PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Buzz around the Ron Paul network is that he is planning a 2012 run...


Pages : [1] 2

Taco John
08-16-2010, 01:53 PM
...

Chocolate Hog
08-16-2010, 01:55 PM
Yea that Matt Collins moron said it. I bet it's false the guy is too old.

orange
08-16-2010, 02:00 PM
Is this a surprise? I thought it was a given.

healthpellets
08-16-2010, 02:11 PM
it'd be great if true.

but he should be looking at retirement, and one last presidential run would be a great way to cap off his career.

but we'll see...

patteeu
08-16-2010, 02:44 PM
Buzz around the local Ron Paul headquarters in my area is that he won't, but there seems to be a lot of enthusiasm there anyway.

http://www.pastreunited.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/telephone-booth-stuffing.jpg

oldandslow
08-16-2010, 03:28 PM
I sure hope he runs...PLEASE!!!

BucEyedPea
08-16-2010, 03:43 PM
Buzz around the local Ron Paul headquarters in my area is that he won't, but there seems to be a lot of enthusiasm there anyway.

http://www.pastreunited.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/telephone-booth-stuffing.jpg

Sure coulda fooled me. That looks like the Demopublican party.

Bowser
08-16-2010, 03:45 PM
Would he really want the presidency, considering how fucked up things are at present date? The good news is he would destroy Palin and most likely handily beat Romney for the Republican nod if it got to that.

talastan
08-16-2010, 04:05 PM
Again, while I agree with Mr. Paul on a majority of issues, I don't think he is the guy to run in 2012. That would put him at 77 years old IIRC. I'd prefer for him to mentor the next canidate and show true conservative/libertarian principles to a younger generation of politicians. JMO though....

healthpellets
08-16-2010, 04:11 PM
Again, while I agree with Mr. Paul on a majority of issues, I don't think he is the guy to run in 2012. That would put him at 77 years old IIRC. I'd prefer for him to mentor the next canidate and show true conservative/libertarian principles to a younger generation of politicians. JMO though....

huh? while i hope RP lives forever, dying in office wouldn't be the worst thing. Judge Nap would make a great president.

|Zach|
08-16-2010, 04:15 PM
I am surprised that they haven't really tried to get someone to carry the banner of the work he did in the last election.

healthpellets
08-16-2010, 04:17 PM
I am surprised that they haven't really tried to get someone to carry the banner of the work he did in the last election.

gary johnson is pretty much the only other option. and he's not nearly as polished as RP.

|Zach|
08-16-2010, 04:20 PM
gary johnson is pretty much the only other option. and he's not nearly as polished as RP.

Not familiar with him, I will have to look into it.

orange
08-16-2010, 04:21 PM
Sure coulda fooled me. That looks like the Demopublican party.

The Demopublicans would have needed at least three phone booths.

I think that's patteeu's point.

If not, it's mine... and a damned fine point it is, too.

Chocolate Hog
08-16-2010, 04:35 PM
Gary Johnson would be a great candidate.

Taco John
08-16-2010, 04:43 PM
I am surprised that they haven't really tried to get someone to carry the banner of the work he did in the last election.

I would be suprised if they did do that. Might as well be throwing in the towel if they're going to take that kind of step backwards. I wouldn't be sending in any money for a new face. I've already got a significant amount invested in Paul. I'm prepared to invest more into another presidential run for Paul. But add in someone else who I don't know/trust, and I'll let someone else fund the guy this time around.

|Zach|
08-16-2010, 05:23 PM
I would be suprised if they did do that. Might as well be throwing in the towel if they're going to take that kind of step backwards. I wouldn't be sending in any money for a new face. I've already got a significant amount invested in Paul. I'm prepared to invest more into another presidential run for Paul. But add in someone else who I don't know/trust, and I'll let someone else fund the guy this time around.

The movement is bigger than Paul.

Oucho Cinco
08-16-2010, 05:29 PM
It will just be another large expenditure of money for a loss. Until the two party is torn down there won't be a chance for any third party candidate to be successful, all they accomplish is to split the vote and that is not always a good thing.

healthpellets
08-16-2010, 05:56 PM
It will just be another large expenditure of money for a loss. Until the two party is torn down there won't be a chance for any third party candidate to be successful, all they accomplish is to split the vote and that is not always a good thing.

RP and Gary Johnson are both under the republican tent. so if either wins the nomination, there won't be any vote splitting.

Taco John
08-16-2010, 06:00 PM
The movement is bigger than Paul.


Of course it is. Paul is just a focal point.

chiefsnorth
08-16-2010, 06:02 PM
A new face is really needed. Paul had everything he could have wanted, money, zealots, just about all you could ask for, and he only turned it into single digit finishes. I respect him and wish he would have won, but it's time to accept reality. The point was made last time, rather than watch the same movie again, why not take a step forward?

orange
08-16-2010, 06:05 PM
A new face is really needed. Paul had everything he could have wanted, money, zealots just about all you could ask for, and he only turned it into single digit finishes.

Except... he didn't have an agenda that more than 3% - counting just Republicans - would vote for.

That's kind of an important thing to have.

healthpellets
08-16-2010, 06:08 PM
Except... he didn't have an agenda that more than 3% - counting just Republicans - would vote for.

That's kind of an important thing to have.

seems that liberty is a pretty hard platform to run on these days.

Taco John
08-16-2010, 06:14 PM
Anyone who thinks that Ron Paul had everything that you could ask for in the last election didn't follow the campaign very closely at all.

And it doesn't matter anyway. Wishing Ron Paul would go away isn't going to work this time either.

Pitt Gorilla
08-16-2010, 06:35 PM
Awesome.

Pitt Gorilla
08-16-2010, 06:36 PM
It will just be another large expenditure of money for a loss. Until the two party is torn down there won't be a chance for any third party candidate to be successful, all they accomplish is to split the vote and that is not always a good thing.Why wouldn't he run as a Republican?

JohnnyV13
08-16-2010, 06:41 PM
Well, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity according to Albert Einstein.

Hmmmm.....that's why I expect Ron Paul to run again.

Oucho Cinco
08-16-2010, 07:01 PM
Why wouldn't he run as a Republican?

I doubt that he would and I doubt they would have him.

healthpellets
08-16-2010, 07:08 PM
I doubt that he would and I doubt they would have him.

are you talking about Ron Paul? the REPUBLICAN from Texas?

the same Ron Paul that participated in the GOP debates in 2008?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oUZwL9GPcNw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oUZwL9GPcNw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Taco John
08-16-2010, 07:12 PM
This movement expereinced setbacks in the past.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VeVi2KF7hA4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VeVi2KF7hA4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

pr_capone
08-16-2010, 07:29 PM
I don't trust any man with two first names.

Oucho Cinco
08-16-2010, 07:53 PM
are you talking about Ron Paul? the REPUBLICAN from Texas?

the same Ron Paul that participated in the GOP debates in 2008?

<object height="385" width="480">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oUZwL9GPcNw?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>

Where did he get in 2008? to a third party you say? How about fucking that?

healthpellets
08-16-2010, 07:59 PM
Where did he get in 2008? to a third party you say? How about ****ing that?

where did he get in 2008? huh?

Taco John
08-16-2010, 08:02 PM
Where did he get in 2008? to a third party you say? How about ****ing that?

Third party? Huh?

Ron Paul backed out, and so did his supporters. And all the talk that the Republicans could win without their support died along with the McCain campaign.

Oucho Cinco
08-16-2010, 08:33 PM
Third party? Huh?

Ron Paul backed out, and so did his supporters. And all the talk that the Republicans could win without their support died along with the McCain campaign.You are failing to mention there was no chance for him to be nominated in the republican national convention.

healthpellets
08-16-2010, 08:35 PM
You are failing to mention there was no chance for him to be nominated in the republican national convention.

you really are a fucktard. you have no clue about what you're talking about, do you? had he received a majority of the delegates, he would have been nominated like anyone else at the convention.

seriously. where's the substantiation of your claim that he defected to a third party?

Oucho Cinco
08-16-2010, 08:47 PM
you really are a ****tard. you have no clue about what you're talking about, do you? had he received a majority of the delegates, he would have been nominated like anyone else at the convention.

seriously. where's the substantiation of your claim that he defected to a third party?

Just going on the continual blathering of Taco John.

patteeu
08-16-2010, 10:12 PM
Would he really want the presidency, considering how ****ed up things are at present date? The good news is he would destroy Palin and most likely handily beat Romney for the Republican nod if it got to that.

:spock: Did you pay attention last time around?

Bowser
08-17-2010, 12:19 AM
:spock: Did you pay attention last time around?

Because history always repeats itself, and such?

patteeu
08-17-2010, 12:27 AM
Because history always repeats itself, and such?

That's not much of an answer. If you paid attention to the last Presidential election, you'd know that there's not a surplus's chance in Washington DC that a fringe candidate like Ron Paul can handily beat Mitt Romney. I don't think Mitt Romney is going to win the election, but Ron Paul is no threat to him as anything but a possible spoiler (if Romney's competition is perceived to be from his left like it was with McCain). On the other hand, Ron Paul may actually help Romney if Romney's main competition is from his right.

Do you want to bet some casino cash on this if they both get into the race? Define "handily beat[s]", name your price and you're on.

Pitt Gorilla
08-17-2010, 12:44 AM
Hasn't the party begun to focus more clearly on the primary elements of Paul's platform?

Bowser
08-17-2010, 12:46 AM
That's not much of an answer. If you paid attention to the last Presidential election, you'd know that there's not a surplus's chance in Washington DC that a fringe candidate like Ron Paul can handily beat Mitt Romney. I don't think Mitt Romney is going to win the election, but Ron Paul is no threat to him as anything but a possible spoiler (if Romney's competition is perceived to be from his left like it was with McCain). On the other hand, Ron Paul may actually help Romney if Romney's main competition is from his right.

Do you want to bet some casino cash on this if they both get into the race? Define "handily beat[s]", name your price and you're on.

My post was my own hypothetical. I think Romney is a religious nutbag, and would be almost as bad a president as Palin would be. It's all just opinion, my man. No need to get all defensive about it.

Taco John
08-17-2010, 02:38 AM
I don't think Mitt Romney is going to win the election, but Ron Paul is no threat to him as anything but a possible spoiler...


ROFL

No threat... Oh, except as a complete threat to his campaign. But other than that...

Taco John
08-17-2010, 02:50 AM
Romney has no shot to get elected. He's got virtually no support from the Tea Party, and he knows it. His entire record runs contrary to the tide.

Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee is going to divide the conservative vote. You might as well send out invitations to the Tea Party to split off and form their own political party. If the Republicans want to keep a conservative voting block together, they're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than Mitt Romney.

If Mitt gets the nomination, I'm certain Ron Paul will run as a third party challenger if for no other reason than to bring to the forefront the issues of his constituents. The campaign has already got a lot of the groundwork in place to make a third party run happen. Ron Paul's political infrastructure is more well developed than any current Republican candidate.

Taco John
08-17-2010, 02:57 AM
In fairness, I don't think that any Republican has a shot to get elected in 2012. Ron Paul is the only one that I could see that could pull a conservative coalition together and hold it together (to give an example of this, patteeu would vote for Ron Paul if he were the Republican nominee, but I wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney to pour a glass of ice water down my throat if I were in hell). And that's a long shot. I can't imagine any other Republican nominee on the forefront at this time that could do it. The party is too fractured right now - and still lacks any sort of coherent economic message.

