Ron Paul : Stop Dreaming

[Invayne]

I agree. Stop dreaming Ron Paul. You had your chance. You lost.

Heh...we all lost.

 

[Invayne]

I can't imagine he would endorse him if they asked and I can't imagine they would take a chance by allowing him into the convention.

Which candidate will Ron Paul's supporters endorse?

Ron Paul has already endorsed Chuck Baldwin.

 

[Invayne]

Some will write in Ron Paul, some will vote for Chuck Baldwin, and others like me are voting for Bob Barr.

Barr has no credibility left after the stunt he pulled last week, saying it was a "waste of time" to attend Ron Paul's gathering. Pffft. Alot of libertarians won't vote for him now...they think he was a plant to make the party look bad.

 

[Invayne]

I'm a huge proponent of voting for who you agree with, rather than voting against somebody else. If more people thought this way then third parties and independents wouldn't be such long shots.

Remember, the Republican Party was a third party once.

 

[Paulie]

Ron Paul has already endorsed Chuck Baldwin.

And he's now polling higher than Barr, too.

I supported Paul's decision not to run 3rd party, only because his seat in congress was more important than a lost election.

Just wouldn't be the same without Paul there to hardball guys like Bernanke in congressional financial committee testimonies.

I think his poll numbers would be high enough to get debate access though, and I think that could possibly lead to him getting even more votes than Perot did in '92.

Something like THAT might even just be WORTH it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Barr has no credibility left after the stunt he pulled last week, saying it was a "waste of time" to attend Ron Paul's gathering. Pffft. Alot of libertarians won't vote for him now...they think he was a plant to make the party look bad.

It's not a campaign issue, it's more of a personal dispute between Ron Paul and Bob Barr.

 

[Invayne]

I thought Ron Paul was one of those few politicians with some real integrity; really believing what he said and saying what he believes. What really set him apart in my mind was his foreign policy views. By far the one of the only ones from a dozen candidates that knew what was going on and was pragmatic about it. He also had the whole civil liberties thing going on too, that's good. But, that said, I completely disagree with him on almost all economic positions. They'd probably be disastrous. But other than that, I really hope his understanding of foreign relations is given weight in the future.

I feel the opposite. His economic positions were wonderful...it's the foreign policy position I had trouble with. It kinda pissed me off when he claimed we were attacked because of our alliance with Israel and our presence in the Middle East. That's bullshit. Muslims have been attacking forever...this is NOT a new thing!

 

[Invayne]

I'm gonna quote the great Mike Tyson and say, "I doubt it seriously." So Bush saw this crisis coming and did nothing to stop it? The man's dumber then I thought. McCain saw it coming? Strange that he's admitted to knowing nothing about economics. The media likes him? Well this is the first I've heard about it.

From what I understand, Bush tried to throw some regulations in there back in 2003 to keep this from happening, but Barney Frank, head of the House Financial Services Committee, said Hogwash! So....there you have it.

 

[Paulie]

I feel the opposite. His economic positions were wonderful...it's the foreign policy position I had trouble with. It kinda pissed me off when he claimed we were attacked because of our alliance with Israel and our presence in the Middle East. That's bullshit. Muslims have been attacking forever...this is NOT a new thing!

It is not so much our "presence" per se, as it is our intervention and meddling. We step in and call the shots on THEIR SOIL.

We would be up in arms if it was happening to us. We would feel as though we have justification to attack anyone meddling in our country, much the same as many of them over there do.

They feel they're getting a bad shake from Israel. Who knows, maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But they feel like they are. So they don't like Israel. Because we are joined at the hip with Israel, in their eyes that makes us just as culpable, becuase they know damn right well we'd side with Israel ANY DAY OF THE WEEK, over them when it came to demands and desires.

How he said it, and the real context of it, was spun by the media as him simply blaming America for being attacked.

You are a little smarter than to just lick that right off the spoon without critical thought, are you not?

 

[Invayne]

• Then there's this: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.

There goes your country.

Yep. And Paulson is saying we'll be bailing out NON-U.S. failures too. We're paying for the whole world, people.

