AP: Ron Paul platform no longer "fringe"...is now mainstream.

[Divine Wind]

When the Republicans and Democrats change the laws so that third parties have an equal and fair opportunity to compete in elections maybe Ron Paul supporters will give the Libertarian Party another shot, but it's not likely to happen.

What laws would that be?

 

[Missourian]

that sounds like rick perry cat

I can see you aren't getting the point.

The point I'm making is, it isn't smart to tear down each others candidates.

Draw comparisons? Yes. Critique? Yes.

Attack. No.

If Paul wins, you're going to need my support, and if Perry wins, I'm going to need yours.

Animosity is our enemy.

If Perry wins you shouldn't hold your breath on him getting much support from Ron Paul supporters. I know I would never vote for him.

And I would never vote for Paul...so there you go.

Such is life, I suppose we should go about attacking each others candidate, since we aren't going to get any support after the nomination.

I'll go finish my Lolcat.

 

[Avorysuds]

Paul has the Ability to say some very smart things. I love his ideas about auditing the Fed, However His Isolationist Foreign Policy Ideas are not Practical in a Global Economy.

The dude never fails to ruin a good speech with one or two wacky statements. Not a real contender for the WH, and everyone knows it.

Normally I like you but if you could do me a favor and look up the word "isolationist" and get back to us on how it applys correctly to Ron Paul... I really hope you do this because it comes off like you want to talk shit so you just use false attacks and I'd hate to think you were like that.

Do you deny that he wants to bring all our troops home, and "stop meddling" around the world? That is Part and parcel of Isolationism, and it shows that he does not understand the world as it is today. We can not afford to pretend we can just stick our heads in the sand and mind our own Business and everything will be just fine. That is simply not practical, and frankly pretty childish.

I am not sure why were even having this debate. Despite the meaningless straw Poll. Which only 1 winner of has ever gone on to be the president, Paul is not a serious Candidate for the WH. He can not win the General Election.

We are wasting our time here.

I rather talk about how upsetting it is to me that MB won lol. Looks to me like despite the Tea Party and the mood for Fiscal Conservatism, were still stuck with Social Conservatives calling the shots and it pisses me off.

I'm sorry but that is till not the definition of being an "isolationist."

It seems funny to me that people believe we need to stick our dicks in everyone's country and when someone asks "why" they stumble around foolishly... So, "why" do we need to be in all of these countries... What does it do for us really? When was the last time "something important" happened that you were like "whew, I'm glad we have a base near there."?

Also not having troops all over the world means nothing when we can get them there in under a few hours... Is there a reason they need to be there sooner?

 

[Avorysuds]

Jon Stewart had a great bit tonight about how the media was intentionally ignoring Paul tonight, even though Paul actually represents what the "Tea Party" claims to be about (in public anyway).

Yeah... I wanna see that. Stewart's been a hero of mine since he fucked them up on Crossfire.

link to the vid maybe?

 

[dblack]

link to the vid maybe?

oh, man! you never seen it? classic stuff

You're in for a treat:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE]jon stewart on crossfire - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

When the Republicans and Democrats change the laws so that third parties have an equal and fair opportunity to compete in elections maybe Ron Paul supporters will give the Libertarian Party another shot, but it's not likely to happen.

What laws would that be?

Ballot access laws that favor them and exclude third parties.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I can see you aren't getting the point.

The point I'm making is, it isn't smart to tear down each others candidates.

Draw comparisons? Yes. Critique? Yes.

Attack. No.

If Paul wins, you're going to need my support, and if Perry wins, I'm going to need yours.

Animosity is our enemy.

If Perry wins you shouldn't hold your breath on him getting much support from Ron Paul supporters. I know I would never vote for him.

And I would never vote for Paul...so there you go.

Such is life, I suppose we should go about attacking each others candidate, since we aren't going to get any support after the nomination.

I'll go finish my Lolcat.

Well I don't plan on attacking Rick Perry, he's probably a nice enough guy. I just won't vote for him under any circumstances.

 

[Avorysuds]

link to the vid maybe?

oh, man! you never seen it? classic stuff

You're in for a treat:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE]jon stewart on crossfire - YouTube[/ame]

I have sorry, I mean this

"Jon Stewart had a great bit tonight about how the media was intentionally ignoring Paul tonight, even though Paul actually represents what the "Tea Party" claims to be about (in public anyway)."

