Is Ron Paul Irrelevant Yet?

[jillian]

The only Paul who might run in 2016 is Rand, and even that's questionable to me considering he'll also presumably be running for re-election to his Senate seat.

He's a bigger idiot than Ron.

Translation for Paul supporters..."He's even more awesome than Ron"

wow...

paulians crack me up.


hey, kevin... do you really want to throw your lot in with idiots like these guys??? seriously.

*shakes head*

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well, I can see the same old arguments that don't quite stick rear their head again.

Naive, hypocrite, a fool. a waste of energy, a loser, etc...

Yet, I see no intelligent rebuttals. Ask why I'm not shocked. The fact is, I bet all of you name callers can not debate ONE single issue effectively on your stance. Likely, because you haven't even done the work. You listen to commentator soundbites and latch on like ticks in a field. It's fine, but it makes for a lousy argument to sway someone who supports Ron Paul's message. Especially those saying he's a waste for running because he isn't winning. What a ******* kiddy pool for of dung you people have as an argument.

It's painfully obvious that you do not get what Ron's movement and his supporters are all about. It's like saying, "if we can't build Rome in a day, the entire idea is foolish, stupid, wasteful, dumb, etc".


Nice work on showing us what you have for intellectual ammo. Duds. Yawn.

 

[Contumacious]

Is Ron Paul Irrelevant Yet??

Yes, indeed he is.

I want a candidate who is willing to totally enslave us in the name of the security of the welfare/warfare state.

As always, Heil Hitler.

.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Yep, both parties fear an honest man.

Yep a honest man the yells loud about wasteful spending, but is the biggest porker of the bunch! That is honesty already faux honesty!

yah...an honest man who shrieks about term limits but made his living on the government dime and then sent his boy into the family business.

an "honest man" who claims he's a libertarian well... except when women's control over their own bodies is concerned.

an "honest man" who railed against earmarks but never met one he didn't like.

lol.. yeppers.

Lol absolutely adorable that a woman who's obsessed with Obama doesn't see the hypocrisy when she talks like this.

You could make a list 1,000 times longer than hers with the lies Obama has told in just 3 years of being in the oval office compared to the decades Paul has been in politics.

Do Obama's lies and shortcomings have any marginal impact on her obsession of Obama? Hell no! Does that stop her from pretending she cares about Paul's far shorter list of shortcomings? Hell no again .

I love partisan politics!

 

[Dr.Drock]

Well, I can see the same old arguments that don't quite stick rear their head again.

Naive, hypocrite, a fool. a waste of energy, a loser, etc...

Yet, I see no intelligent rebuttals. Ask why I'm not shocked. The fact is, I bet all of you name callers can not debate ONE single issue effectively on your stance. Likely, because you haven't even done the work. You listen to commentator soundbites and latch on like ticks in a field. It's fine, but it makes for a lousy argument to sway someone who supports Ron Paul's message. Especially those saying he's a waste for running because he isn't winning. What a ******* kiddy pool for of dung you people have as an argument.

It's painfully obvious that you do not get what Ron's movement and his supporters are all about. It's like saying, "if we can't build Rome in a day, the entire idea is foolish, stupid, wasteful, dumb, etc".


Nice work on showing us what you have for intellectual ammo. Duds. Yawn.

Of course you don't see any intelligent rebuttals.

Can you think of any intelligent reason to vote for Obama or Romney?

The last thing any republican wants to do is debate who's more conservative, Paul or their neocon flavor of the month. The last thing any democrat wants to debate is who's more into freedom and liberty, Paul or their fascist flavor of the month.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

you know, kevin. you can roll your eyes. but there's nothing inaccurate in my observations.

I wasn't rolling my eyes at your observations, per se. You're entitled to your opinion of Ron Paul. I was merely rolling my eyes at you calling Ron Paul a hypocrite. When Ron Paul supports term limits but doesn't personally term limit himself he's a hypocrite in your mind, but when Elizabeth Warren rails against Wall Street and then takes their money you say she's just being smart. I've brought this up in the past and you've avoided responding.

So is Ron Paul a hypocrite for supporting term limits for everyone but himself? Elizabeth Warren we know is a hypocrite. That isn't the issue here.

