Ron Paul the flunkie

[DigitalWarrior]

As for Bush, I certianly don't agree with everything he's done, but I'm willing to bet that if you're honest, you can't point to a single thing that he's done that has effected you personally. This isn't meant to absolve him, but there is a difference between the potential for abuse and actually having your rights taken away.

My Dear God.

I am tempted to believe that you are trolling. The effect of GWB on my life has been profound. I cannot honestly think of too many aspects of my life that have not been effected. Whether it is the time a friend freaked the heck out after a large firecracker went off near his house, or trying to help him through some guilt, or listening to how he lost his faith for a while in fallujah.

My state government has changed because they have been so disgusted with GWB and the corruption of the (R)s. We are considering banning smoking again. I am sure seatbelts, helmets, and taxes are next.

DW

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

George Bush forced your friend to join the military?

 

[DigitalWarrior]

No my friend (and I) voluntarily said that we wanted to defend the Constitution against all enemies. We were sold on protecting our country and fighting for our friends.

What we got was a dead friends because of lies. I would take nightmares for the rest of my life, if it was for my country. Instead my friend found himself in a country that had nothing to do with any attack on us.

Besides the point wasn't who was at fault, it was that GWB has done things which have effected me personally (as if that even mattered).

 

[Titan6]

Stage 2 (AKA The Troll) said:
'Integrity has served as a wonderful excuse for some really bonehead actions, and its often the battle cry for the foolhearty.'

Integrity is also known as one of the values for the US Army. I guess all the US soldiers must be foolhardy and boneheaded. The more you write the more you insult men of concious everywhere.

 

[Dravur]

blah blah..

right... Bush lied. He went to Iraq before the war, went to every site in the country, determined that there was no WMDs' and came back and started the war.... and monkeys fly. Did Clinton lie when he said the same thing? Did Teddie Kennedy? No. No matter how much I dislike Clinton, I don't call him a liar for not having all the facts. The best estimate at the time was he had them. It is hugely disingenuous to call someone a liar when at the time, that was the COMMON wisdom.

Like the people who thought the world was flat. Were they lying about it? or was their idea a mistake. We have found WMDs by the way.. Not in the numbers we thought, but they are and were there. There is a huge possibility that Saddam himself thought he had them as his generals may have been scared of telling him the truth. He also may not have wanted to show the world his weakness. Too bad for him.

There, the long answer to bumper sticker mentality.

 

[STAGE 2]

At least you've dropped your talking up of your theocrat Hunter in favor of the theocratic dictator Shrubus Minimus.

Methinks someone here has an axe to grind w/ Dr. Paul...

This is what I love. Because I don't fall into lock step with the 2nd amendment lobby I somehow have to be pigeonholed in with the Bush lovers, or someone with an anti-paul agenda.

The facts are simply that I had never heard of Ron Paul before reading about him on this board. I still can't tell you what state he's from. From the amount of news I watch and to the extent that I am involved in politics, that is pretty ridiculous. I've watched Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and the cable news networks and I haven't heard his name mentioned once.

This lack of notoriety isn't my fault, its Paul's fault. Whatever his staff is or isn't doing isn't cutting it. Having overwhelming support on some website with a membership in the thousands isn't even a kink in the national landscape.

He doesn't have 1/10th of the money as some of the other candidates, and he certianly doesn't have the support of the RNC. I don't care who you look at, whether Democrat or liberal. In the last several decades, everyone who won the presidency had these 3 things. Having 1, or even a combination of 2wont' cut it.

As for Duncan Hunter, I still like him. I don't have as much of an issue with the patriot act as some here, and I certianly don't have a problem with some of the social legislation he has passed regarding gay marriage. If this sits in your craw the don't cote for him. I'm not arguing that you should. My point is and has always been, if the 2nd amendment is the basket that hlds all of your eggs, then voting for Paul isn't going to protect your rights.

 

[STAGE 2]

No my friend (and I) voluntarily said that we wanted to defend the Constitution against all enemies. We were sold on protecting our country and fighting for our friends.

What we got was a dead friends because of lies. I would take nightmares for the rest of my life, if it was for my country. Instead my friend found himself in a country that had nothing to do with any attack on us.

Besides the point wasn't who was at fault, it was that GWB has done things which have effected me personally (as if that even mattered).

First, I hardly see how bring up valid points (which several others here have agreed with me on) is possibly concieved as trolling. Especially when I am right. Paul wont win.

Second, this thread has NOTHING to do with Bush. Enjoy your strawman all you want but Bush has no effect on who wins the presidency. Furthermore, no matter how much you hate him, he hasn't doen a single thing to take away our gun rights. The AWB sunsetted, more states are allowing ccw, and legislation has been passed to protect gun manufacturers. He might no be proactive, but this administration has hardly been hostile to gun rights.

