Ron Paul for President

[mikemic]

He ought to be the only real choice.

 

[VaYank5150]

What rock have you been under since 2007?

 

[mikemic]

Didn't take long before I was insulted. Way to be mature.

 

[Steelplate]

He ought to be the only real choice.

Wow, what a compelling argument there Mikemic....

 

[Avatar4321]

Didn't take long before I was insulted. Way to be mature.

Insulting everyone else who disagrees with you to begin with doesn't really invite compliments.

 

[mikemic]

He ought to be the only real choice.

Wow, what a compelling argument there Mikemic....

Yes, thank you. I know that it is really easy to be sarcastic when someone makes a statement that has no real argument but in my defense I was just simply trying to start a thread.

 

[Avatar4321]

He ought to be the only real choice.

Wow, what a compelling argument there Mikemic....

Yes, thank you. I know that it is really easy to be sarcastic when someone makes a statement that has no real argument but in my defense I was just simply trying to start a thread.

Then it would help if you gave us something to talk about rather than a controversial/insulting statement and then getting upset when you get nothing but poor responses to it.

 

[Mr.Nick]

He ought to be the only real choice.

Shouldn't be the only choice but I certainly will be voting for him in the primary.

 

[mikemic]

Wow, what a compelling argument there Mikemic....

Yes, thank you. I know that it is really easy to be sarcastic when someone makes a statement that has no real argument but in my defense I was just simply trying to start a thread.

Then it would help if you gave us something to talk about rather than a controversial/insulting statement and then getting upset when you get nothing but poor responses to it.

Let me flip the switch.
Why not Ron Paul for President?
He's the most consistent candidate on every issue. Has the most extensive budget cuts in his plan more than any other candidate (which is what this country desperately needs). Always refers to the Constitution whenever voting which means he's one of the few if not the only current member of congress that adheres to the oath to the Constitution. He wishes to audit the federal reserve which caused the collapse of the dollar. He wants to end an illegal needless seemingly endless war. Need I say more? Saying that you wouldn't vote for him because you believe he's "unelectable" is such an amateur way of thinking. If everyone voted for him then wouldn't that make him electable? Would he not get in office if enough people voted for him? By the way, he was elected as a Representative of Texas for 12 terms. That's not enough? Turn off your TV and open your minds.

Is that better?

 

[Avatar4321]

his foreign policy is outright dangerous at this point in human history. The

And I question the integrity of getting earmarks by sliding them into legislation you know is going to pass regardless, voting against it on the principle that earmarks are wrong and yet still getting them for your district through deception.

 

[mikemic]

By the way I do know that no one in this thread said he was unelectable. I just copied and pasted a previous thread from a different forum.

 

[mikemic]

his foreign policy is outright dangerous at this point in human history. The

And I question the integrity of getting earmarks by sliding them into legislation you know is going to pass regardless, voting against it on the principle that earmarks are wrong and yet still getting them for your district through deception.

Which legislation did he vote for that gave him earmarks?

 

[jillian]

he won't be elected in this or any other lifetime

 

[mikemic]

he won't be elected in this or any other lifetime

Not with that attitude!

 

[Avatar4321]

his foreign policy is outright dangerous at this point in human history. The

And I question the integrity of getting earmarks by sliding them into legislation you know is going to pass regardless, voting against it on the principle that earmarks are wrong and yet still getting them for your district through deception.

Which legislation did he vote for that gave him earmarks?

I just told you. He sticks his earmarks in legislation that is going to pass no matter what and then votes against it so he can claim he is opposed to earmarks. I find that disingenuous.

 

[mikemic]

his foreign policy is outright dangerous at this point in human history. The

And I question the integrity of getting earmarks by sliding them into legislation you know is going to pass regardless, voting against it on the principle that earmarks are wrong and yet still getting them for your district through deception.

Which legislation did he vote for that gave him earmarks?

I just told you. He sticks his earmarks in legislation that is going to pass no matter what and then votes against it so he can claim he is opposed to earmarks. I find that disingenuous.

Is that exactly how it goes? He asks for earmarks to be added in legislation that will probably pass and then he just votes against. He goes through all that just so he can say that he voted against those earmarks. Is there anything else in the legislation that may have been added that he didn't like? Does it really have to be all that sinister?

 

[Euro]

He ought to be the only real choice.

Romey and Obama are much the same. Romneycare or Obamacare, what’s best? 50/50?
Gingrich has a difficult past, with corruption in Freddie Mac, he’ll be an easy bait for media and Obama.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that will make a differnce.

 

[LibertyForAll]

his foreign policy is outright dangerous at this point in human history. The

And I question the integrity of getting earmarks by sliding them into legislation you know is going to pass regardless, voting against it on the principle that earmarks are wrong and yet still getting them for your district through deception.

Which legislation did he vote for that gave him earmarks?

I just told you. He sticks his earmarks in legislation that is going to pass no matter what and then votes against it so he can claim he is opposed to earmarks. I find that disingenuous.

Can you give specifics please? I would like to do my due diligence and research these allegations. Specifically which legislation and which earmarks would be helpful.

 

[skipper]

his foreign policy is outright dangerous at this point in human history. The

And I question the integrity of getting earmarks by sliding them into legislation you know is going to pass regardless, voting against it on the principle that earmarks are wrong and yet still getting them for your district through deception.

His foreign policy is the only area I tend to agree with (at least as a baseline). Why in hell do we have troops in over 40 countries around the world?

 

[imbalance]

his foreign policy is outright dangerous at this point in human history. The

And I question the integrity of getting earmarks by sliding them into legislation you know is going to pass regardless, voting against it on the principle that earmarks are wrong and yet still getting them for your district through deception.

Well you're flat wrong about the foreign policy but I doubt you'll ever be convinced by me so I won't bother trying.

Now to your second point. Even if all your assumptions were true about the earmarks, if that's the best you've got against his integrity then you ain't got a whole hell of a lot. In fact, you've got nothing. The earmarks did not increase government spending; the funds were already amassed and authorized to be spent and if Paul didn't use them for his district, the executive branch would've directed where & how they be spent and inevitebly wasted. The fact that Ron Paul voted NO on the legislation containing the earmarks only shows that he wasn't trading YES votes for earmarks.

If I didn't explain that very well, this does:
In Defense of Ron Paul’s Earmarks by Eric Phillips