 

[Invayne]

It's not a campaign issue, it's more of a personal dispute between Ron Paul and Bob Barr.

Well, it still pissed alot of people off!

And then Barr invites Paul to be his VP? Yikes!

 

[xsited1]

Congressman Paul's consistent voting record prompted one of his congressional colleagues to say, "Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers' ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are." Another colleague observed, "There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few."

watch him here:
Ron Paul : Stop Dreaming

I wish he had run on the Libertarian Party ticket. Bob Barr is too much of a Republican for me.

 

[Invayne]

It is not so much our "presence" per se, as it is our intervention and meddling. We step in and call the shots on THEIR SOIL.

We would be up in arms if it was happening to us. We would feel as though we have justification to attack anyone meddling in our country, much the same as many of them over there do.

They feel they're getting a bad shake from Israel. Who knows, maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But they feel like they are. So they don't like Israel. Because we are joined at the hip with Israel, in their eyes that makes us just as culpable, becuase they know damn right well we'd side with Israel ANY DAY OF THE WEEK, over them when it came to demands and desires.

How he said it, and the real context of it, was spun by the media as him simply blaming America for being attacked.

You are a little smarter than to just lick that right off the spoon without critical thought, are you not?

Well, I DID think that Paul had more sense than that, but you're right, the media can make it sound like anything they want it to.

 

[Invayne]

I wish he had run on the Libertarian Party ticket. Bob Barr is too much of a Republican for me.

He WAS with the Republican party before, wasn't he? Or am I thinking of someone else?

 

[xsited1]

He WAS with the Republican party before, wasn't he? Or am I thinking of someone else?

You're right. Bob Barr was a Republican. The trouble is that most Republicans don't make good Libertarians. Bob Barr has reversed his stance on several issues to become a Libertarian. How did that happen? Did he just come to his senses one day? I hope so, but I have my doubts.

 

[Paulie]

Well, I DID think that Paul had more sense than that, but you're right, the media can make it sound like anything they want it to.

Remember, after we financed the Mujahadeen in the late 70's to fight off the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Bin Laden was basically unappreciative, as he told us in no uncertain terms to leave.

We didn't, and instead, we expanded our military intervention in the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia.

Saudi is the holiest of lands in Islam. Mecca and Medina?

That is an affront to their religion. Much like Russia rolling into Jerusalem would be to Christians and Jews.

How is it any different? They hate us because we're calling the shots on the holiest of their lands. I'm not sure how anyone could possibly perceive it otherwise.

They say it to us every single day.

 

[Odd1_Out]

A lot of the changes that Ron Paul was talking about wanting to make would NEVER pass through Congress, so whether or not any of his plans would be beneficial is of no consequence. He may have a good grasp on what the issues are, and maybe he has come up with feasible ways to solve them, but he has completely neglected the current political climate in developing solutions. A president can't just pass any legislation he wants into law, he needs the support of Congress, and Ron Paul wouldn't have it for a great deal of the ideas I've heard his supporters trumpet as "genius".

He's a good guy with good intentions, but he seems to have a rather loose grasp on what can actually be done "here and now" as far as political reform is concerned... He's essentially a more conservative version of Dennis Kucinich.

 

[Paulie]

A lot of the changes that Ron Paul was talking about wanting to make would NEVER pass through Congress, so whether or not any of his plans would be beneficial is of no consequence. He may have a good grasp on what the issues are, and maybe he has come up with feasible ways to solve them, but he has completely neglected the current political climate in developing solutions. A president can't just pass any legislation he wants into law, he needs the support of Congress, and Ron Paul wouldn't have it for a great deal of the ideas I've heard his supporters trumpet as "genius".

He's a good guy with good intentions, but he seems to have a rather loose grasp on what can actually be done "here and now" as far as political reform is concerned... He's essentially a more conservative version of Dennis Kucinich.

So instead you would prefer a pussy for a politician, like we always get? Not one who at least KNOWS what he's talking about? For all you know, those pussies in congress are just WAITING for a president they can actually vote their CONSCIENCE with. Maybe a guy like Paul could move some of those republicans back to the right of center where they CLAIM to be, but obviously AREN'T.