Oucho Cinco
08-17-2010, 03:38 AM
In fairness, I don't think that any Republican has a shot to get elected in 2012. Ron Paul is the only one that I could see that could pull a conservative coalition together and hold it together (to give an example of this, patteeu would vote for Ron Paul if he were the Republican nominee, but I wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney to pour a glass of ice water down my throat if I were in hell). And that's a long shot. I can't imagine any other Republican nominee on the forefront at this time that could do it. The party is too fractured right now - and still lacks any sort of coherent economic message.

You can't really say that no republican has a shot to get elected in 2012. I think Ron Paul has less of a chance than you, obviously. I won't dis him completely, but there are many other things that will happen between now and the election of 2012 that will determine the outcome of that election. Obama is done as far as I can see, he will either choose not be a candidate of the democrat party or will have a successful challenger to the office from within that party.

The actions of Obama will shape the next presidential election. He is creating problems that will influence the people against him. Bush popularized many in the country based on the added measures of security he felt the country needed that many feel were not needed and were too invasive. What Obama is doing is fare more invasive to the constitution and the things he is doing will surely prime the country for another president in 2012, whether it be a republican candidate or a democrat candidate.

patteeu
08-17-2010, 06:25 AM
Romney has no shot to get elected. He's got virtually no support from the Tea Party, and he knows it. His entire record runs contrary to the tide.

Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee is going to divide the conservative vote. You might as well send out invitations to the Tea Party to split off and form their own political party. If the Republicans want to keep a conservative voting block together, they're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than Mitt Romney.

If Mitt gets the nomination, I'm certain Ron Paul will run as a third party challenger if for no other reason than to bring to the forefront the issues of his constituents. The campaign has already got a lot of the groundwork in place to make a third party run happen. Ron Paul's political infrastructure is more well developed than any current Republican candidate.

You made a lot of grand Ron Paul predictions last time around that didn't come true too. I've already explained Ron Paul's potential role in the 2012 primary. In terms of results, at most he's a spoiler and at least he's irrelevant. He may have some impact on the other candidate's positions, but that's the most he can hope for. If he goes the third party route, he'll be forever tarnished with the potential millstone of the second Obama term and I don't think he wants that as much as you seem to.

HonestChieffan
08-17-2010, 06:34 AM
was this ever in question?

ChiTown
08-17-2010, 06:35 AM
I enjoy listening to Ron Paul, but seriously, it's over for him and it has been for like, ever.

chiefsnorth
08-17-2010, 06:36 AM
We don't really even know who the field is. I think that Pawlenty would be a fine candidate, however.

Paul has no ceiling in this race other than what happened last time, which was that he appeared on a debate and turned a lot of people off. He would do better with his limited government positions. Last time all I remember from the debate was him telling America re:9/11 that we shouldn't have worn that dress.

He is a good man and we'd do well to have many more of him in D.C., but I fail to see the efficacy in a second Paul campaign

dirk digler
08-17-2010, 06:58 AM
You made a lot of grand Ron Paul predictions last time around that didn't come true too. I've already explained Ron Paul's potential role in the 2012 primary. In terms of results, at most he's a spoiler and at least he's irrelevant. He may have some impact on the other candidate's positions, but that's the most he can hope for. If he goes the third party route, he'll be forever tarnished with the potential millstone of the second Obama term and I don't think he wants that as much as you seem to.

Hard to argue with this. RP has about as good of chance becoming POTUS as I do with patteeu as my VP.

patteeu
08-17-2010, 06:59 AM
We don't really even know who the field is. I think that Pawlenty would be a fine candidate, however.

Paul has no ceiling in this race other than what happened last time, which was that he appeared on a debate and turned a lot of people off. He would do better with his limited government positions. Last time all I remember from the debate was him telling America re:9/11 that we shouldn't have worn that dress.

He is a good man and we'd do well to have many more of him in D.C., but I fail to see the efficacy in a second Paul campaign

Sensible.

patteeu
08-17-2010, 07:04 AM
Hard to argue with this. RP has about as good of chance becoming POTUS as I do with patteeu as my VP.

Just like GWBush, you've hit a home run with your choice of running mate.

dirk digler
08-17-2010, 07:14 AM
Just like GWBush, you've hit a home run with your choice of running mate.

I will mostly let you run the show I just want to take cool vacations and hang out.

patteeu
08-17-2010, 07:21 AM
I will mostly let you run the show I just want to take cool vacations and hang out.

Sounds good. I'll need a significant budget to outfit my undisclosed location though. :)

BucEyedPea
08-17-2010, 10:09 AM
We don't really even know who the field is. I think that Pawlenty would be a fine candidate, however.

Another RINO from one of the nation's most left-progressive states where a vehicle mileage tax is being piloted under him. Shows how Republicans are truly hopeless.. This thread shows they're not the solution or the alternative. I'd rather a second Obama term with an R Congress held in gridlock. I certainly do not want another one party rule again—not with the current state of the two parties. Not when I see Rs thinking Pawlenty is a fine candidate. Just a choice of Left and Left. LMAO


Meet Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty – the latest RINO (http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2009/03/19/meet-minnesota-gov-tim-pawlenty-the-latest-rino/)

BucEyedPea
08-17-2010, 10:17 AM
Paul has no ceiling in this race other than what happened last time, which was that he appeared on a debate and turned a lot of people off. He would do better with his limited government positions. Last time all I remember from the debate was him telling America re:9/11 that we shouldn't have worn that dress.

You mean he turned off a particular segment inside the Republican party.
I seemed to recall boos and cheers from different camps in those debates. We know who that crowd is delivering the "boos." Not exactly what people are looking for outside the party. The non-war-mongering crowd is just a smaller group inside the R party—but larger outside of it. In fact polls show more Americans are sick of the war rhetoric of the Establishment. If you guys want change, that side may give you want you want in FP but they won't give you what you want domestically. They contradict each other.

dirk digler
08-17-2010, 10:20 AM
Sounds good. I'll need a significant budget to outfit my undisclosed location though. :)

No problem it is not my money :D

BucEyedPea
08-17-2010, 10:20 AM
I enjoy listening to Ron Paul, but seriously, it's over for him and it has been for like, ever.

That's mainly what Republicans think and certain Democrats ( interventionist ones) ....but it's really more that they don't want him. If everyone would just get over this "unelectibility" argument, he could be elected. I think the same people would say the same even if Paul was twenty years younger.

dirk digler
08-17-2010, 10:22 AM
That's mainly what Republicans think....but it's really more that they don't want him. If everyone would just get over this "unelectibility" argument, he could be elected. I think the same people would say the same even if Paul was twenty years younger.

The reality is he is unelectable.

BucEyedPea
08-17-2010, 10:23 AM
The reality is he is unelectable.

Except people are probably the most disgusted ever with both parties and the inside-the-Beltway crowd. A Perfect Storm. Never say never.

dirk digler
08-17-2010, 10:24 AM
Except people are probably the most disgusted ever with both parties and the inside-the-Beltway crowd. A Perfect Storm. Never say never.

Never

BucEyedPea
08-17-2010, 10:30 AM
clever
FYP

Not only are more people disgusted with both parties....but Paul has had far more air time than ever. More know who he is—and like what he has to say. Plus polls show more Indies for him than against. That's progress. Just need to fight to overtake the Establishment RINOs, to get the nomination....the way the RR camp did. People said "never" about him too. But they owund up just being more "clever!" Just like YOU!

dirk digler
08-17-2010, 10:38 AM
FYP

Not only are more people disgusted with both parties....but Paul has had far more air time than ever. More know who he is—and like what he has to say. Plus polls show more Indies for him than against. That's progress. Just need to fight to overtake the Establishment RINOs, to get the nomination....the way the RR camp did. People said "never" about him too. But they owund up just being more "clever!" Just like YOU!

Never.

EVER

Never

BucEyedPea
08-17-2010, 10:52 AM
Clever.

CLEVER

Clever


I agree! :D

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-17-2010, 10:57 AM
The fact that some of you are honestly discussing Ron Paul's chances, as though there are any, just illustrates how completely out of touch you are with reality.

Despite what you may want to happen, neither this sub-forum, nor LewRockwell, is even close to representative of the electorate as a whole, and that you can't realize it, although humorous, is nonetheless pathetic.

BucEyedPea
08-17-2010, 11:01 AM
Things are changin' because more people think DC is out of touch with the reality of the people. Ayup!

healthpellets
08-17-2010, 11:17 AM
of course the success of RP, or any other "lesser known" candidate, depends on the volunteer base. it's important to get door knockers on the ground in Iowa on November 3d and organizers up there even sooner.

many lessons were learned in 2008 by the RP campaign and i think they'll grow and learn from those experiences. maybe they make strides, or maybe not.

but we'll see.

Bowser
08-17-2010, 11:17 AM
The fact that some of you are honestly discussing Ron Paul's chances, as though there are any, just illustrates how completely out of touch you are with reality.

Despite what you may want to happen, neither this sub-forum, nor LewRockwell, is even close to representative of the electorate as a whole, and that you can't realize it, although humorous, is nonetheless pathetic.

It's true. Hoping for a significant paradigm change within Washington politics is like some fat kid telling himself he won't eat any of the 35 Twinkies sitting in front of him, but knowing all the while he will destroy the majority of them..

Bowser
08-17-2010, 11:21 AM
Things are changin' because more people think DC is out of touch with the reality of the people. Ayup!Agree with this as well, but I don't see ANY nominee who is not a straight republican or democrat sitting in the big chair in the White House for a very, very long time. Two reasons - 1) Americans are slow to accept change with most things, but especially their politics/religion, and 2) Money, sister. Both the left and right can dredge up enough money to bury any upstart rival candidate they want to (and maybe therein lies a true problem for politics, but that is another discussion).

chiefsnorth
08-17-2010, 11:24 AM
The fact that some of you are honestly discussing Ron Paul's chances, as though there are any, just illustrates how completely out of touch you are with reality.

Despite what you may want to happen, neither this sub-forum, nor LewRockwell, is even close to representative of the electorate as a whole, and that you can't realize it, although humorous, is nonetheless pathetic.

There were probably a lot of Kuchinich followers who honestly felt in their heart that he would win.

A million biases are at work; confirmation bias, availability cascade in the media followers choose, group serving bias...

The chances are less than last time, when the Republicans could have chosen "different kind of republican" rather than "more of the same wouldn't be so bad" to run against "good looking and good speech reader". But the party chose more of the same.

Now is the time a candidate wins on electability and "keep the wolf from the door".

But I have no doubt that fools and their money are still parted at the same rate as they were in 2007

BucEyedPea
08-17-2010, 11:27 AM
Agree with this as well, but I don't see ANY nominee who is not a straight republican or democrat sitting in the big chair in the White House for a very, very long time. Two reasons - 1) Americans are slow to accept change with most things, but especially their politics/religion, and 2) Money, sister. Both the left and right can dredge up enough money to bury any upstart rival candidate they want to (and maybe therein lies a true problem for politics, but that is another discussion).

Then I see America breaking up if that's the case.

Bowser
08-17-2010, 11:46 AM
Then I see America breaking up if that's the case.What, like into a bunch of sovereign states, or like leaving a psycho ex? If the former, you do understand that there is no state in the union, including Texas, that could pull that off, right?

dirk digler
08-17-2010, 11:51 AM
Things are changin' because more people think DC is out of touch with the reality of the people. Ayup!

Not this out of touch with reality

"There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today. I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines.” (http://ianschwartz.com/2007/10/12/video-ron-paul-says-we-just-need-a-few-good-submarines-to-defend-us/)

HonestChieffan
08-17-2010, 11:53 AM
For once Dirk is spot on. Mark this down Dirk, we agree on something.

