Ron Paul has accomished NOTHING in his entire career. Thats right nothing, zip, 0

[bigrebnc1775]

None of the Republican presidential nominees have a record they can be proud of. Unless they make it up. Look at Romney, the "jobs" governor, 3rd from the bottom.

obama will not run a campaign on his job, he will do more blame game politics.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No love for the man with 0 legislative accomplishments?

All that shows is the stupidity of the REST of Congress, they just don't listen to the smartest man in the room.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4h-AcGVlCU]Ron Paul predictions in 2002.......Still think he's crazy??? - YouTube[/ame]

Problem 1 for Paulites: You think everyone but you is stupid and yet can't figure out why people don't agree with you more.

So everyone of us thinks that, huh?

 

[imbalance]

None of the Republican presidential nominees have a record they can be proud of. Unless they make it up. Look at Romney, the "jobs" governor, 3rd from the bottom.

Oh hai Obama set precedent in 2008; you no longer need any record of substance to be elected POTUS.

 

[theHawk]

Yet you bots suck up his every damn word as if it was the very gospel of God.

Let's be clear here. ANYONE can run off at the mouth. Only those with common sense and BRAINS can convince others that their ideas are good. So either EVERYONE is ******* stupid or Paul is a ******* idiot. Which is it? In 200+ legislative attempts Paul got one bill of his passed. ONE. And it was a bill to sell a damn piece of property. That's right, the man for smaller govt and less spending passed no ******* bills based on his rhetoric.

Now do tell if this moron can't even pass a damn bill in congress how in the hell is he supposed to lead the greatest country in the world?

Ps. This thread isn't ment for casualities Paul supporters but rather the paulbots that are worse than any obamabot ever was.

Since when is any kind of accomplishment a requirement for the Presidency. The Hussein is living proof you don't need to accomplish a thing prior to or during a Presidency in order to hold the office.

 

[GuyPinestra]

No love for the man with 0 legislative accomplishments?

All that shows is the stupidity of the REST of Congress, they just don't listen to the smartest man in the room.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4h-AcGVlCU]Ron Paul predictions in 2002.......Still think he's crazy??? - YouTube[/ame]

Problem 1 for Paulites: You think everyone but you is stupid and yet can't figure out why people don't agree with you more.

Not true. There's a big difference between stupid and hopelessly indoctrinated.

I blame government schools more than I blame people.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yet you bots suck up his every damn word as if it was the very gospel of God.

Let's be clear here. ANYONE can run off at the mouth. Only those with common sense and BRAINS can convince others that their ideas are good. So either EVERYONE is ******* stupid or Paul is a ******* idiot. Which is it? In 200+ legislative attempts Paul got one bill of his passed. ONE. And it was a bill to sell a damn piece of property. That's right, the man for smaller govt and less spending passed no ******* bills based on his rhetoric.

Now do tell if this moron can't even pass a damn bill in congress how in the hell is he supposed to lead the greatest country in the world?

Ps. This thread isn't ment for casualities Paul supporters but rather the paulbots that are worse than any obamabot ever was.

he can't pass a bill...

his foreign policy is naive

his economic ideas are disastrous

he has zero understanding of the constitution

and he's a hypocrite who says he hates government and believes in term limits (but has made his career on a government check and sent his son into the family business); and then says he hates earmarks but never met an earmark he didn't like.

and the paulians repeat his trash like it's gospel and stare wild-eyed while proclaiming paul can win the presidency.

they're like a bunch of religious zealots.

I've brought this up before, but you conveniently avoided answering it. If Ron Paul is a hypocrite for not term limiting himself despite supporting term limits, then why isn't it hypocritical for Elizabeth Warren to accept money from Wall Street? In your own words it would be stupid of her to turn down the money since her opponent isn't going to do it, so wouldn't it be stupid of Ron Paul to term limit himself when nobody else has to?

It's like saying someone who wants campaign finance reform is against having elections.

not exactly

if she's serious about reforming wall st, she shouldn't take their money, imo.

the only people on wall st who might want reform are selling newspapers and hot dogs.

youb know... that's all well and good. the problem is that we can't have campaign finance reform and until we do (not that that can happen b/c of citizen's united, but...) you don't win elections without having money. it's really that simple. you'd have to be a moron to turn down money. it's like telling your opponent... no, you take the win, i'm not serious...

and elizabeth warren isn't stupid.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yet you bots suck up his every damn word as if it was the very gospel of God.