Your view is defeatist. We should never just pass up on an opportunity to challenge the current status quo, just because you THINK congress won't budge. Paul could very well get a lot of bipartisan work done, because his foreign policy appeals to the left, and his domestic policy appeals to the right.

Name one politician running this past year who could have claimed that. You have no idea the type of compromises that he could have possibly made with congress.

 

[Odd1_Out]

So instead you would prefer a pussy for a politician, like we always get? Not one who at least KNOWS what he's talking about? For all you know, those pussies in congress are just WAITING for a president they can actually vote their CONSCIENCE with. Maybe a guy like Paul could move some of those republicans back to the right of center where they CLAIM to be, but obviously AREN'T.

Your view is defeatist. We should never just pass up on an opportunity to challenge the current status quo, just because you THINK congress won't budge. Paul could very well get a lot of bipartisan work done, because his foreign policy appeals to the left, and his domestic policy appeals to the right.

Name one politician running this past year who could have claimed that. You have no idea the type of compromises that he could have possibly made with congress.

No, I don't have a "defeatist" attitude because I never actually supported him as a candidate. I would never have voted for him, even if the Republicans had nominated him because though I believe that we need extensive welfare reform, I would never support welfare being abolished altogether. A true conservative appeals to me little more than a false one does. We have rough times coming ahead, and you have to be a heartless bastard to tell a country in crisis "Well, good luck, everyone, you're on your own".

You can't call it challenging the status quo, if your guy didn't have a chance of winning, and a Libertarian trying to get the Republican nomination.... Am I the only one who remembers seeing him straight up laughed at at the debates?

The only people I knew who took his candidacy seriously were people who smoke weed, and even they admitted he was crazy, but he talked about decriminalizing marijuana, so they voted for him.

You don't get bipartisan work done by appealing to different sides on completely unrelated issues, and I doubt any other politician would be proud to claim such an inane feat. You have to appeal to BOTH sides on the SAME issue.

Sweeping change doesn't just happen overnight in politics. Change is subtle and gradual, sometimes its good, sometimes its bad, but it happens. The best way to challenge the status quo is to work within it to create a hemmorage, to change opinions before you start suggesting changes to policy. Ron Paul was waging a full frontal political assault, he got laughed at, and it wasn't because of what he thought or what he wanted to do, it was because of the approach he took.... an approach that suggested that he hadn't read a single political science book written after 1776, let alone one written in the last century.

 

[Paulie]

No, I don't have a "defeatist" attitude because I never actually supported him as a candidate. I would never have voted for him, even if the Republicans had nominated him because though I believe that we need extensive welfare reform, I would never support welfare being abolished altogether. A true conservative appeals to me little more than a false one does. We have rough times coming ahead, and you have to be a heartless bastard to tell a country in crisis "Well, good luck, everyone, you're on your own".

You can't call it challenging the status quo, if your guy didn't have a chance of winning, and a Libertarian trying to get the Republican nomination.... Am I the only one who remembers seeing him straight up laughed at at the debates?

The only people I knew who took his candidacy seriously were people who smoke weed, and even they admitted he was crazy, but he talked about decriminalizing marijuana, so they voted for him.

You don't get bipartisan work done by appealing to different sides on completely unrelated issues, and I doubt any other politician would be proud to claim such an inane feat. You have to appeal to BOTH sides on the SAME issue.

Sweeping change doesn't just happen overnight in politics. Change is subtle and gradual, sometimes its good, sometimes its bad, but it happens. The best way to challenge the status quo is to work within it to create a hemmorage, to change opinions before you start suggesting changes to policy. Ron Paul was waging a full frontal political assault, he got laughed at, and it wasn't because of what he thought or what he wanted to do, it was because of the approach he took.... an approach that suggested that he hadn't read a single political science book written after 1776, let alone one written in the last century.

Oh, I didn't know you were a liberal. I wouldn't have wasted my time with you if I did.