Chocolate Hog
08-17-2010, 11:54 AM
The fact that some of you are honestly discussing Ron Paul's chances, as though there are any, just illustrates how completely out of touch you are with reality.

Despite what you may want to happen, neither this sub-forum, nor LewRockwell, is even close to representative of the electorate as a whole, and that you can't realize it, although humorous, is nonetheless pathetic.

Come on

You can call us Ron Paul supporters out of touch all you want (I don't think he has a chance at winning) but the Republican electorate is the one who's way out of touch. Anytime Sarah Palin has a chance you got to ask what's wrong?


You might not agree with Ron Paul but he accurately called this fincial crisis, the failed wars, and now even the Kansas City Fed president agrees with him on the feds intrest rates. He has way more of an understanding than anyone else on the Republican side.

dirk digler
08-17-2010, 12:04 PM
For once Dirk is spot on. Mark this down Dirk, we agree on something.

I don't know if that is a good thing or bad thing... for me anyway :)

Taco John
08-17-2010, 12:16 PM
The fact that some of you are honestly discussing Ron Paul's chances, as though there are any, just illustrates how completely out of touch you are with reality.

Despite what you may want to happen, neither this sub-forum, nor LewRockwell, is even close to representative of the electorate as a whole, and that you can't realize it, although humorous, is nonetheless pathetic.

Who cares what the fuck a communist has to say about how in touch other people are with reality?

BucEyedPea
08-17-2010, 12:16 PM
Come on

You can call us Ron Paul supporters out of touch all you want (I don't think he has a chance at winning) but the Republican electorate is the one who's way out of touch. Anytime Sarah Palin has a chance you got to ask what's wrong?


You might not agree with Ron Paul but he accurately called this fincial crisis, the failed wars, and now even the Kansas City Fed president agrees with him on the feds intrest rates. He has way more of an understanding than anyone else on the Republican side.

:thumb: Yeah! He's so out of touch! LMAO

BucEyedPea
08-17-2010, 12:22 PM
What, like into a bunch of sovereign states, or like leaving a psycho ex? If the former, you do understand that there is no state in the union, including Texas, that could pull that off, right?

They could all pull it off even if they just use nullification. Besides they can still trade with each other anyway as we do with other nations.

There was some talk, I heard about but have yet to see in writing, that some states thought of witholding taxes back from the Fed, if they act unConstitutionally. Say highway funds were denied for non-compliance to the Feds for the new healthcare bill. They'd withold these funds to supply what they needed financed instead. If the Feds acted Constitutionally they'd release those funds to the Feds. Sounds like a great idea!

But we are living through history and nothing stays the same forever. I see some unrest like this happening. I can even see the possibility of a break up. Ayup!

BucEyedPea
08-17-2010, 12:23 PM
For once Dirk is spot on. Mark this down Dirk, we agree on something.

whatever

Slainte
08-17-2010, 01:34 PM
http://www.arteriaplastica.com/download/wall/full/manofull.jpg

HonestChieffan
08-17-2010, 01:39 PM
I don't know if that is a good thing or bad thing... for me anyway :)

I didn't say I was comfortable with the fact.

Pitt Gorilla
08-17-2010, 01:43 PM
Hasn't the party begun to focus more clearly on the primary elements of Paul's platform?I wanted to ask this again, as nobody addressed it; isn't Paul the guy that Palin et al. really want to be?

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-17-2010, 02:57 PM
Who cares what the fuck a communist has to say about how in touch other people are with reality?

A hit dog barks.

Taco John
08-17-2010, 02:57 PM
A hit dog barks.


ROFL

You are one to talk, Fido.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-17-2010, 03:00 PM
Come on

You can call us Ron Paul supporters out of touch all you want (I don't think he has a chance at winning) but the Republican electorate is the one who's way out of touch. Anytime Sarah Palin has a chance you got to ask what's wrong?


You might not agree with Ron Paul but he accurately called this fincial crisis, the failed wars, and now even the Kansas City Fed president agrees with him on the feds intrest rates. He has way more of an understanding than anyone else on the Republican side.

You are making some serious conflations.

It's not that he's stupid, it's that he has no support outside of very limited circles.

Do you see people trumpeting Ralph Nader's chances in 2012? No. Does that mean he does have support from a segment of the population? Of course not. At the same time, people aren't delusional enough to think that Nader has a chance in 2012 or did in 2000 or 2004, or whenever.

Ron Paul is supported by a vocal minority of delusional internet fanbois.

Think about where you are right now, and how that might affect your perception vs. the reality of the matter.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-17-2010, 03:02 PM
ROFL

You are one to talk, Fido.

You aren't nearly as articulate when you can't Ctrl+V your arguments.

healthpellets
08-17-2010, 03:05 PM
You are making some serious conflations.

It's not that he's stupid, it's that he has no support outside of very limited circles.

Do you see people trumpeting Ralph Nader's chances in 2012? No. Does that mean he does have support from a segment of the population? Of course not. At the same time, people aren't delusional enough to think that Nader has a chance in 2012 or did in 2000 or 2004, or whenever.

Ron Paul is supported by a vocal minority of delusional internet fanbois.

Think about where you are right now, and how that might affect your perception vs. the reality of the matter.

Nader would have a much better shot if he ran under the DEM banner however.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-17-2010, 03:14 PM
Nader would have a much better shot if he ran under the DEM banner however.

Well, yeah.

You could put up anyone for either major party and they are going to get 35-40% of the electorate in a national election. Th's a well established fact of American Political Science.

However, whenever someone, like Paul, musters up 2-3% of support amongst members of his own party, he's a fringe candidate, despite what e-bombs and straw polls might want the deluded minions to hope for.

Taco, BEP, etc think he's a viable candidate.

He's really Mike Gravel.

Pitt Gorilla
08-17-2010, 03:17 PM
Well, yeah.

You could put up anyone for either major party and they are going to get 35-40% of the electorate in a national election. Th's a well established fact of American Political Science.

However, whenever someone, like Paul, musters up 2-3% of support amongst members of his own party, he's a fringe candidate, despite what e-bombs and straw polls might want the deluded minions to hope for.

Taco, BEP, etc think he's a viable candidate.

He's really Mike Gravel.Why do the Reps not like the guy? His platform has seemingly been pretty popular with many of the GOP's mouthpieces.

Taco John
08-17-2010, 03:18 PM
You aren't nearly as articulate when you can't Ctrl+V your arguments.


You saying this doesn't make any effect on me. I am not confused about whether or not I cut and paste my arguments. And for my part, at least I'm brave enough to post my views on here. I'm not quite the coward that you are who will only snipe at people, but never advocate your out of touch political ideas.

I think we both know it's because if this forum got wind of what you really believed, you'd be laughed off your perch.

Chocolate Hog
08-17-2010, 03:21 PM
You are making some serious conflations.

It's not that he's stupid, it's that he has no support outside of very limited circles.

Do you see people trumpeting Ralph Nader's chances in 2012? No. Does that mean he does have support from a segment of the population? Of course not. At the same time, people aren't delusional enough to think that Nader has a chance in 2012 or did in 2000 or 2004, or whenever.

Ron Paul is supported by a vocal minority of delusional internet fanbois.

Think about where you are right now, and how that might affect your perception vs. the reality of the matter.


He's so fringe that his son will be the next senator of Kentucky and many liberty minded candidates have been elected in various positions. Who you think started the first grass roots tea party? Sorry but your are blinded by hate on this topic.

Taco John
08-17-2010, 03:21 PM
For my part, I don't know if Ron Paul is a viable candidate or not. I suspect he's probably not, but then I see that Palin and Romney are the leading candidates, so I suspect that he may well be a viable candidate. The bar is not set too high, and the trend of conservativism is in Ron Paul's favor.

But that said, even if he's not a viable candidate, I don't care. My vote is going to him just for the fact that he best represents my views. I'm not concerned about how the collective is voting. I am an individual and will vote like one.

Chocolate Hog
08-17-2010, 03:21 PM
Why do the Reps not like the guy? His platform has seemingly been pretty popular with many of the GOP's mouthpieces.

Because he's not for keeping the status quo and having the nation divided by phoney partisan outrage.

Pants
08-17-2010, 03:22 PM
Why don't the Republicans like RP? Isn't he the perfect candidate? The less government, the better, right?

Chocolate Hog
08-17-2010, 03:27 PM
FYI Ron Paul is very popular amongest my generation if the Republican party has any chance at moving forward they'll have to embrace his ideas.

Pants
08-17-2010, 03:28 PM
Why don't the Republicans like RP? Isn't he the perfect candidate? The less government, the better, right?

Taco John
08-17-2010, 03:30 PM
Why don't the Republicans like RP? Isn't he the perfect candidate? The less government, the better, right?

Ron Paul wants to stop the wars, and return to a republic rather than an empire.

Chocolate Hog
08-17-2010, 03:31 PM
Why don't the Republicans like RP? Isn't he the perfect candidate? The less government, the better, right?

No thats bullshit because a Democrat is in office. Look at the Neo-cons crying about the mosque thats not even on ground zero yet they want the government to tell those people no.

Taco John
08-17-2010, 03:33 PM
No thats bullshit because a Democrat is in office. Look at the Neo-cons crying about the mosque thats not even on ground zero yet they want the government to tell those people no.


Social authoritarians vs. Social authoritarians

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-17-2010, 03:51 PM
He's so fringe that his son will be the next senator of Kentucky and many liberty minded candidates have been elected in various positions. Who you think started the first grass roots tea party? Sorry but your are blinded by hate on this topic.

He's so fringe that someone who is not himself is going to squeak out a win while he's taking the seat of someone who said that his opponent in 2004 looked like one of Saddam's sons.

It's not exactly like he's in a swing state, and he's not even blowing out an opponent who should be completely dead in the water.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-17-2010, 03:52 PM
Why don't the Republicans like RP? Isn't he the perfect candidate? The less government, the better, right?

The Republican Party doesn't actually stand for that.

healthpellets
08-17-2010, 03:54 PM
The Republican Party doesn't actually stand for that.

spot on.

BucEyedPea
08-17-2010, 03:56 PM
He's so fringe that his son will be the next senator of Kentucky and many liberty minded candidates have been elected in various positions. Who you think started the first grass roots tea party? Sorry but your are blinded by hate on this topic.

He doesn't want our evolution toward anarcho-socialism rolled back. He knows the anti-Paul Republicans won't do that deep down. They just want more empire.

BucEyedPea
08-17-2010, 03:57 PM
For my part, I don't know if Ron Paul is a viable candidate or not. I suspect he's probably not, but then I see that Palin and Romney are the leading candidates, so I suspect that he may well be a viable candidate. The bar is not set too high, and the trend of conservativism is in Ron Paul's favor.
Great way to put it!

But that said, even if he's not a viable candidate, I don't care. My vote is going to him just for the fact that he best represents my views. I'm not concerned about how the collective is voting. I am an individual and will vote like one.

That's where I'm headed if it's Palin or Mitty.

Chocolate Hog
08-17-2010, 03:58 PM
He's so fringe that someone who is not himself is going to squeak out a win while he's taking the seat of someone who said that his opponent in 2004 looked like one of Saddam's sons.

It's not exactly like he's in a swing state, and he's not even blowing out an opponent who should be completely dead in the water.

Thats why Rand got the most votes out of any Republican in the history of Republican primaries in Kentucky.

Mitch McConell won last time by 6% points. Rand Paul is up 10% in the poll and thats with the DNC trying to smear him.

Chocolate Hog
08-17-2010, 04:01 PM
And Bunning won by 1%. Lets not forget Rand Paul beat the favored Republican by 30%. To say that he's fringe simply isn't true.