You're a funny guy, Rabbi.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I wasn't rolling my eyes at your observations, per se. You're entitled to your opinion of Ron Paul. I was merely rolling my eyes at you calling Ron Paul a hypocrite. When Ron Paul supports term limits but doesn't personally term limit himself he's a hypocrite in your mind, but when Elizabeth Warren rails against Wall Street and then takes their money you say she's just being smart. I've brought this up in the past and you've avoided responding.

So is Ron Paul a hypocrite for supporting term limits for everyone but himself? Elizabeth Warren we know is a hypocrite. That isn't the issue here.

He is in favor of term limits for every one including himself. Why should he limit himself when others won't? That would put him at a disadvantage since they will remain after he leaves and continue to work on their agendas. He has been working hard to get the republicans to return to their conservative roots and its a losing battle and you are a shining example of that. I hope he gets the nom so you have to decide between him and Obama just because it might drive you insane.

Rabbi knows what Paul's position on term limits is, he's just trolling.

 

[SniperFire]

When Ron Paul supports term limits but doesn't personally term limit himself he's a hypocrite in your mind

um, I believe that is the very definition of hypocrisy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He's a bigger idiot than Ron.

Translation for Paul supporters..."He's even more awesome than Ron"

wow...

paulians crack me up.


hey, kevin... do you really want to throw your lot in with idiots like these guys??? seriously.

*shakes head*

Well I don't know ThinkCritically so I can't really say whether I'd want to throw my lot in with them or not, whatever that means. I think the post you quoted was meant to be a joke, but I can't be sure. Though there are libertarians out there that I don't particularly care for that doesn't mean I should alter my beliefs so as to not be associated with them. After all, there are liberals and conservatives and people of all political stripes I wouldn't necessarily want to be associated with.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

When Ron Paul supports term limits but doesn't personally term limit himself he's a hypocrite in your mind

um, I believe that is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Okay, now how about responding to the actual point of what I posted and not only half of the statement.

 

[SniperFire]

When Ron Paul supports term limits but doesn't personally term limit himself he's a hypocrite in your mind

um, I believe that is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Okay, now how about responding to the actual point of what I posted and not only half of the statement.

The rest of your 'point' is rendered absurd by your premise, which is Ron Paul's blatant hypocrisy is excusable since (fill in the blank for your Pauline manlove defense).

 

[Dr.Drock]

When Ron Paul supports term limits but doesn't personally term limit himself he's a hypocrite in your mind

um, I believe that is the very definition of hypocrisy.

I think there's 2 ways to look at it.

I respect the view that it's hypocritical, there's also another view that he should remain in office until he can make that a law since he's the only one pushing for it and him dropping out would kill any miracle chance it had of being implemented.

 

[SniperFire]

When Ron Paul supports term limits but doesn't personally term limit himself he's a hypocrite in your mind

um, I believe that is the very definition of hypocrisy.

I think there's 2 ways to look at it.

I respect the view that it's hypocritical, there's also another view that he should remain in office until he can make that a law since he's the only one pushing for it and him dropping out would kill any miracle chance it had of being implemented.

Liberals have used such moral equivalency arguments for years.

 

[Dr.Drock]

um, I believe that is the very definition of hypocrisy.

I think there's 2 ways to look at it.

I respect the view that it's hypocritical, there's also another view that he should remain in office until he can make that a law since he's the only one pushing for it and him dropping out would kill any miracle chance it had of being implemented.

Liberals have used such moral equivalency arguments for years.

Moral equivalency?

He wants it to be a law, he's trying to make it a law, that's one way to show he isn't a hypocrite. He's staying in longer than he says politicians should, that shows he is a hypocrite.

I can see both sides of the argument. Isn't going to change my support of the lone fiscal conservative in Washington. When the day comes that there's more than one, I'll support more than one politician.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

um, I believe that is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Okay, now how about responding to the actual point of what I posted and not only half of the statement.

The rest of your 'point' is rendered absurd by your premise, which is Ron Paul's blatant hypocrisy is excusable since (fill in the blank for your Pauline manlove defense).

Fortunately for me that's not the premise at all.

 

[Paulie]

I'd be a hater calling out irrelevancy too if I put that much energy into supporting irrelevant candidates like Rick "duuuh what was the third one?" Perry.