Let's be clear here. ANYONE can run off at the mouth. Only those with common sense and BRAINS can convince others that their ideas are good. So either EVERYONE is ******* stupid or Paul is a ******* idiot. Which is it? In 200+ legislative attempts Paul got one bill of his passed. ONE. And it was a bill to sell a damn piece of property. That's right, the man for smaller govt and less spending passed no ******* bills based on his rhetoric.

Now do tell if this moron can't even pass a damn bill in congress how in the hell is he supposed to lead the greatest country in the world?

Ps. This thread isn't ment for casualities Paul supporters but rather the paulbots that are worse than any obamabot ever was.

he can't pass a bill...

his foreign policy is naive

his economic ideas are disastrous

he has zero understanding of the constitution

and he's a hypocrite who says he hates government and believes in term limits (but has made his career on a government check and sent his son into the family business); and then says he hates earmarks but never met an earmark he didn't like.

and the paulians repeat his trash like it's gospel and stare wild-eyed while proclaiming paul can win the presidency.

they're like a bunch of religious zealots.

I've brought this up before, but you conveniently avoided answering it. If Ron Paul is a hypocrite for not term limiting himself despite supporting term limits, then why isn't it hypocritical for Elizabeth Warren to accept money from Wall Street? In your own words it would be stupid of her to turn down the money since her opponent isn't going to do it, so wouldn't it be stupid of Ron Paul to term limit himself when nobody else has to?

[

So if there is one hypocrite in the world that excuses all hypocrisy? I thought Ron Paul was supposed to be better than all that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

he can't pass a bill...

his foreign policy is naive

his economic ideas are disastrous

he has zero understanding of the constitution

and he's a hypocrite who says he hates government and believes in term limits (but has made his career on a government check and sent his son into the family business); and then says he hates earmarks but never met an earmark he didn't like.

and the paulians repeat his trash like it's gospel and stare wild-eyed while proclaiming paul can win the presidency.

they're like a bunch of religious zealots.

I've brought this up before, but you conveniently avoided answering it. If Ron Paul is a hypocrite for not term limiting himself despite supporting term limits, then why isn't it hypocritical for Elizabeth Warren to accept money from Wall Street? In your own words it would be stupid of her to turn down the money since her opponent isn't going to do it, so wouldn't it be stupid of Ron Paul to term limit himself when nobody else has to?

[

So if there is one hypocrite in the world that excuses all hypocrisy? I thought Ron Paul was supposed to be better than all that.

Ron Paul stay's within his Constitutional limits

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

he can't pass a bill...

his foreign policy is naive

his economic ideas are disastrous

he has zero understanding of the constitution

and he's a hypocrite who says he hates government and believes in term limits (but has made his career on a government check and sent his son into the family business); and then says he hates earmarks but never met an earmark he didn't like.

and the paulians repeat his trash like it's gospel and stare wild-eyed while proclaiming paul can win the presidency.

they're like a bunch of religious zealots.

I've brought this up before, but you conveniently avoided answering it. If Ron Paul is a hypocrite for not term limiting himself despite supporting term limits, then why isn't it hypocritical for Elizabeth Warren to accept money from Wall Street? In your own words it would be stupid of her to turn down the money since her opponent isn't going to do it, so wouldn't it be stupid of Ron Paul to term limit himself when nobody else has to?

[

So if there is one hypocrite in the world that excuses all hypocrisy? I thought Ron Paul was supposed to be better than all that.

I'm not surprised you didn't understand my point. I don't think Ron Paul is a hypocrite for not term limiting himself despite supporting term limits in general. Nor do I think that Elizabeth Warren is a hypocrite for accepting donations from Wall Street. I think Jillian is a hypocrite for holding Ron Paul to a standard that she does not hold Elizabeth Warren to.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Yet you bots suck up his every damn word as if it was the very gospel of God.

Let's be clear here. ANYONE can run off at the mouth. Only those with common sense and BRAINS can convince others that their ideas are good. So either EVERYONE is ******* stupid or Paul is a ******* idiot. Which is it? In 200+ legislative attempts Paul got one bill of his passed. ONE. And it was a bill to sell a damn piece of property. That's right, the man for smaller govt and less spending passed no ******* bills based on his rhetoric.

Now do tell if this moron can't even pass a damn bill in congress how in the hell is he supposed to lead the greatest country in the world?