BucEyedPea
08-17-2010, 04:02 PM
No thats bullshit because a Democrat is in office. Look at the Neo-cons crying about the mosque thats not even on ground zero yet they want the government to tell those people no.

I don't understand why they wouldn't want new buildings that are better versions of the previous WTCs....bustling with trade and economic activity. That'd be like saying, you can't knock us down because we'll just get back up better n' stronger than before. Nooooooooooooo! A "Blowback Memorial" is more important.

BucEyedPea
08-17-2010, 04:02 PM
And Bunning won by 1%. Lets not forget Rand Paul beat the favored Republican by 30%. To say that he's fringe simply isn't true.

The times, they are a changin'!

chiefsnorth
08-17-2010, 04:07 PM
I wanted to ask this again, as nobody addressed it; isn't Paul the guy that Palin et al. really want to be?

He is only with the mainstream of this body of the electorate that is roiling right now in a very general way. Most of these people would have grave reservations about foreign policy and fiscal policy if they learned more about his beliefs. But because the attitude of the public is currently small government, in that simplistic way he appears as you say.

The Republican party and conservatism have not been suffering for the last 6 years or so because they lacked Ron Paul. They have been suffering because of a absence of any true brother. McCain and Bush were not those. The climate had emerged that it was OK for Republicans to be fiscally liberal too, so no one had any prominence except those who played ball in that system - bush, McCain, huckabee, Romney, etc.

BucEyedPea
08-17-2010, 04:19 PM
He is only with the mainstream of this body of the electorate that is roiling right now in a very general way. Most of these people would have grave reservations about foreign policy and fiscal policy if they learned more about his beliefs. But because the attitude of the public is currently small government, in that simplistic way he appears as you say.

The Republican party and conservatism have not been suffering for the last 6 years or so because they lacked Ron Paul. They have been suffering because of a absence of any true brother. McCain and Bush were not those. The climate had emerged that it was OK for Republicans to be fiscally liberal too, so no one had any prominence except those who played ball in that system - bush, McCain, huckabee, Romney, etc.

Oh well, not having a true brother would mean a Republican that does not believe in promiscuous intervention to rid the world of rogue govts to transport democracy and Third Way socialism.

YES! That's what Rude-y and the Grinch wrote for Iraq in their proposals for Iraq. The FP under Bush was NOT a conservative FP. It was as left as Trotsky.

Anyone posting this idea, does not understand traditional conservativism which was a humble FP which is part of keeping govt limited. The FP of the Rs today is Neo Conservativism aka to export democracy and nation building. That's war for progressive purposes. It is bankrupting us. That is not limited govt. You can't have limited govt at home with constant war abroad. Wars destroy economies as govts inflate their ways through them.

patteeu
08-17-2010, 05:08 PM
Why don't the Republicans like RP? Isn't he the perfect candidate? The less government, the better, right?

1. Because his foreign policy is unacceptable.

2. Because he'd be a hard sell in the general election and losing in the general doesn't do anyone any good.

patteeu
08-17-2010, 05:10 PM
No thats bullshit because a Democrat is in office. Look at the Neo-cons crying about the mosque thats not even on ground zero yet they want the government to tell those people no.

Although I'm definitely saying that, most Republicans I've heard aren't calling on the government to stop this. They're trying to use public pressure to get the people behind the project to voluntarily relocate it or scrap the idea altogether.

BucEyedPea
08-17-2010, 05:14 PM
Except for the food and air generality.....this is what's needed:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZOT4Jn9WcMk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZOT4Jn9WcMk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

healthpellets
08-17-2010, 05:16 PM
1. Because his foreign policy is unacceptable.



which part? the part where we bring our troops home?

i've seen the submarine quote. but the reality is simply that we can defend our land without being present in over 100 countries around the world. hell, we could bring home some troops and put them at the mexican border.

patteeu
08-17-2010, 06:18 PM
which part? the part where we bring our troops home?

i've seen the submarine quote. but the reality is simply that we can defend our land without being present in over 100 countries around the world. hell, we could bring home some troops and put them at the mexican border.

It's in our interest to remain a global military superpower. If we don't do it, someone else will and then the weak sisters of the world will be cuddling up to them instead of us.

That's not to say we shouldn't be re-evaluating our deployments on a constant basis and, perhaps, ending some of them, but it does mean that we can't just bring our troops home and turtle up like Ron Paul would have us do.

IMO

BucEyedPea
08-17-2010, 06:24 PM
Too bad we're in empire decline with bankruptcy and being spread too thin—the way all previous Empires died. If you want to keep Superpower status you just can't do things like open up 2, and now 3, wars at the same time and expect to sustain that lofty position.

Oucho Cinco
08-17-2010, 07:19 PM
which part? the part where we bring our troops home?

i've seen the submarine quote. but the reality is simply that we can defend our land without being present in over 100 countries around the world. hell, we could bring home some troops and put them at the mexican border.

I used to think you were stupid, now you have opened your mouth and removed all doubt.

healthpellets
08-17-2010, 07:43 PM
It's in our interest to remain a global military superpower. If we don't do it, someone else will and then the weak sisters of the world will be cuddling up to them instead of us.

That's not to say we shouldn't be re-evaluating our deployments on a constant basis and, perhaps, ending some of them, but it does mean that we can't just bring our troops home and turtle up like Ron Paul would have us do.

IMO

i don't see why we can't remain a military power while drawing down our presence in the world. we can still have the best and most powerful toys. we can still demonstrate just how bad ass we are. we can still have some strategic bases operational through out the world. yes, that is necessary.

i think the concept of using the department of defense for actual defense of the homeland soil is a concept that is foreign to most people.

finally, i think some like to paint RP's foreign policy positions as preventing any action unless someone sets foot on US soil. that's simply not the case. he, as i understand his statements, would not hesitate to strike first if a first strike from the opposition was a foregone conclusion.

healthpellets
08-17-2010, 07:43 PM
I used to think you were stupid, now you have opened your mouth and removed all doubt.

someone has a crush on me... :)

Dave Lane
08-17-2010, 08:08 PM
Best news I've heard all day

Oucho Cinco
08-17-2010, 08:12 PM
someone has a crush on me... :)

I always though you were gay, don't get your hopes up, I like women. Little girls need not apply.

SNR
08-17-2010, 09:26 PM
It's in our interest to remain a global military superpower. If we don't do it, someone else will and then the weak sisters of the world will be cuddling up to them instead of us.

So you're saying that's an enviable position to be in. Being a global military superpower.

Why don't we have competition? Why do we have to be the ones in Afghanistan? I hardly call the troops from other countries "help"

dirk digler
08-17-2010, 09:45 PM
i don't see why we can't remain a military power while drawing down our presence in the world. we can still have the best and most powerful toys. we can still demonstrate just how bad ass we are. we can still have some strategic bases operational through out the world. yes, that is necessary.

i think the concept of using the department of defense for actual defense of the homeland soil is a concept that is foreign to most people.

finally, i think some like to paint RP's foreign policy positions as preventing any action unless someone sets foot on US soil. that's simply not the case. he, as i understand his statements, would not hesitate to strike first if a first strike from the opposition was a foregone conclusion.

We already have defense of the homeland. Not all of our troops are stationed overseas and we do have military and other equipment protecting our shores.

The reasons why we have bases and FOB's is to be able to react quickly to any situation that requires us to act which includes militarily or for humanitarian missions.

Of course it was up to Ron Paul we wouldn't do humanitarian missions like the one in Haiti or Pakistan.

Taco John
08-17-2010, 09:52 PM
http://i.imgur.com/VWQAM.jpg

Taco John
08-17-2010, 09:54 PM
It's in our interest to remain a global military superpower. If we don't do it, someone else will and then the weak sisters of the world will be cuddling up to them instead of us.



How great would it be to have the weak sisters with their hands in the Chinese pockets instead of ours?

healthpellets
08-17-2010, 09:55 PM
The reasons why we have bases and FOB's is to be able to react quickly to any situation that requires us to act which includes militarily or for humanitarian missions.


there are few situations that require us to act. and leaving some major bases open around the world would satisfy that need, which i stated earlier.

Taco John
08-17-2010, 09:55 PM
Of course it was up to Ron Paul we wouldn't do humanitarian missions like the one in Haiti or Pakistan.

http://slangcath.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/hallelujah.jpg

teedubya
08-17-2010, 10:00 PM
He could probably win now.

In fact, I think Perot would have been a helluva president.

dirk digler
08-17-2010, 10:04 PM
there are few situations that require us to act. and leaving some major bases open around the world would satisfy that need, which i stated earlier.

Ron Paul disagrees with you.

dirk digler
08-17-2010, 10:08 PM
I am a dumbass

I agree. I am sure the people in the south after Katrina didn't appreciate the 50+ countries that helped us.

healthpellets
08-17-2010, 10:21 PM
Ron Paul disagrees with you.

my world is shattered.

Taco John
08-17-2010, 10:23 PM
I agree. I am sure the people in the south after Katrina didn't appreciate the 50+ countries that helped us.


I, too, am sure that they didn't.

patteeu
08-17-2010, 10:45 PM
Too bad we're in empire decline with bankruptcy and being spread too thin—the way all previous Empires died. If you want to keep Superpower status you just can't do things like open up 2, and now 3, wars at the same time and expect to sustain that lofty position.

It's absurd to say that all empires ended that way. Par for the course with you though. I bet you read about that in Reagan's autobiography or something.

We're only involved in one war.

patteeu
08-17-2010, 10:51 PM
i don't see why we can't remain a military power while drawing down our presence in the world. we can still have the best and most powerful toys. we can still demonstrate just how bad ass we are. we can still have some strategic bases operational through out the world. yes, that is necessary.

i think the concept of using the department of defense for actual defense of the homeland soil is a concept that is foreign to most people.

finally, i think some like to paint RP's foreign policy positions as preventing any action unless someone sets foot on US soil. that's simply not the case. he, as i understand his statements, would not hesitate to strike first if a first strike from the opposition was a foregone conclusion.

I completely agree that Ron Paul doesn't say we can't act unless someone sets foot on US soil. That's no more true than the idea that the people who I agree with want endless war. Both sides agree that we should use military force whenever our national security is at stake. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details, as they say. I've seen too many of Ron Paul's details to believe that his idea of when to use military force is acceptable.

healthpellets
08-17-2010, 10:53 PM
We're only involved in one war.

well it must be the war on drugs.

patteeu
08-17-2010, 10:57 PM
So you're saying that's an enviable position to be in. Being a global military superpower.

Why don't we have competition? Why do we have to be the ones in Afghanistan? I hardly call the troops from other countries "help"

I don't know what you're asking me.

We do have competition. The Chinese and the Iranians are working to become regional military powers, for example.

If we're not in Afghanistan, who will be?

I don't consider most of the troops from other countries much "help" there either although the British have been pretty helpful. What's this "help" part about?

patteeu
08-17-2010, 11:02 PM
well it must be the war on drugs.

Is that what you really think or were you just trying to make a joke?

dirk digler
08-17-2010, 11:03 PM
These are some awesome positions by Ron Paul (meaning what a fucking idiot he is)



We don’t need any troops abroad--they don’t help our defense. (Dec 2007)
Stop policing the world and we can get rid of income tax. (Dec 2007)
Bring all troops home from abroad & save $100B’s every year. (Dec 2007)
Reassess “mutual security” treaties; our allies never aid us.

I also just learned that he wants to get rid of the FBI? WTF?

healthpellets
08-17-2010, 11:09 PM
Is that what you really think or were you just trying to make a joke?

the US Congress hasn't declared war on any country since 1942, so i assumed we were talking about the only other War.

kcfanXIII
08-17-2010, 11:25 PM
The fact that some of you are honestly discussing Ron Paul's chances, as though there are any, just illustrates how completely out of touch you are with reality.