 

[dblack]

I have sorry, I mean this

"Jon Stewart had a great bit tonight about how the media was intentionally ignoring Paul tonight, even though Paul actually represents what the "Tea Party" claims to be about (in public anyway)."

Ahhh.. I see. I dunno, I wanna see that too. I've been looking for a link, but it might be a day or to before it makes it to netlandia.

 

[Avorysuds]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO93P6uz9t8]Daily Show - Ron Paul 8/15 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Missourian]

If Perry wins you shouldn't hold your breath on him getting much support from Ron Paul supporters. I know I would never vote for him.

And I would never vote for Paul...so there you go.

Such is life, I suppose we should go about attacking each others candidate, since we aren't going to get any support after the nomination.

I'll go finish my Lolcat.

Well I don't plan on attacking Rick Perry, he's probably a nice enough guy. I just won't vote for him under any circumstances.

I don't mean personally attack...I mean attack their positions.

For example, I started a thread on Ron Paul's position legalizing drugs.

It's a true position...but in my opinion, it's a dirty, lowdown, negative way of building up another candidate.

I only posted it as an example, and I feel bad about doing it...not my style...I strongly prefer honorable candidate promotion...but I felt I needed to prove a point.

It's the middle of the night on Monday, and all you have to do is go in their and say "Oh, he meant that the power should revert to the states" and I won't oppose it.

The point is, we could fight among ourselves, or we can support our own candidates without tearing down our opponents.

I can certainly see how these primaries become so negative.

One side does it, so the other side feels compelled that "turnabout's fair play".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And I would never vote for Paul...so there you go.

Such is life, I suppose we should go about attacking each others candidate, since we aren't going to get any support after the nomination.

I'll go finish my Lolcat.

Well I don't plan on attacking Rick Perry, he's probably a nice enough guy. I just won't vote for him under any circumstances.

I don't mean personally attack...I mean attack their positions.

For example, I started a thread on Ron Paul's position legalizing drugs.

It's a true position...but in my opinion, it's a dirty, lowdown, negative way of building up another candidate.

I only posted it as an example, and I feel bad about doing it...not my style...I strongly prefer honorable candidate promotion...but I felt I needed to prove a point.

It's the middle of the night on Monday, and all you have to do is go in their and say "Oh, he meant that the power should revert to the states" and I won't oppose it.

The point is, we could fight among ourselves, or we can support our own candidates without tearing down our opponents.

I can certainly see how these primaries become so negative.

One side does it, so the other side feels compelled that "turnabout's fair play".

Oh, well, I posted in that thread, and didn't go with the federalism argument.

 

[Missourian]

Well I don't plan on attacking Rick Perry, he's probably a nice enough guy. I just won't vote for him under any circumstances.

I don't mean personally attack...I mean attack their positions.

For example, I started a thread on Ron Paul's position legalizing drugs.

It's a true position...but in my opinion, it's a dirty, lowdown, negative way of building up another candidate.

I only posted it as an example, and I feel bad about doing it...not my style...I strongly prefer honorable candidate promotion...but I felt I needed to prove a point.

It's the middle of the night on Monday, and all you have to do is go in their and say "Oh, he meant that the power should revert to the states" and I won't oppose it.

The point is, we could fight among ourselves, or we can support our own candidates without tearing down our opponents.

I can certainly see how these primaries become so negative.

One side does it, so the other side feels compelled that "turnabout's fair play".

Oh, well, I posted in that thread, and didn't go with the federalism argument.

I'm not going back to it...let it die.

As soon as I posted it I felt bad about it...not in my nature.

But, the point is, Romney had the right idea in Iowa. Keep the focus on Obama, not infighting.

People who are going to vote for Paul are people who agree with Paul.

People who agree with Perry are going to vote for Perry.

The infighting only leads to animosity and hard feelings.

 

[dblack]

People who are going to vote for Paul are people who agree with Paul.

People who agree with Perry are going to vote for Perry.

The infighting only leads to animosity and hard feelings.

That's always a danger of political discourse. What's even more dangerous is the fear and ignorance inherent in the notion that 'we must defeat Obama at any cost'. That simply bullshit. It very possible for the Republicans to nominate someone even worse, and in my estimation, meat puppets like Romney and Perry are exactly that.

