Ron Paul in the debate TONIGHT!
- Thread starter DualBerettas
- Start date
- Status
Prince Yamato
Member
Are you eff-ing kidding me?
coltrane679
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2004
- Messages
- 377
I am under no illusions--what remains of the libertarian strain of the GOP, which burgeoned under Goldwater, and had influence beyond its true size under Reagan--is quite small. But in a close election it IS very statistically significant--and the ONLY kind of victory the GOP could possibly hope for in the 2008 presidential election will be a very close call indeed. Today's insults and hatchet job on Ron Paul could be the proverbial straw on the camel's back for many libertarians. And if he should be tossed out of the debates and polls, and practically invited to run a third party campaign, the GOP is going to regret this day if he goes that route.
But you guys go ahead and enjoy your Rudy McRomney tongue-clucking today. May you get the tyrant of your dreams.
But you guys go ahead and enjoy your Rudy McRomney tongue-clucking today. May you get the tyrant of your dreams.
GTSteve03
Member
I'm still trying to figure out how anyone can vote against someone who's for a limited government.
Hey, enjoy your illusion of safety!
But that's true. If we kept from playing "world's policeman" in the Middle East I doubt 9/11 would have ever happened.
Islamic fundamentalist are bloodthirsty but they still have to have a motive to attack. Past actions of the federal government gave them that motive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjQYg5RoH2s
Here's a clip of the aforementioned "slip". I personally think he has a point, though he did a less-than-ideal job of expressing his views.
What he is saying is that we did have a part in giving motivation to the "terrorists" to commit the tragedy that is 9/11. He's not saying we did it, he's saying they didn't attack because we sent them cookies for the past 50 years. They attacked us because of our foreign policy that treads on what would be, if they lived in the US, their rights. I'm not saying the attack was justified, killing 1000's of innocent civilians is never justified, and that includes the 10's of 1000's of Iraqi civilians killed by collateral damage, which is then shrugged off with an "oh well, it happens". You want to know why terrorism is such a problem? Because their cause is just, though their means are not.
Here's a clip of the aforementioned "slip". I personally think he has a point, though he did a less-than-ideal job of expressing his views.
What he is saying is that we did have a part in giving motivation to the "terrorists" to commit the tragedy that is 9/11. He's not saying we did it, he's saying they didn't attack because we sent them cookies for the past 50 years. They attacked us because of our foreign policy that treads on what would be, if they lived in the US, their rights. I'm not saying the attack was justified, killing 1000's of innocent civilians is never justified, and that includes the 10's of 1000's of Iraqi civilians killed by collateral damage, which is then shrugged off with an "oh well, it happens". You want to know why terrorism is such a problem? Because their cause is just, though their means are not.
Geronimo45
Member
The terrorists could've hit France, Australia, Canada - but no. They wanted to hit the USA instead. We've been meddling the mideast for many years. We are also the main supplier of weapons to Israel, IIRC. Israel's got a bad rep.
You are missing the point. There is such a thing called "cause and effect." Past actions of the federal government have caused the ill-feelings of Arabs against the U.S. The effect is the terrorist attacks targeted at us.
All Paul did is point out the cause. I'd rather have a guy who's honest that the government is at fault than someone else wanting to fight fire with more fire.
We can nuke every single country in the Middle East until it's nothing but sand on top of sand, and it still won't change anything.
Titan6
member
Nearly every candiate up there called Islam Evil. If they are evil we can kill them with impunity. This is so much easier then thinking.
Something else that was surreal was the fact that the poll numbers for their text message poll showed Paul ahead so they quit showing the numbers and talking about the poll. Totally surreal...
Ok so you don't want to vote for Ron Paul. How about something constructive in this thread. Who DO we vote for? Rudy? No thank you. Romney? Not a chance. Or do we just vote for the lesser of the evils yet again, in the hopes that we can keep the greater evil out?
Ron Paul botched the debate in a big way alright, but who else do we have that has anything real to offer us? I like Paul's stand on many things, and dislike his stand on others. We're never going to find a candidate that represents 100% of our wishes because as diverse as we all are, our desires are different also.