Despite what you may want to happen, neither this sub-forum, nor LewRockwell, is even close to representative of the electorate as a whole, and that you can't realize it, although humorous, is nonetheless pathetic.


as uncomfortable as it may be for some, the government must be downsized, and paul is the only one talking about doing it. the fact that the "electorate as a whole" don't realize what is good for the country, is what is pathetic, although not humorous at all.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-17-2010, 11:36 PM
as uncomfortable as it may be for some, the government must be downsized, and paul is the only one talking about doing it. the fact that the "electorate as a whole" don't realize what is good for the country, is what is pathetic, although not humorous at all.

That's a gross oversimplification.

Paul doesn't want to "downsize" the government, he wants to amputate an arm to get rid of an infected hangnail.

He's a reactionary.

healthpellets
08-17-2010, 11:41 PM
He's a reactionary.

depending on one's definition...but i guess he's been reacting for the last 20+ years...

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 01:28 AM
That's a gross oversimplification.

Paul doesn't want to "downsize" the government, he wants to amputate an arm to get rid of an infected hangnail.

He's a reactionary.

Yet he's been right on nearly every issure facing this country imagine that.

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 01:35 AM
I doubt anyone will read this but i'll post it anyway. It's so easy to ready little headlines why not educate yourself on Pauls actual positions?


Iraq:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=242



Iran:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=538


For those who pretend to be fiscal conservatives like Patteau:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=327


The economy:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=266


Paul called the government running the economy back in 2002. He certainly isn't reactionary.

Taco John
08-18-2010, 02:31 AM
I've seen too many of Ron Paul's details to believe that his idea of when to use military force is acceptable.


There's only one detail to speak of: Ron Paul believes we should use military force when Congress declares a war.

Taco John
08-18-2010, 02:33 AM
These are some awesome positions by Ron Paul (meaning what a ****ing idiot he is)



We don’t need any troops abroad--they don’t help our defense. (Dec 2007)
Stop policing the world and we can get rid of income tax. (Dec 2007)
Bring all troops home from abroad & save $100B’s every year. (Dec 2007)
Reassess “mutual security” treaties; our allies never aid us.

I also just learned that he wants to get rid of the FBI? WTF?



None of these positions are accurate and/or taken out of context. Do you have sources so that we can correct the errors that you are embarassingly making?

dirk digler
08-18-2010, 07:15 AM
None of these positions are accurate and/or taken out of context. Do you have sources so that we can correct the errors that you are embarassingly making?

Right :rolleyes:

<center> We don’t need any troops abroad--they don’t help our defense </center>

Q: How many troops do we have overseas right now? A: I don’t know the exact number, but more than we need. We don’t need any.
Q: It’s 572,000. And you’d bring them all home?
A: As quickly as possible. They will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend this country without troops in Germany & troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since I’ve been in high school! It doesn’t make any sense
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 23, 200
<center> Stop policing the world and we can get rid of income tax </center>

Q: If you eliminate the income tax, as you propose, do you know how much lost revenue that would be?
A: A lot.
Q: Over a trillion dollars.
A: That’s good. We could save hundreds of billions of dollars if we had a sensible foreign policy. If you’re going to be the policeman of the world, you need that. You need the income tax to police the world and run the welfare state. I want a constitutional-size government.
Q: Would you replace the income tax with anything else?
A: Not if I could help it. You know, there are some proposals where probably almost anything would be better than income tax. But there’s a lot of shortcomings with the, with the sales tax. But it would probably be slightly better than the income tax--it would be an improvement. But the goal is to cut the spending, get back to a sensible-size government.
<center> Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series (http://www.ontheissues.org/2007_Meet_the_Press.htm) Dec 23, 2007 </center>Bring all troops home from abroad & save $100B’s every year

Q: You recommend this: “I’d start bringing our troops home, not only from the Middle East but from Korea, Japan and Europe and save enough money to slash the deficit.” How much money would that save?

A: To operate our total foreign policy, when you add up everything, it’s nearly a trillion dollars a year. So I would think if you brought our troops home, you could save hundreds of billions of dollars. You can start saving immediately by changing the foreign policy and not be the policeman over the world. We should have the foreign policy that George Bush ran on. You know, no nation building, no policing of the world, a humble foreign policy. We don’t need to be starting wars. That’s my argument.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 23, 2007 <center>Reassess “mutual security” treaties; our allies never aid us </center>

The odds of getting assistance from our allies to protect our security if we are threatened are infinitesimal, as compared to the possibility of our sons dying for someone else’s security. We should reassess all our military treaties. They are called “mutual security” treaties, but no one expects our allies to come to our assistance if we are attacked. We have been forced to stand alone and bear all the cost of our defense and most of the cost of the defense of our allies.
<center> Source: Freedom Under Siege, by Ron Paul, p. 45-47 Dec 31, 1987 </center><center> Eliminate FBI & DHS; interpret intelligence intelligently </center>

Q: You say that you would eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Homeland Security, Medicare. You used to want to end the FBI. But if you get rid of the CIA, let alone the FBI, how would President Paul have any idea, any intelligence of what our enemies, foreign and domestic, are up to?

A: Well, you might ask a better question. Before 9/11, we were spending $40 billion a year, and the FBI was producing numerous information about people being trained on airplanes, to fly them but not land them. And they totally ignored them. So it’s the inefficiency of the bureaucracy that is the problem. So, increasing this with the Department of Homeland Security and spending more money doesn’t absolve us of the problem. Yes, we have every right in the world to know something about intelligence gathering. But we have to have intelligent people interpreting this information.
<center> Source: 2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News (http://www.ontheissues.org/2007_GOP_UNH.htm) Sep 5, 2007 </center>

BucEyedPea
08-18-2010, 08:39 AM
Ron Paul does believe in having a top notch defense. You can be a superpower militarily and not be an empire. We can still trade which brings influence and an exchange of ideas. We can still export our ideas and not be a military empire. Our idea of true liberty is a very powerful message that has universal appeal to all but the most depraved who like their chains. ( Like the American left! )


dirk, Paul still believes in intel—just that it should be under the army. Currently, the way it's set up is clouds it in too much secrecy and allows it to be a tool for presidents covertly. Then when America experiences blowback, the American people don't understand because...well... they think we always do good. We aren't always good. When govt is captured by a few mercantile interests who want an empire, then we can't do good all the time.

“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

“The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.”

Alexis de Tocqueville

jerseys-factory
08-18-2010, 08:40 AM
o oh, a big suprise

dirk digler
08-18-2010, 09:09 AM
Ron Paul does believe in having a top notch defense. You can be a superpower militarily and not be an empire. We can still trade which brings influence and an exchange of ideas. We can still export our ideas and not be a military empire. Our idea of true liberty is a very powerful message that has universal appeal to all but the most depraved who like their chains. ( Like the American left! )


dirk, Paul still believes in intel—just that it should be under the army. Currently, the way it's set up is clouds it in too much secrecy and allows it to be a tool for presidents covertly. Then when America experiences blowback, the American people don't understand because...well... they think we always do good. We aren't always good. When govt is captured by a few mercantile interests who want an empire, then we can't do good all the time.

“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

“The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.”

Alexis de Tocqueville

You could have saved alot of time by just saying Ron Paul wants to gut the military, destroy the CIA and FBI and leave America and our allies defenseless.

healthpellets
08-18-2010, 09:18 AM
You could have saved alot of time by just saying Ron Paul wants to gut the military, destroy the CIA and FBI and leave America and our allies defenseless.

seriously? nice try.

Taco John
08-18-2010, 09:34 AM
You could have saved alot of time by just saying Ron Paul wants to gut the military, destroy the CIA and FBI and leave America and our allies defenseless.

You could have saved a lot of time by just saying "I am a moron."

Taco John
08-18-2010, 09:36 AM
Right :rolleyes:


Yeah, see, I knew you were being a lying idiot and taking the positions out of context or flat getting them wrong.

patteeu
08-18-2010, 10:21 AM
Ron Paul does believe in having a top notch defense. You can be a superpower militarily and not be an empire. We can still trade which brings influence and an exchange of ideas. We can still export our ideas and not be a military empire. Our idea of true liberty is a very powerful message that has universal appeal to all but the most depraved who like their chains. ( Like the American left! )

Imagine what it would be like to be really wealthy in a country full of poor people without any kind of law enforcement. Sure you could arm yourself and hunker down in a fortified mansion, but could you walk the streets safely? Would you derive enough security from being willing to trade honestly with the poor folks surrounding you or would jealousy and envy get the better of some of them and make you a big, fat target?

Could you go down to the local market to do your trading without a personal army to protect you? Could your kids go out to the movies with their friends without protection? No, the truth is that you wouldn't be able to do these things because there are always going to be yahoos out there who want to take what you have or knock you down a few notches because you've got more than they do. Trade works great, but it's not a panacea. You also need to be a bigger badass than the riff raff who don't want to play by civilized rules.

patteeu
08-18-2010, 10:23 AM
Yeah, see, I knew you were being a lying idiot and taking the positions out of context or flat getting them wrong.

I only read the one about not needing troops abroad, but it looks like he got that one right. What parts did he get wrong?

irishjayhawk
08-18-2010, 10:26 AM
I only read the one about not needing troops abroad, but it looks like he got that one right. What parts did he get wrong?

I read them all and didn't see what he got wrong with his one line summaries.

dirk digler
08-18-2010, 10:43 AM
You could have saved a lot of time by just saying "I am a moron."

Yeah, see, I knew you were being a lying idiot and taking the positions out of context or flat getting them wrong.

Whatever you think TJ. His quotes are there for everyone to see.

<object height="385" width="480">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-vEBQ-rKb5c?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>

BucEyedPea
08-18-2010, 10:53 AM
Yeah, see, I knew you were being a lying idiot and taking the positions out of context or flat getting them wrong.

He can't grasp it because he likes empire. He can only see it in his world view. On the other hand, Obama's Marxism doesn't exist to him.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2010, 11:02 AM
You could have saved alot of time by just saying Ron Paul wants to gut the military, destroy the CIA and FBI and leave America and our allies defenseless.

No, that's your extrapolation and interpretation which is twisting his view because you can only see his views within a two-valued logic framework. That type of logic doesn't work in the real world. Things are more complex than that.

As to the allies part, our Constitution says nothing about defending any allies.
It says it was formed for "our" national defense. Besides why are you pluralizing the word ally. You mean Israel right? How is Israel defenseless with all the munitions we've sold her and her having as many nukes as she has? Yet, it has done nothing to protect her from suicide bombers or terrorism. Can we protect Israel from that? Nope. Just look at the history. Now we're getting it.

The truth of the matter as far as I am concerned, is Britain started that conflict using divide an conquer to keep both sides at each other's throats to justify staying in the area. That's what Britain did in India between the Hindus and Muslims. Britain's empire was broke at the end of WWII and we took over her role....of course with arm twisting from the same mercantile interests per Truman. It has nothing to do with a homeland for Jews to these interests, it's to be able to rule the area to control the rich oil resources by keeping the conflict going which IS in their interests. Both Jews and Arabs are pawns in that game. What Paul has said, is that we tell Israel what to do too. Often to their detriment. So they'd have to act more in their own interests to continue to exist there. Peace would have been a more likely had the West not screwed up. If there was no interference by the West at the start of that, both sides would have worked things out. If not, then they'd have had to fight it out until there was a clear winner. But it would be a stable peace. The FACT is that Jews emigrated before that and lived side by side peacefully with Arabs. That includes when Spain kicked them out. In fact anti-semitism paled compared to what was done by Christians in the West. They had dhimmi for both Christians and Jews. Your argument is the argument of a side that suffers from intense guilt from past crimes on Jews committed in the West. Yet the Arabs have to pay for it. That's the TRUTH of the matter.