 

[Missourian]

People who are going to vote for Paul are people who agree with Paul.

People who agree with Perry are going to vote for Perry.

The infighting only leads to animosity and hard feelings.

That's always a danger of political discourse. What's even more dangerous is the fear and ignorance inherent in the notion that 'we must defeat Obama at any cost'. That simply bullshit. It very possible for the Republicans to nominate someone even worse, and in my estimation, meat puppets like Romney and Perry are exactly that.

Here we disagree, in more ways that one.

It is important that we defeat Obama at any cost, even if I have to vote for Ron Paul.

Because of Supreme Court nominations.

Justice Ginsburg has said she is not retiring, she's 78. Justice Breyer is 73.

 

[Paulie]

I can see you aren't getting the point.

The point I'm making is, it isn't smart to tear down each others candidates.

Draw comparisons? Yes. Critique? Yes.

Attack. No.

If Paul wins, you're going to need my support, and if Perry wins, I'm going to need yours.

Animosity is our enemy.

If Perry wins you shouldn't hold your breath on him getting much support from Ron Paul supporters. I know I would never vote for him.

And I would never vote for Paul...so there you go.

Such is life, I suppose we should go about attacking each others candidate, since we aren't going to get any support after the nomination.

I don't believe this, though. If it were Paul vs. Obama in the general, you'd vote Paul and you know it.

 

[editec]

Ron Paul is an asset to this nation.

If nothing else he asks questions and proposes policies that makes both parties uncomfortable.

That's very cathartic.

 

[Avorysuds]

I don't mean personally attack...I mean attack their positions.

For example, I started a thread on Ron Paul's position legalizing drugs.

It's a true position...but in my opinion, it's a dirty, lowdown, negative way of building up another candidate.

I only posted it as an example, and I feel bad about doing it...not my style...I strongly prefer honorable candidate promotion...but I felt I needed to prove a point.

It's the middle of the night on Monday, and all you have to do is go in their and say "Oh, he meant that the power should revert to the states" and I won't oppose it.

The point is, we could fight among ourselves, or we can support our own candidates without tearing down our opponents.

I can certainly see how these primaries become so negative.

One side does it, so the other side feels compelled that "turnabout's fair play".

Oh, well, I posted in that thread, and didn't go with the federalism argument.

I'm not going back to it...let it die.

As soon as I posted it I felt bad about it...not in my nature.

But, the point is, Romney had the right idea in Iowa. Keep the focus on Obama, not infighting.

People who are going to vote for Paul are people who agree with Paul.

People who agree with Perry are going to vote for Perry.

The infighting only leads to animosity and hard feelings.

Mitt will prolly not win the nomination because he lacks a strong base... Mitt's support is due to the media saying Mitt is #1, there is not energy surrounding Mitt, meaning if someone came into the race like Rick Perry Mitt's support could be cut in half instantly.

Mitt's idea of attacking Obama was bad in Iowa IMO, he needed to be different and be his own... He almost seemed out of touch because Mitt attacked Obama like everyone else attacks Obama, but others built support defending their positions while Mitt either lost support to others or stagnated. He lost in the Straw poll and while he was not at the debate he was still on the poll... He also lost to Rick Perry and Rich was not even at the debate like Mitt was.

 

[Avorysuds]

If Perry wins you shouldn't hold your breath on him getting much support from Ron Paul supporters. I know I would never vote for him.

And I would never vote for Paul...so there you go.

Such is life, I suppose we should go about attacking each others candidate, since we aren't going to get any support after the nomination.

I don't believe this, though. If it were Paul vs. Obama in the general, you'd vote Paul and you know it.

I agree, I think that if RP were the nom 90% of the people that claim they wouldn't vote for RP (Republicans) would suck it up and get behind him because they still agree with a lot of what RP says and that is what Obama would be attacking, conservative beliefs...

 

[Dr.Drock]

He has some good ideas, but his foreign policy and ideas on the military are very idealistic as opposed to realistic. Also, I find it disturbing that he doesn't have the balls to run as a Libertarian instead of a Republican since that is obviously what he is.

Incorrect, neocons have hijacked the republican party, Ron Paul is trying to get the republican party back to what it was founded on which includes a conservative foreign policy and a military budget we can actually afford.