in many different ways.
 
we also have to ask how much he could realistically get done with the current batch of Congresscritters
Click to expand...

The Executive Branch has become enormous. The veto pen, though Bush has hardly ever used it, is powerful. And there's no Tip O'Neill to be his enemy, either.

He could get a LOT done.

I still don't think he has a chance of getting into office. And I agree that he's too optimistic on foreign policy for my taste. On the other hand, he's a conservative. This is a different mindset from the appeasement crowd on the D side. He doesn't appear to me to be someone who believes that sucking up to European Union socialist elites will improve our national security, either.

At the very least, we should be charging South Korea for their protection. Offer to train their troops as we downsize and leave. And Iraq? Hell, they've got a lot of something we want, and they're costing us far too much. Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, and I still do think it was in our interest. But settling this crap between the feuding savages there? It IS getting old. We can at least bill them. That might light a fire under their collective asses.

Ron Paul's worth a donation, which is more than I can say for the rest at the moment.
 
There is opinion and fact. One of the things I do is to counter disinformation. There are opinions that may not change, though I will still present reason to do so.
There has been an effort to keep his message from being heard, to keep him out of debates, so silence him. The grassroots supporters will not allow this.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41541
Has Saul Anuzis had enough? The Michigan GOP big had wanted to ban presidential candidate Ron Paul from further debates. But an Internet wildfire may have derailed his efforts.
Click to expand...
http://www.goupstate.com/article/20070706/NEWS/707060311/-1/BUSINESS
Two days after saying Ron Paul could stay out of Spartanburg, county GOP Chairman Rick Beltram on Thursday reversed course and invited the Republican presidential candidate to come on down.
Click to expand...
The folks that call, E-mail and write letters are letting the PTB know that his message cannot be silenced.
It would be nice to get fair coverage, but if not, the voice of the crowd will be heard.
 
Len, Len, Len, shame on you for still trying to advance that. Besides, I never offered it as proof, I offered it as a possibility and one that has merit from many more than just I...
Click to expand...
Yup. It's a "possibility" that Ron's pause for breath was a secret signal to his fellow 9/11-truthers. And it's a "possibility" that all of RP's supporters out there are really the same dozen guys doing some viral marketing out of RP's basement. And it's "possible" that they're invading THR in numbers because they're forward-thinking enough to realize that that's the surest way to clinch '08 for RP. And so on, and so on. :rolleyes:

--Len.
 
I haven't made my mind up 100%, yet.

As of right now, more than likely Fred. If Newt enters, I would listen to him to see what he has to say but I have concerns whether the country would embrace Newt. Smart man, maybe too smart.

I am impressed by Paul on two fronts, his stance/adherence to the Constitution and his courage/sincerity. His foreign policy, or lack thereof however, is concerning to me. I think Hillary would tear Paul a new azzhole though and make him look like a fool/nut case whether he is or not. I think the media would too, thus I think he stands no chance even he were to survive a primary. My opinion.

I can rule out Giuliani, Romney, McCain and the others with the exception of one lone, long shot possibility. Huckabee.

As far as on stage debates.....I see Fred, Newt and Giuliani as those that could take Hillary and win a deabte. Giuliani is a NO GO so that leaves me with the following two. So far, it's Fred.
 
Marshall do you consider Fred Thompson to be a conservative? From his record on some things, I have doubts. Specifically he voted for Campaign Finance Reform, Medicare Reform, and the Patriot Act.

These three bills are why I can't get enthused about a Thompson presidency. His record on these three issues show he is willing to limit civil rights, expand social welfare programs, and increase the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy.

These are not traditional conservative ideas.
 
His record on these three issues show he is willing to limit civil rights, expand social welfare programs, and increase the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

If it's between him and the Hildebeast, he's a radical libertarian.

It's all about who is actually running when I go to the polls next November.

And for those who say, "Fine, let Hillary get elected. It has to get worse before people are willing to make it better by electing someone REALLY good," I say "horse****!". After Bill, whom did we get? Bush! (Or it could have swung to Gore, just as easily. Either way, the premise is false.)

It's definitely getting interesting, though.
 
Well, as for the Patriot Act, if memory serves me correctly back in 2001, there was only one Senator that didn't vote for it. So if that's a criteria, that eliminates all but one Senator and I doubt you want her as President. As for the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, there were only about 10 Senators that voted against that and I doubt you would accept any of them as your President either. Thompson was making movies at that time. Also, so close after 9-11, the mindset was very different at that time.

As for Campaign Finance Reform, I'll give you that one. Although, I've heard his reasoning and believe he thought he was acting in a conservative manner by limiting soft money which was indeed a problem.

Medicare reform for the elderly? Personally, I'm not so sure that qualifies as a negative. I think there's a ton of social programs we could cut and save Billions of dollars but still assist the elderly in their medication, etc.

Overall, do I think he's a conservative? As realistic as we're going to get? Yes. Newt might be more so?

I have yet to see a perfect candidate, I doubt I ever will.
 
Well, as for the Patriot Act, if memory serves me correctly back in 2001, there was only one Senator that didn't vote for it. So if that's a criteria, that eliminates all but one Senator and I doubt you want her as President.
Click to expand...

That still doesn't excuse the fact that Thompson voted for it. Just because everyone was voting for it, doesn't make it justified.
 
That still doesn't excuse the fact that Thompson voted for it. Just because everyone was voting for it, doesn't make it justified.
Click to expand...

Let me see here.........every single US Senator on both sides of the isle voted for the Patriot Act in 2001 directly after 9-11, with the exception of one. Call me an optimist but I wager to say they all thought they were doing what needs to be done for the protection of this country at the time. Heck, probably 3/4ths of this forum was not against it at that time. I hardly hold that against a candidate. Matter of fact, given the time in history, I would scrutinize very closely the one that didn't vote for it. :scrutiny:
 
I agree with that sentiment. Most people learned in Kindergarten that just because someone else is doing something doesnt mean you should.
Click to expand...

If that's all you got out what I typed, you should be embarrassed. But it wasn't all you got, you just figured that's your best argument. Lame :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Ron Paul v.s. Fred Thompson
Replies
12
Views
750
Biker
Biker
S
  • Locked
Key GOP Group Endorses Ron Paul
Replies
17
Views
709
obxned
O
O
  • Locked
Question about Ron Paul.
Replies
10
Views
535
ArfinGreebly
ArfinGreebly
A
  • Locked
who suffers the view that Ron Paul has more than a 1% chance?
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
A
  • Locked
A Reason to vote for Ron Paul...
Replies
8
Views
378
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top