If we can come together and start agreeing for a change, maybe we can pull in a decent candidate. Who will that be, and why?
Ron Paul botched the debate in a big way alright, but who else do we have that has anything real to offer us? I like Paul's stand on many things, and dislike his stand on others. We're never going to find a candidate that represents 100% of our wishes because as diverse as we all are, our desires are different also.
If we can come together and start agreeing for a change, maybe we can pull in a decent candidate. Who will that be, and why?
R127
Member
Nope, that isn't my argument. It has been used that way and I disagree with it but that isn't why Muslim terrorist boogeymen aren't a real threat. The reason why they aren't a real threat is because we have nothing at all in place to defeat or deter a terrorist attack and yet here we are, 6 years later, and nothing has happened. We're a big, fat juicy soft target. Anybody who wants a piece of our butt can just walk up and take it as evidenced by our woeful failure to even keep out illegal immigrants looking to hop aboard the gravy train. Yet still nothing happens. If the Islamo-fascist boogeymen were real we'd have a Virginia Tech-level event every week with them pulling the trigger.
YO JOE!
Hey, dude, I like Ron Paul.
But if that is the lesson that I'm taking away from this thread from Paul's supporters, that Americans suck, and are stupid, uneducated dolts, why are you suddenly shocked when those same people, who you actually need to vote for him, don't?
Here we are, on a GUN BOARD. Which is probably one of the most politcally tilted places you can possibly be, and you've got fully half of the membership saying that they think Paul did a crappy job, perhaps, maybe, just maybe, it ain't because we're stupid, uneducated, ignorant, wannnabe slaves, who want to suck from the teat of big nanny government. Maybe, just maybe, we think he's doing a really crappy job representing his views. Even the ones that we agree with.
If you want to change things, you do it by winning. Not by being proud of how pure you were when you lost.
If nothing else, Ron Paul's performance last night, and the reaction it received, made it clear that he isn't the man to represent the GOP in 2008. Right or wrong, the party won't have him, and neither will the non-partisan voters. He's too extreme. This isn't 1776.
Paul supporters may not like it, and they're entitle to their 3rd-party-libertarian-spittle-flying dramatics, but it won't change reality.
Paul supporters may not like it, and they're entitle to their 3rd-party-libertarian-spittle-flying dramatics, but it won't change reality.
Well, Plink, I'm just getting tired of all the Paul bashing on this board. Here we have a candidate that is 100% for our gun rights; not 75%, not 85%, not "let's just enforce the laws on the books", but 100% in support of gun rights.
And there's people on this board that want to bash him? What for? Just because he wants to get rid of the CIA? So what? People on here are totall against Ron Paul because he might not agree with them on everything?
If your gun rights are not a top priority for you politically, then there is no hope for you. It's sickening that we finally get a guy who supports US, and yet there's still whiners on here that nitpick about Paul's views on other subjects. He's as close to perfection as we will ever get, so get over it.
I bet some of the gun owners on this board would even vote against Thomas Jefferson or James Madison if they ran for President because they might not agree with them on everything.
And there's people on this board that want to bash him? What for? Just because he wants to get rid of the CIA? So what? People on here are totall against Ron Paul because he might not agree with them on everything?
If your gun rights are not a top priority for you politically, then there is no hope for you. It's sickening that we finally get a guy who supports US, and yet there's still whiners on here that nitpick about Paul's views on other subjects. He's as close to perfection as we will ever get, so get over it.
I bet some of the gun owners on this board would even vote against Thomas Jefferson or James Madison if they ran for President because they might not agree with them on everything.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
"Root causes" is an empty path to nowhere, it read history in stentorian tones, but tells us little about where we are, what the dynamics and consequences of actions and failures to act are, and illuminates little of import.
As the parent of preschoolers, I can tell you that it's about waaaay more than "who hit who" first.
Currently, our 6 year old is very carefully not laying hands on her sister, under threat of dire and unspecified consequences.