Take a look at it. We're fed a pack of lies about the area and most Americans are ignorant of the history in the area including how the West has been complicit in the area. It's that which has created the problem we have today.

dirk digler
08-18-2010, 11:30 AM
He can't grasp it because he likes empire. He can only see it in his world view. On the other hand, Obama's Marxism doesn't exist to him.

Sure BEP. That is why I was against the Iraq War :rolleyes:

No, that's your extrapolation and interpretation which is twisting his view because you can only see his views within a two-valued logic framework. That type of logic doesn't work in the real world. Things are more complex than that.

As to the allies part, our Constitution says nothing about defending any allies.
It says it was formed for "our" national defense. Besides why are you pluralizing the word ally. You mean Israel right? How is Israel defenseless with all the munitions we've sold her and her having as many nukes as she has? Yet, it has done nothing to protect her from suicide bombers or terrorism. Can we protect Israel from that? Nope. Just look at the history. Now we're getting it.

The truth of the matter as far as I am concerned, is Britain started that conflict using divide an conquer to keep both sides at each other's throats to justify staying in the area. That's what Britain did in India between the Hindus and Muslims. Britain's empire was broke at the end of WWII and we took over her role....of course with arm twisting from the same mercantile interests per Truman. It has nothing to do with a homeland for Jews to these interests, it's to be able to rule the area to control the rich oil resources by keeping the conflict going which IS in their interests. Both Jews and Arabs are pawns in that game. What Paul has said, is that we tell Israel what to do too. Often to their detriment. So they'd have to act more in their own interests to continue to exist there. Peace would have been a more likely had the West not screwed up. If there was no interference by the West at the start of that, both sides would have worked things out. If not, then they'd have had to fight it out until there was a clear winner. But it would be a stable peace. The FACT is that Jews emigrated before that and lived side by side peacefully with Arabs. That includes when Spain kicked them out. In fact anti-semitism paled compared to what was done by Christians in the West. They had dhimmi for both Christians and Jews. Your argument is the argument of a side that suffers from intense guilt from past crimes on Jews committed in the West. Yet the Arabs have to pay for it. That's the TRUTH of the matter.

Take a look at it. We're fed a pack of lies about the area and most Americans are ignorant of the history in the area including how the West has been complicit in the area. It's that which has created the problem we have today.

I agree the world is complex contrary to what Paul wants his deluded followers to believe. He thinks if we just get rid of the CIA, FBI, troops and bases overseas, and giving the finger to our ALLIES (Great Britain, Canada, Austraila, Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea, Spain etc etc) will suddenly makes us all safer.

healthpellets
08-18-2010, 11:48 AM
Imagine what it would be like to be really wealthy in a country full of poor people without any kind of law enforcement. Sure you could arm yourself and hunker down in a fortified mansion, but could you walk the streets safely? Would you derive enough security from being willing to trade honestly with the poor folks surrounding you or would jealousy and envy get the better of some of them and make you a big, fat target?

Could you go down to the local market to do your trading without a personal army to protect you? Could your kids go out to the movies with their friends without protection? No, the truth is that you wouldn't be able to do these things because there are always going to be yahoos out there who want to take what you have or knock you down a few notches because you've got more than they do. Trade works great, but it's not a panacea. You also need to be a bigger badass than the riff raff who don't want to play by civilized rules.

what, exactly, are you describing?

patteeu
08-18-2010, 01:35 PM
what, exactly, are you describing?

It's a self explanatory hypothetical. Do you have a specific question about it?

healthpellets
08-18-2010, 01:43 PM
It's a self explanatory hypothetical. Do you have a specific question about it?

what are you describing? your version of a RP america?

patteeu
08-18-2010, 01:54 PM
what are you describing? your version of a RP america?

It's an analogy to the polyannish version of Ron Paul's foreign policy advocated by BucEyedPea.

The wealthy family is the US. The poor people are the rest of the world. The protective presence of a police force is nonexistent.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-18-2010, 02:19 PM
I didn't realize that there were such stark (and false) binaries between you either support Ron Paul's positions or you support an American Empire.

healthpellets
08-18-2010, 02:20 PM
I didn't realize that there were such stark (and false) binaries between you either support Ron Paul's positions or you support an American Empire.

just a continuation of Bush's "with us or against us" mentality.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2010, 02:34 PM
Sure BEP. That is why I was against the Iraq War :rolleyes:
Afterwards—not before. That I know of anyway. I just bet you were for it before....afterall it's the same reasons being given on Iran now....and the same pattern beginning with sanctions.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2010, 02:36 PM
I agree the world is complex contrary to what Paul wants his deluded followers to believe. He thinks if we just get rid of the CIA, FBI, troops and bases overseas, and giving the finger to our ALLIES (Great Britain, Canada, Austraila, Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea, Spain etc etc) will suddenly makes us all safer.
It's not our job to defend the world. It's bankrupting us.
I told you he'd put intel under the army instead.

patteeu
08-18-2010, 03:05 PM
just a continuation of Bush's "with us or against us" mentality.

It's predominately RonPaulistas that are expressing that sentiment, Ms. Two Value Logic herself, in particular.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2010, 03:32 PM
I love how Ron Paul threads agitate patteeu and dirk. Quintessential NeoCons.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2010, 03:34 PM
just a continuation of Bush's "with us or against us" mentality.

Just a heads up: Be prepared to have the same arguments over and over ad nauseum with our tireless and quintessential NeoCon who has someone new to stalk. ROFL :D

|Zach|
08-18-2010, 03:35 PM
Just a heads up: Be prepared to have the same arguments over and over ad nauseum with our tireless and quintessential NeoCon who has someone new to stalk. ROFL :D

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=223334

BucEyedPea
08-18-2010, 03:36 PM
Oh look a Flying Monkey!

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 03:38 PM
Patteau is a blue dog democrat.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-18-2010, 03:39 PM
I love how Ron Paul threads agitate patteeu and dirk. Quintessential NeoCons.

You are a veritable glossary of logical fallacies.

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 03:40 PM
I didn't realize that there were such stark (and false) binaries between you either support Ron Paul's positions or you support an American Empire.

Eh if you voted for Obama (Bush's third term) you certainly support the end of an empire.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2010, 03:42 PM
Patteau is a blue dog democrat.

ROFL :D :thumb:

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 03:44 PM
ROFL :D :thumb:

Let's call it how it is. The guy will defend the likes of Romney and Guiliani, theres nothing fiscally conservative about Patteau.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-18-2010, 03:46 PM
Eh if you voted for Obama (Bush's third term) you certainly support the end of an empire.

Obama is now Bush's third term.

I've heard it all.

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 03:47 PM
Obama is now Bush's third term.

I've heard it all.

2 failed wars and bloated spending. Hmmm who else did that?

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 03:48 PM
Gates
Jones
Geitner
Bernanke

All key players in the Obama adminstration. Hey where did they come from?

|Zach|
08-18-2010, 03:54 PM
Oh look a Flying Monkey!

Made any calls to your fake friends yet? ROFL

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-18-2010, 04:01 PM
Gates
Jones
Geitner
Bernanke

All key players in the Obama adminstration. Hey where did they come from?

Geitner came from Goldman and, originally, the Clinton admin.

There are numerous holdovers from admin to admin. You should know this.

Greenspan, Richard Clarke, and many others have served in both Democratic and Republican admins.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-18-2010, 04:03 PM
2 failed wars and bloated spending. Hmmm who else did that?

So Obama is now has responsibility for the Iraq War and we aren't severely drawing down?

Ok...

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 04:03 PM
Geitner came from Goldman and, originally, the Clinton admin.

There are numerous holdovers from admin to admin. You should know this.

Greenspan, Richard Clarke, and many others have served in both Democratic and Republican admins.

But Obama is change?


Can you seriously argue Obama is not Bush? Escalating failed wars, bloated spending, ect.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-18-2010, 04:03 PM
But Obama is change?


Can you seriously argue Obama is not Bush?

Yes, I'm not stupid.

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 04:04 PM
So Obama is now has responsibility for the Iraq War and we aren't severely drawing down?

Ok...

He's the commander and fucking chief.


And it was Bush who agreed to withdraw troops starting in 2012. This agreement was signed in Dec 08'.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-18-2010, 04:05 PM
He's the commander and fucking chief.


And it was Bush who agreed to withdraw troops starting in 2012. This agreement was signed in Dec 08'.

So 2012 is now August 31, 2010.

Keep whiffing.

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 04:05 PM
Yes, I'm not stupid.

You've yet to produce a single fact showing that foreign policy and spending wise they aren't the same.

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 04:07 PM
My bad it was 2011 not 2012

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLP66354720080825

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-18-2010, 04:08 PM
You've yet to produce a single fact showing that foreign policy and spending wise they aren't the same.

Yes I have, you just aren't intelligent enough to read them, apparently.

You want some?

How about the nuclear draw down?
What about the removal of troops from Iraq two years ahead of schedule?
Do you see him pimping faith based initiatives?
Tax cuts for the top wage earners?
Privatizing Social Security?

I could list about 200. If you want me to keep going, I can, but it would be like punting a Chihuahua.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-18-2010, 04:12 PM
billay,

Here's the problem: Like BEP, meme, and other Paultards, you've fallen into the trap where because you don't like Bush and you don't like Obama, they are somehow identical.

Whether or not you agree with their policies, they are discrete entities, and it is horrendously foolish to try and argue that they are similar.

Are their court appointments similar?
Are their legislative initiatives at all similar?
Are their cabinets similar?
Are their allocations for their pet projects similar?


Oh by the way, Ron Paul and Barack Obama both oppose child molestation, therefore they are the same.

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 04:15 PM
Yes I have, you just aren't intelligent enough to read them, apparently.

You want some?

How about the nuclear draw down?
What about the removal of troops from Iraq two years ahead of schedule?
Do you see him pimping faith based initiatives?
Tax cuts for the top wage earners?
Privatizing Social Security?

I could list about 200. If you want me to keep going, I can, but it would be like punting a Chihuahua.

On the 2 biggest issues there is no difference and they've both seen the same results. I guess next you will list that Obama likes Jay-z Bush likes Garth Brooks. And quit talking down to me i'm not one of your students.

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 04:20 PM
GITMO- Obama has let it remain open
Patriot Act- Obama is a big supporter
Afghanistan war- Obama has escalated the war
The Gulf Oil Spill- Obama handled and looked just like Bush. The Interiror department described it as working for Bush's third term. Source: Rolling Stone
The Border- Both ignore it
Spending- Both have increased it
Israel- Both are mouth peices

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 04:22 PM
Energy- About the same
Goverment transparency- Exactly the same.


Change we can believe in? Get the fuck out of here.

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 04:26 PM
" Do you see Obama pimping faith based programs"

Pimping? Maybe not but expanding sure.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25473529/

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 04:30 PM
And it's not just the Ron Paul people saying this Hamas. Robert Gibbs smacked the "professional left" for comparing the two. Probably because thats all this adminstration has to run on.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2010, 05:51 PM
Let's call it how it is. The guy will defend the likes of Romney and Guiliani, theres nothing fiscally conservative about Patteau.

That wouldn't be pragmatic. :spock: Typical talk without the walk. He must be a politician.

patteeu
08-18-2010, 06:21 PM
Patteau is a blue dog democrat.