 

[Paulie]

It had to sting at least a LITTLE that it was Ron who had to remind Perry what that third one was

 

[SniperFire]

I think there's 2 ways to look at it.

I respect the view that it's hypocritical, there's also another view that he should remain in office until he can make that a law since he's the only one pushing for it and him dropping out would kill any miracle chance it had of being implemented.

Liberals have used such moral equivalency arguments for years.

Moral equivalency?

He wants it to be a law, he's trying to make it a law, that's one way to show he isn't a hypocrite. He's staying in longer than he says politicians should, that shows he is a hypocrite.

I can see both sides of the argument. Isn't going to change my support of the lone fiscal conservative in Washington. When the day comes that there's more than one, I'll support more than one politician.

Please. Conservatives like a LOT of what Ron Paul says. It is why he has had some success in his run for POTUS. When it comes to fiscal policy, the Libertarian arguments are quite compelling.

But as a collection of governing principles, it is an abject joke.

Repeating at risk of offending many of those I agree with about 90% of the time in here:

Liberatarianism as an actual way to govern is a ******* joke. Human Nature takes it down, just like human nature takes down the theory of Communism.

Go back several pages in this thread and look at how Liberatarians failed to address even the most simple 'what if' scenario on ACTUALLY MAKING REAL WORLD GOVERNING DECISIONS I put to them.

Oddball finally admitted that for Libertarian government to work, he would employ Stalinist oppression to keep the local population down.

Libertarianism is a reasonable enough personal philosophy, but it is a complete joke as a blueprint for management of public affairs.

That said, Libertarians have done a great service of whipping the Republican party back into line and refocusing them. Might work or might not.

But as a way to run government, my earlier posting proved Libertarians couldn't even run a ******* cow town.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Liberals have used such moral equivalency arguments for years.

Moral equivalency?

He wants it to be a law, he's trying to make it a law, that's one way to show he isn't a hypocrite. He's staying in longer than he says politicians should, that shows he is a hypocrite.

I can see both sides of the argument. Isn't going to change my support of the lone fiscal conservative in Washington. When the day comes that there's more than one, I'll support more than one politician.

Please. Conservatives like a LOT of what Ron Paul says. It is why he has had some success in his run for POTUS. When it comes to fiscal policy, the Libertarian arguments are quite compelling.

But as a collection of governing principles, it is an abject joke.

Repeating at risk of offending many of those I agree with about 90% of the time in here:

Liberatarianism as an actual way to govern is a ******* joke. Human Nature takes it down, just like human nature takes down the theory of Communism.

Go back several pages in this thread and look at how Liberatarians failed to address even the most simple 'what if' scenario on ACTUALLY MAKING REAL WORLD GOVERNING DECISIONS I put to them.

Oddball finally admitted that for Libertarian government to work, he would employ Stalinist oppression to keep the local population down.

Libertarianism is a reasonable enough personal philosophy, but it is a complete joke as a blueprint for management of public affairs.

That said, Libertarians have done a great service of whipping the Republican party back into line and refocusing them. Might work or might not.

But as a way to run government, my earlier posting proved Libertarians couldn't even run a ******* cow town.

We'll have to agree to disagree, i think the way reps and dems have been running this country all 26 years of my life has been nothing short of crazy. I have no idea how the idealogy of reps or dems and their performance in running this country gives them any right to attack the libertarian idealogy.

Libertarians couldn't run a town now I agree, the townspeople want gov't handouts and have been trained by the 2 parties and media that giving them out is a good thing, reps and dems will provide these and libertarians will not.

We libertarians haven't done a great service of whipping the rep party back into line and refocusing them. All the proof you need is Romney/McCain/Palin, and if you need more proof watch a terrible incumbent president win an election even easier than he did before he had a terrible 4 year resume (before this he had no resume).

 

[SniperFire]

Libertarians couldn't run a town now I agree, the townspeople want gov't handouts and have been trained by the 2 parties and media that giving them out is a good thing, reps and dems will provide these and libertarians will not.

It is much bigger than 'reps and dems' training. It is human nature having its way.

Always has been, always will be.

You won't be changing human nature, which means Liberatrianism will NEVER work as a set of real-world governing principles.

Seems you have already admitted that. Now you just need to join us practical conservatives in uniting against the Left before you **** it up - just like I helped **** it up by voting Perot before you were even born.