The unintended consequence is that the 4 year old senses her vulnerability, and keeps after her like a Jack Russel terrier on speed.
Keep that in mind, as you read this:
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010080
As the parent of preschoolers, I can tell you that it's about waaaay more than "who hit who" first.
Currently, our 6 year old is very carefully not laying hands on her sister, under threat of dire and unspecified consequences.
The unintended consequence is that the 4 year old senses her vulnerability, and keeps after her like a Jack Russel terrier on speed.
Keep that in mind, as you read this:
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010080
The main thing that troubles me is ever increasing size of the federal government, Paul is the only candidate I've seen so far who says they want to decrease the role of the federal government. Say I'm wasting my vote all you want but I've voting for him whether he gets the nomination or not if it comes down to Rudy v Hilary. The statist right wants to act like your father(this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you...), the statist left wants to act like your mother(Put that down! You're going to put your eye out!), the libertarians want to treat you like an adult and let you live your life, mistakes included.
I'm not saying Americans are uneducated dolts, I'm saying we're not perfect and we **** up on a regular basis like everyone else. That said, it's fine that we do but acting like we don't is stupid. Libertarianism is about taking responsibility, and than includes the occasional mistake.
I'm not saying Americans are uneducated dolts, I'm saying we're not perfect and we **** up on a regular basis like everyone else. That said, it's fine that we do but acting like we don't is stupid. Libertarianism is about taking responsibility, and than includes the occasional mistake.
What in the world does the year have to do with politics? The way I see it, the federal government today behaves well worse than the British government ever did back then.
Our federal government today is extreme.
That kind of argument reminds me of the Rainbow/PUSH coalition members arguing about the Confederate flag, saying "you shouldn't fly that, it isn't 1861."
coltrane679
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2004
- Messages
- 377
Armed Bear,
This isn't 1988--that should be obvious enough. We are not coming out of 8 years of Reagan here.
But you comfort yourself with your beliefs.
You'd think the last two elections would tell you that even a .5% of the vote is absolutely crucial. And I think it would be several times that now, since very few libertarian leaning voters (of which there are more now) are going to pull a GOP lever with the likely candidates it will offer (Thompson is the possible exception).
This isn't 1988--that should be obvious enough. We are not coming out of 8 years of Reagan here.
But you comfort yourself with your beliefs.
You'd think the last two elections would tell you that even a .5% of the vote is absolutely crucial. And I think it would be several times that now, since very few libertarian leaning voters (of which there are more now) are going to pull a GOP lever with the likely candidates it will offer (Thompson is the possible exception).
araiford
Member
Can someone tell me what the fundamental differences are between Rudy, Mitt, Hillary, and Obama?
How do they reallly differ from one another regarding gun rights, the welfare state, and foriegn policy?
How do they reallly differ from one another regarding gun rights, the welfare state, and foriegn policy?
Titan6
member
Excellent Post ArmedBear, you are on top of it.
No. Americans want to feel safe and taken care of. Paul does not give them that.
Is, not was. Let's see. totally ignored during round two of second debate, despite all other candiates getting two turns, only asked questions about the war for most of debate. Asked if he was in the wrong party....
The are all running, of course they don't want to lose
This might help though
Wow, you nailed that one right on the proverbial head! I could drive a dump truck load of truth to your door to back that statement as well. But since you already know it I do not need to.
Right or wrong he was only quoting what the commission reported and the reasons Bin Laden gave. If Guilani hadn't heard that he is very uninformed.
See number one above.
Geronimo45
Member
In a debate, Paul ought to be able to win. A debate meaning talking for long periods of time. No time limits. Long discussions twixt the candidates.
These 'debates' are simply sound bite competitions. Ron Paul doesn't seem to understand that.
These 'debates' are simply sound bite competitions. Ron Paul doesn't seem to understand that.
Everything. Paul wants to move from 2007 back to 1776 all at once. It took the country over 200 years to move to where it is. You can't move it back overnight.
Anyone who bases their candidacy on doing so is going to come off looking like a kook. (see: last night's debate)
- Status