Fringe nutcases like you and BEP make me look like a moderate, that's for sure. Meanwhile, you're in bed with the far left with your policies of unilateral disarmament and appeasement of our adversaries.

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 06:28 PM
Fringe nutcases like you and BEP make me look like a moderate, that's for sure. Meanwhile, you're in bed with the far left with your policies of unilateral disarmament and appeasement of our adversaries.

Theres nothing fringe about balance budgets. Now go run along and bitch about how the government has its hands on your medicare blue dog.

patteeu
08-18-2010, 07:17 PM
Theres nothing fringe about balance budgets. Now go run along and bitch about how the government has its hands on your medicare blue dog.

You're fringe because you believe in a foreign policy of weakness and isolation, appeasement of our enemies, and unilateral disarmament.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2010, 07:30 PM
Theres nothing fringe about balance budgets. Now go run along and bitch about how the government has its hands on your medicare blue dog.

ROFL

BucEyedPea
08-18-2010, 07:32 PM
Whoever said I was for unilateral disarmament or that Paul was. That must be one of those "Noble Lies" the you-know-who's believe in.

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 07:38 PM
You're fringe because you believe in a foreign policy of weakness and isolation, appeasement of our enemies, and unilateral disarmament.

And you're a blue dog democrat because you believe in handouts and un-balanced budgets, and government intervention.

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 07:39 PM
Whoever said I was for unilateral disarmament or that Paul was. That must be one of those "Noble Lies" the you-know-who's believe in.

Why shold you believe anything that the boy who cried nukes says?

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 07:42 PM
BEP let people like Patteau and Hamas call us fringe all they want. This is the kind of schizophrenia in American politics that allows people to vote for a Depression and failed wars. It's funny watching Patteau argue aginst big government while justifying voting for John McCain.

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 11:46 PM
Alot of crickets in this thread.

patteeu
08-19-2010, 01:09 AM
And you're a blue dog democrat because you believe in handouts and un-balanced budgets, and government intervention.

Yeah, that's me. Wait a minute, don't you have to be a democrat or at least have something in common with them (besides the recognition that Ron Paul is going nowhere) to be a blue dog democrat?

Chocolate Hog
08-19-2010, 01:18 AM
Yeah, that's me. Wait a minute, don't you have to be a democrat or at least have something in common with them (besides the recognition that Ron Paul is going nowhere) to be a blue dog democrat?

You have alot in common with blue dogs. I'm sure Bush's 400 billion dollar deficit wasn't that much to you. Shit you defend Dick Cheney who once upon a time favored price control.

So when you give free services to Americans it's a government hand out and thats socailism but you are all for giving handouts to Afhganis and Iraqis and calling it freedom.

patteeu
08-19-2010, 01:45 AM
You have alot in common with blue dogs. I'm sure Bush's 400 billion dollar deficit wasn't that much to you. Shit you defend Dick Cheney who once upon a time favored price control.

So when you give free services to Americans it's a government hand out and thats socailism but you are all for giving handouts to Afhganis and Iraqis and calling it freedom.

Cheney never "favored" price controls. He was an ideological agnostic at the time he got a job in the Nixon administration administering them. In fact, he was a Republican only by chance. That experience was one of the primary experiences that made him a conservative when he saw that price controls don't work. A little bit of knowledge is generally a good thing, but you've got such a small amount, at least on this subject, that it just makes you say dumb things.

A $400 billion deficit seems pretty attractive when you're looking at it from the top of a deficit mountain of over $1.5 trillion. Whether it's good or bad depends on the circumstances. Since you seem to be a little bit learning disabled, you're probably unaware of the fact that I was opposed to the excessive spending of the Bush years.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2010, 07:56 AM
BEP let people like Patteau and Hamas call us fringe all they want. This is the kind of schizophrenia in American politics that allows people to vote for a Depression and failed wars. It's funny watching Patteau argue aginst big government while justifying voting for John McCain.
And he nominated Mitty who gave Mass RomneyCare which is Obamacare.
Now he's still for Mitty—AGAIN.

And he claims to be a libertarian small "l" but LOVES the aggression doctine—the one aspect of the libertarian big-tent that makes them libertarian even if they have doctrinal differences.

He hasn't made the connection that you can't have a military empire along with a balanced budget and the other policies of small govt he claims to support.


I've been out. Just catching up.

dirk digler
08-19-2010, 08:27 AM
BEP let people like Patteau and Hamas call us fringe all they want. This is the kind of schizophrenia in American politics that allows people to vote for a Depression and failed wars. It's funny watching Patteau argue aginst big government while justifying voting for John McCain.

Billay if you believe what Ron Paul does and that a few subs can protect this country and no one is going to attack us on our soil then I don't what other word fits but fringe.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2010, 08:40 AM
Billay if you believe what Ron Paul does and that a few subs can protect this country and no one is going to attack us on our soil then I don't what other word fits but fringe.
You sound scared. Scared of attacks. Scared of Paul. Scared of limited govt. Scared of market forces.

Do you actually think Paul can actually pull off his entire beliefs in 4 years?
Come on! Then again you believed Obama could. Obama and his supporters are the fringe.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2010, 09:02 AM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41

Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

Ask the Political Class, though, and it’s a blowout. While 58% of Mainstream voters favor Paul, 95% of the Political Class vote for Obama.

But Republican voters also have decidedly mixed feelings about Paul, who has been an outspoken critic of the party establishment.

Obama earns 79% support from Democrats, but Paul gets just 66% of GOP votes. Voters not affiliated with either major party give Paul a 47% to 28% edge over the president.


Twenty-four percent (24%) of voters now consider themselves a part of the Tea Party movement, an eight-point increase from a month ago. Another 10% say they are not a part of the movement but have close friends or family members who are.

Make TEA not WAR!

patteeu
08-19-2010, 09:10 AM
And he nominated Mitty who gave Mass RomneyCare which is Obamacare.
Now he's still for Mitty—AGAIN. Wrong

And he claims to be a libertarian small "l" but LOVES the aggression doctine—the one aspect of the libertarian big-tent that makes them libertarian even if they have doctrinal differences. Wrong

He hasn't made the connection that you can't have a military empire along with a balanced budget and the other policies of small govt he claims to support. This is right, but the reason I haven't made the connection is because it isn't true.


I've been out. Just catching up.

You haven't caught up yet. Keep trying.

chiefsnorth
08-19-2010, 09:14 AM
You shouldn't feed the Paul trolls.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2010, 09:17 AM
You shouldn't feed the Paul trolls.

Good point! I don't consider dirk a troll though. I can see the quotes of the other one though.

chiefsnorth
08-19-2010, 09:47 AM
Good point! I don't consider dirk a troll though. I can see the quotes of the other one though.

You're the troll... Mr. Bush = Trotsky

dirk digler
08-19-2010, 10:05 AM
You sound scared. Scared of attacks. Scared of Paul. Scared of limited govt. Scared of market forces.

Do you actually think Paul can actually pull off his entire beliefs in 4 years?
Come on! Then again you believed Obama could. Obama and his supporters are the fringe.

When it comes to the military I do since the POTUS is CIC. I don't believe the CIC has to get congressional approval to close bases or move all the troops back home.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2010, 10:06 AM
You're the troll... Mr. Bush = Trotsky
Perhaps you should look at the history of some of pat's posting yourself to get aquainted with the facts. He's getting a taste of his own medicine —not to mention that this board is rife with such behavior. Besides Billay speaks truth about pat's stands being more like a democrat. dirk is scared of those things he thinks we need protection from. That's not trolling....that's disagreement and engaging pat the way he has engaged. That's noticing dirk is afraid so we need a global empire and have to defend the entire world. Get it right!

As far as Bush = Trotsky that actually has to be what I really think. It's been written about in editorials as well by intelligent writers. You disagree therefore it makes those you disagree with a troll? That's being trollish right there. No wonder you see it in others. You must be a NeoCon too.

You missed earlier very lengthy conversations because you weren't here. Conversations that were extensive with links provided to back up the philosophical train of thought the NeoConservative ideology ( Bush/Cheney FP) came from. Many of the leading ones are former communists who have not fully abandoned leftist ideas particularly that they believe in replacing all govts they don't like with democracy which means permanent warfare. Remember Marx said "Democracy is the road to socialism." Trotsky believed in permanent warfare to replace other govts so all would live under the same system. That's exactly what they're doing today and destroying my country in doing so. If you think that's trolling when someone is trying to restore their govt then I feel sorry for you.

dirk digler
08-19-2010, 10:14 AM
I think it is funny that BEP doesn't think that there isn't countries or terrorists around the world conspiring every day to kill, attack or destroy Americans or our country.

I mean Iran has really shown to be a peaceful nation and never has attacked our country or our interests. They have never supported terrorist activities and we can totally trust them if they get a nuke. LMAO

Or how about China just developing a missile to destroy Aircraft carriers. Yeah that wasn't directed at anybody in particular.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2010, 10:28 AM
When it comes to the military I do since the POTUS is CIC. I don't believe the CIC has to get congressional approval to close bases or move all the troops back home.
He's CIC but has no authority to just decide when to start a war of aggression. That's for the people's house to decide. Again, as I've said before, we don't declare war due to our membership in the UN, the treaty for it and the UN Participation Act. I do not support any of that. I do not support incipient global govt either.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2010, 10:38 AM
I think it is funny that BEP doesn't think that there isn't countries or terrorists around the world conspiring every day to kill, attack or destroy Americans or our country.
Well now, I wonder if chiefnorth is going to scold you for being a troll with this post? If he's consistent he will. If not then he's doing what he's accusing others of.

I do think we have an enemy, that wants to kill us. It's a bunch of man that operate from a cave. It is NOT a nation state. It is NOT Iran. What I don't do is use the word "terrorists" as the sweeping generality with "no name" that you're using. That's demogoguery. Nor do I apply the word loosely as you do—for instance, your using attacks on our military installations that are on their lands or when we put them down in the middle of one of their conflicts. What do you expect? That's the problem with this war. An ill defined enemy that is vague and seemingly everywhere because fear mongers are manipulating it.

I mean Iran has really shown to be a peaceful nation and never has attacked our country or our interests.
I covered this with you before. Listed out every attack you base this refrain of yours on. It is verbal sleight of hand....one that a politician would us....and the NeoCons use. Iran has NOT attacked our country. Our interests are too broad and interventionist and do not necessarily fit the Constitution forming our govt for our common defense.

They have never supported terrorist activities and we can totally trust them if they get a nuke. LMAO
They're surround by US military bases since 2003. What did you expect? That is if there's any truth to these reports and there is conflicting data about that. This plan to attack them, before they can do something, aka preventative war is the heart of the NeoConservative FP. It's far more aggressive than RR's FP. It's criminal thinking. That's not what America is about.

Or how about China just developing a missile to destroy Aircraft carriers. Yeah that wasn't directed at anybody in particular.
The very definition of sovereignty is the ability and right to defend themselves. MADD works.

chiefsnorth
08-19-2010, 11:48 AM
Perhaps you should look at the history of some of pat's posting yourself to get aquainted with the facts. He's getting a taste of his own medicine —not to mention that this board is rife with such behavior. Besides Billay speaks truth about pat's stands being more like a democrat. dirk is scared of those things he thinks we need protection from. That's not trolling....that's disagreement and engaging pat the way he has engaged. That's noticing dirk is afraid so we need a global empire and have to defend the entire world. Get it right!

As far as Bush = Trotsky that actually has to be what I really think. It's been written about in editorials as well by intelligent writers. You disagree therefore it makes those you disagree with a troll? That's being trollish right there. No wonder you see it in others. You must be a NeoCon too.