Ps. This thread isn't ment for casualities Paul supporters but rather the paulbots that are worse than any obamabot ever was.

Since when is any kind of accomplishment a requirement for the Presidency. The Hussein is living proof you don't need to accomplish a thing prior to or during a Presidency in order to hold the office.

I would argue that its the very reason we need candidates with experience. Just look how things are going. Total gridlock, no room for negotiating. It's a winner take all mentality now, completely broken.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Hard getting things done in politics when you have a principled, coherent, and thought-out standpoint based on your actual beliefs, rather than trivial opportunistic positions and no values whatsoever.

Now, I'm no Paulbot. If Ron Paul were elected and actually carried out his economic plans, it would cause severe and irreparable damage to the world economy; there is no doubt about that. But I nevertheless hold great respect for him because 1) He believes what he says; 2) his opinions on almost everything are ideologically coherent (unlike the "let's be for big government spending before we were against it" crowd) and 3) his civil liberties/foreign policy views are just astoundingly sound for a US politician (republican or democrat). Even then I can understand why he puts forth the economic policies he puts forth and know that he actually believes that what he puts forth would be beneficial (unlike the other candidates who are now parroting the austerity doctrine uniquely to get elected) - I believe he is very wrong and misguided but respect him a great deal nonetheless.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Hard getting things done in politics when you have a principled, coherent, and thought-out standpoint based on your actual beliefs, rather than trivial opportunistic positions and no values whatsoever.

Now, I'm no Paulbot. If Ron Paul were elected and actually carried out his economic plans, it would cause severe and irreparable damage to the world economy; there is no doubt about that. But I nevertheless hold great respect for him because 1) He believes what he says; 2) his opinions on almost everything are ideologically coherent (unlike the "let's be for big government spending before we were against it" crowd) and 3) his civil liberties/foreign policy views are just astoundingly sound for a US politician (republican or democrat). Even then I can understand why he puts forth the economic policies he puts forth and know that he actually believes that what he puts forth would be beneficial (unlike the other candidates who are now parroting the austerity doctrine uniquely to get elected) - I believe he is very wrong and misguided but respect him a great deal nonetheless.

Which plans are you referring to specifically? There are a lot of aspects to his announced plans that could effect the world economy, I'd be interested in knowing what it is that you believe would be harmful and exactly WHO it would harm.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Hard getting things done in politics when you have a principled, coherent, and thought-out standpoint based on your actual beliefs, rather than trivial opportunistic positions and no values whatsoever.

Now, I'm no Paulbot. If Ron Paul were elected and actually carried out his economic plans, it would cause severe and irreparable damage to the world economy; there is no doubt about that. But I nevertheless hold great respect for him because 1) He believes what he says; 2) his opinions on almost everything are ideologically coherent (unlike the "let's be for big government spending before we were against it" crowd) and 3) his civil liberties/foreign policy views are just astoundingly sound for a US politician (republican or democrat). Even then I can understand why he puts forth the economic policies he puts forth and know that he actually believes that what he puts forth would be beneficial (unlike the other candidates who are now parroting the austerity doctrine uniquely to get elected) - I believe he is very wrong and misguided but respect him a great deal nonetheless.

Which plans are you referring to specifically? There are a lot of aspects to his announced plans that could effect the world economy, I'd be interested in knowing what it is that you believe would be harmful and exactly WHO it would harm.

Well, basically the whole cutting the budget by $1 trillion on the first year and close the government. I mean, yeah, I get it, once that is done the magic of the free market will make lead to a golden age of prosperity. This is simply not going to occur, not in the short term. What is going to occur is that the job market would be flooded by millions of unemployed relatively high-skilled former public employees; unemployment would skyrocket, hitting consumption first, then production, then causing causing businesses to cut back in employment - repeat - until the US economy virtually implodes, demolishing Europe and dragging China down with it - basically shitting on everybody else in the process. It'll be a pretty multiple-sided whammy domestically and abroad.

I mean, what I think Ron Paul thinks is that what will emerge from the ashes is a great free market system ruled by liberty and free markets and he may be right in the "long run," but a famous economist once said we're all dead in the long run, and the cost for this eventual free market Utopia is to put the world through a Greece situation for a decade.

EDIT: And don't even get me started on the gold standard. That idea is ridiculously archaic and impossible to implement.

 

[sealybobo]

This just in. China just sent a bunch of LED toys to Detroit, headed for Flint. How would unregulated free trade deal with this issue?