You missed earlier very lengthy conversations because you weren't here. Conversations that were extensive with links provided to back up the philosophical train of thought the NeoConservative ideology ( Bush/Cheney FP) came from. Many of the leading ones are former communists who have not fully abandoned leftist ideas particularly that they believe in replacing all govts they don't like with democracy which means permanent warfare. Remember Marx said "Democracy is the road to socialism." Trotsky believed in permanent warfare to replace other govts so all would live under the same system. That's exactly what they're doing today and destroying my country in doing so. If you think that's trolling when someone is trying to restore their govt then I feel sorry for you.

TLDR

BucEyedPea
08-19-2010, 11:55 AM
 jywYPn/b4+vx/hbY6/oCpHeppHLTHasrPN2v5WCt4Y1UN3yANyMhQxC92c9vq62r0jtD3biOWrAhCkqR/n8SCX+IU5AJIOPrnVY2On03uNKPabHUMlmyYjHZjLf451Z+/sUyqfiCRgoQccjH0jY2tYwuXS/UI6hisypTlrJBJ4mEuQwf2VZSBghShOMjLYBOM6ear8fTe2VhI0b34u9g8jDc7C9zABck+TnhVHP0BqfZL88m47ptlqRppKciOkp VR3RSDuUHHGQQw9DgKeSTrcLFL4Tw46mBqwxbxEsPkoEmV5VLdldivmIAYchVDfZ+GAOdS1N42+3WFmOyEiMwgBmUxZkJAC4cA5J IA/nPGoet5ZYukd3/AE9WzamkqvFHDViMkjM47BhR7ALZP8AE6zvqvZYN8221el2neT+o3lWLR05RYWNahCsIyvA8mASBg/Z4GM2Q6Y3DQt56j2faILkl+7AGposk0IcGQZ/Educ5J9a79PbW0O02E3SLyT355prUcziXIckKjftOIwiED4/HjI5OIL/Rt72yOpt+3S3raI0vip1XMiSCjCgZsD8fMDknOTzznnf9suruNCC4sFmuJV7vDZiMckZ+wyn0Qf8Ah9gkYOlUUiKXQkl2HcaVKep tdyC5Tde1KW6qzhQTyolHy7QPQYOeMZx6n6Q6YrdL0rEMMpmlsTNLJIy4wP2ouSSFUcAEn2T96faNdUkvCho0aNUBo0aNAGjRo0B//9k=

I can speak in code too.

Chocolate Hog
08-19-2010, 12:00 PM
Cheney never "favored" price controls. He was an ideological agnostic at the time he got a job in the Nixon administration administering them. In fact, he was a Republican only by chance. That experience was one of the primary experiences that made him a conservative when he saw that price controls don't work. A little bit of knowledge is generally a good thing, but you've got such a small amount, at least on this subject, that it just makes you say dumb things.

A $400 billion deficit seems pretty attractive when you're looking at it from the top of a deficit mountain of over $1.5 trillion. Whether it's good or bad depends on the circumstances. Since you seem to be a little bit learning disabled, you're probably unaware of the fact that I was opposed to the excessive spending of the Bush years.

And you voted for John Mccain right?


John McCain voted for the bailouts. So you supported in the bailouts goodjob Patteau.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2010, 12:09 PM
I'd agree Cheney was only a Republican by chance.

dirk digler
08-19-2010, 01:54 PM
Well now, I wonder if chiefnorth is going to scold you for being a troll with this post? If he's consistent he will. If not then he's doing what he's accusing others of.

I do think we have an enemy, that wants to kill us. It's a bunch of man that operate from a cave. It is NOT a nation state. It is NOT Iran. What I don't do is use the word "terrorists" as the sweeping generality with "no name" that you're using. That's demogoguery. Nor do I apply the word loosely as you do—for instance, your using attacks on our military installations that are on their lands or when we put them down in the middle of one of their conflicts. What do you expect? That's the problem with this war. An ill defined enemy that is vague and seemingly everywhere because fear mongers are manipulating it.


I covered this with you before. Listed out every attack you base this refrain of yours on. It is verbal sleight of hand....one that a politician would us....and the NeoCons use. Iran has NOT attacked our country. Our interests are too broad and interventionist and do not necessarily fit the Constitution forming our govt for our common defense.

They're surround by US military bases since 2003. What did you expect? That is if there's any truth to these reports and there is conflicting data about that. This plan to attack them, before they can do something, aka preventative war is the heart of the NeoConservative FP. It's far more aggressive than RR's FP. It's criminal thinking. That's not what America is about.

The very definition of sovereignty is the ability and right to defend themselves. MADD works.

Telling the truth isn't being a troll BEP. We are going to have to agree to disagree on Iran because you obviously still have your head up your butt.

patteeu
08-19-2010, 04:33 PM
Good point! I don't consider dirk a troll though. I can see the quotes of the other one though.

:LOL:

He's not talking about me, honey. He's talking about you and billay.

Chocolate Hog
08-19-2010, 04:39 PM
:LOL:

He's not talking about me, honey. He's talking about you and billay.

No troll here I simply ask you a question that you can't answer without looking like a hypocrite.

patteeu
08-19-2010, 04:39 PM
I think it is funny that BEP doesn't think that there isn't countries or terrorists around the world conspiring every day to kill, attack or destroy Americans or our country.

I mean Iran has really shown to be a peaceful nation and never has attacked our country or our interests. They have never supported terrorist activities and we can totally trust them if they get a nuke. LMAO

Or how about China just developing a missile to destroy Aircraft carriers. Yeah that wasn't directed at anybody in particular.

Yeah, people in the Paul crowd think it's OK if our military is only equal to that of our rivals, or even a little less capable in the areas of power projection. They seem to think that as long as we don't try to have any influence in the rest of the world our potential adversaries will leave us alone. They are so naive.

If we want to maintain our security we need to have enough power to make it either unattractive or unnecessary or both for other countries to build up their militaries.

Chocolate Hog
08-19-2010, 04:41 PM
Patteau supports government handouts and bailouts.

dirk digler
08-19-2010, 04:53 PM
Yeah, people in the Paul crowd think it's OK if our military is only equal to that of our rivals, or even a little less capable in the areas of power projection. They seem to think that as long as we don't try to have any influence in the rest of the world our potential adversaries will leave us alone. They are so naive.

If we want to maintain our security we need to have enough power to make it either unattractive or unnecessary or both for other countries to build up their militaries.

Totally agree.

I just can't believe smart people like TJ and BEP live in such a fantasy world where they think 4 sub sandwiches, no troops overseas, no FBI and CIA is going to make us safe.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2010, 04:59 PM
No troll here I simply ask you a question that you can't answer without looking like a hypocrite.

That's one way to spot a NeoCon—if you disagree with them you get attacked with an insult or they drop a bomb on you. What they do in the real world they do in the virtual world. Really that's how they are. It's preventative war. And politics is warfare by other means.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2010, 05:03 PM
Totally agree.

I just can't believe smart people like TJ and BEP live in such a fantasy world where they think 4 sub sandwiches, no troops overseas, no FBI and CIA is going to make us safe.

Where did I say I was for no FBI, eventhough the Constitution does not authorize a central police? Where did Paul or I say there should be no intel, even if there should be no CIA? Where did I or Paul say there should be NO troops overseas? He was taking about bases on their land. We used to patrol the area from the Gulf before even under RR. I don't see the problem there, especially when bases in their countries has led to terrorism being exported to our soil.

While we're at it we should get rid of NATO. It's no longer needed. The Cold War is over and that was for keeping Russians out of Europe.

Oh, and I don't eat subs. :harumph:

BucEyedPea
08-19-2010, 05:03 PM
Patteau supports government handouts and bailouts.

Especially overseas for foreigners.

BucEyedPea
08-19-2010, 05:05 PM
Telling the truth isn't being a troll BEP. We are going to have to agree to disagree on Iran because you obviously still have your head up your butt.

But you love BEP butt. It's a Boston butt. :p

BucEyedPea
08-19-2010, 06:47 PM
Latest news on this from Lew:

I am getting lots of emails asking me, to which I always reply, “I do not know.” When I mentioned this to Ron, he wrote:

And the truth is, I don’t know either. I have said publicly several times that it has not been ruled out. Certainly the decision will not occur in 2010. Assessing the degree of support will be a very major factor in making the decision. And note: there was no announcement in Orlando.

patteeu
08-19-2010, 07:28 PM
Patteau supports government handouts and bailouts.

So does Ron Paul (http://blogs.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/04/ron_pauls_earmarks_for_fy2009.html).

Chocolate Hog
08-19-2010, 07:30 PM
So does Ron Paul (http://blogs.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/04/ron_pauls_earmarks_for_fy2009.html).

Earmark are alloacted wether he accepts them or not. Nice try though.


You voted for the bailouts.

patteeu
08-19-2010, 07:34 PM
Earmark are alloacted wether he accepts them or not. Nice try though.


You voted for the bailouts.

:spock:

He proposed those handouts. I didn't propose, vote for, or support any of the recent bailouts or handouts, although I'm not so stupid as to say that I've never supported something that could be considered a handout or a bailout. Are you?

Chocolate Hog
08-19-2010, 07:37 PM
:spock:

He proposed those handouts. I didn't propose, vote for, or support any of the recent bailouts or handouts, although I'm not so stupid as to say that I've never supported something that could be considered a handout or a bailout. Are you?

Ron Paul has never voted for an earmark.


You supported the bailouts in 2008 how can you not support them now? And as much as you bash Ron Paul on foreign policy you should love Obama. He's continued the failed foreign policy that you defended so much.

patteeu
08-19-2010, 07:44 PM
Ron Paul has never voted for an earmark.

Neither have I. OTOH, Ron Paul has proposed them, but I haven't.


You supported the bailouts in 2008 how can you not support them now? And as much as you bash Ron Paul on foreign policy you should love Obama. He's continued the failed foreign policy that you defended so much.

No, I didn't support any bailouts in 2008. Surely there'd be evidence of my support here if it existed. Let's see it.

As far as foreign policy is concerned:

Bush/Cheney > acceptable > Obama >> Ron Paul

BucEyedPea
08-19-2010, 08:49 PM
Ron Paul has never voted for an earmark.


You supported the bailouts in 2008 how can you not support them now? And as much as you bash Ron Paul on foreign policy you should love Obama. He's continued the failed foreign policy that you defended so much.

Yeah, but he bowed. He BOWED! That endangered us! :D

Chocolate Hog
08-19-2010, 09:58 PM
Neither have I. OTOH, Ron Paul has proposed them, but I haven't.



No, I didn't support any bailouts in 2008. Surely there'd be evidence of my support here if it existed. Let's see it.





You voted for John McCain right?

patteeu
08-19-2010, 10:50 PM
You voted for John McCain right?

Yes, I cast an unenthusiastic vote for McCain since my top 4 candidates were eliminated in the primaries and since it was either him or the guy we got. Why are you changing the subject?

You voted present (Ron Paul), right?

Chocolate Hog
08-19-2010, 11:13 PM
Yes, I cast an unenthusiastic vote for McCain since my top 4 candidates were eliminated in the primaries and since it was either him or the guy we got. Why are you changing the subject?

You voted present (Ron Paul), right?

Yea I voted for the guy whos' never voted to raise taxes. You can't say the same.

patteeu
08-19-2010, 11:37 PM
Yea I voted for the guy whos' never voted to raise taxes. You can't say the same.

So what? Are we supposed to agree with every vote a candidate has ever cast before voting for them and are we forever tied to their future voting records afterwards? That's just stupid, to be blunt.