Finally, using the war as an example is the ultimate act of pulling at straws. When you signed your name on the dotted line, you gave up any rights you may have had to not go to war. Furthermore, there is ZERO evidence that anyone lied about anything. Faulty intel is faulty intel.

But rather than open this can of worms, it will suffice to say that no one's rights were violated when they had to report for duty.

Stick to the topic and stop hedging. When the rest of the US goes the way of California, I have a feeling that most here will wish they had changed their minds.

 

[STAGE 2]

Integrity is also known as one of the values for the US Army. I guess all the US soldiers must be foolhardy and boneheaded. The more you write the more you insult men of concious everywhere.

Go back and re-read my anology about warfare in the 1700's and get back to me. Was it a critique of troops in general, or the officer on the hill

And lets leave the name calling out of this. You can disagree with my argument, but you can't deny the truth of it.

 

[torpid]

And lets leave the name calling out of this.

Good idea.
Let's leave behind the "stupidity" comments as well.

 

[Autolycus]

Stage 2: What about the rest of the Bill of Rights that George W. Bush and his ilk seem to despise? The Patriot Act, trying to block pornography, and other attempts like the "Free Speech Zones" to restrict the 1st Amendment?

Are gun rights the only rights you are concerned with?

 

[STAGE 2]

Stage 2: What about the rest of the Bill of Rights that George W. Bush and his ilk seem to despise? The Patriot Act, trying to block pornography, and other attempts like the "Free Speech Zones" to restrict the 1st Amendment?

Are gun rights the only rights you are concerned with?

This thread isn't about Bush. I didn't bring Bush into it. The thread is about Paul not being electable. This isn't Bush's fault as much as you''d like it to be. Bush will not be on the 08 ballot. At least seven other republicans will be that have a far greater chance than Paul.

The fact that so many of you want to divert the discussion tells me I'm right.

 

[gc70]

Duncan223

Member of Congress, as in US Representative? Or US Senator? JFK was a US Senator when he ran for POTUS.

Member of Congress, as in US Representative or US Senator.

No member of Congress has been elected to the Presidency since Kennedy.

I also do not subscribe to the experience argument. But I do believe that members of Congress have voting histories on national issues that make attractive targets for their opponents.

 

[gc70]

The thread is about Paul not being electable.

Nice. Not only do you presume to tell everyone else how to vote and declare them stupid if they disagree with you, but your very premise for this thread is to tear down a candidate. It would be more constructive for you to explain the virtues of the candidate you prefer and leave it to the Democrats to spew hate against Republicans.

 

[High Planes Drifter]

Are gun rights the only rights you are concerned with?

Without gun rights I have a feeling that the rest of the BOR would be shaved off in thick layers soon enough.

 

[Biker]

STAGE 2...

*You* are the one who refered to those disagreeing with you as "stupid". So tell, as it pertains to Paul's electability or lack thereof, when did you have your first Miss Cleo moment?
What are Wednesday's winning Powerball numbers?

Biker

 

[STAGE 2]

Nice. Not only do you presume to tell everyone else how to vote and declare them stupid if they disagree with you, but your very premise for this thread is to tear down a candidate. It would be more constructive for you to explain the virtues of the candidate you prefer and leave it to the Democrats to spew hate against Republicans.

Wrong wrong wrong. I've said nothing about Paul's stance on the issues, his integrity, his ability, or anything of the kind. The problem isn't the issues, the problem is the electability. This is the exact opposite of most mainstream candidates today. They are very electable but they dont support the right issues. I am tearing no one down. I am simply pointing out the futility of voting for an unelectable candidate. Anything further than that is your own inference.

*You* are the one who refered to those disagreeing with you as "stupid". So tell, as it pertains to Paul's electability or lack thereof, when did you have your first Miss Cleo moment?
What are Wednesday's winning Powerball numbers?

I'm not clairvoyant and I don't need to be. I'm simply stating a fact. Paul won't win the nomination. There is simply no way he will win. It doesn't take rocket science to figure this out, or any kind of special knowledge. When your candidate is getting beat by people that aren't even in the race, thats telling.

In this entire discussion I have not once said that Paul's stance is stupid, or people that share his views are stupid. What is stupid are those who refuse to concede reality. He just doesn't have the mojo to be a contender.

 

[Titan6]

There is no truth to your arguements because you haven't made one

Stage 2:

You began this thread as a personal name calling attack on Paul. The attack is not even a valid or honest one as you should be aware of. Now you want to claim ignorance on Paul's positions by claiming you don't even know where he is from or much anything about him.

You claim you are a very well informed person. You can't have it both ways. If your best argument is 'don't vote for him he can't win because I haven't heard of him and I watch lots of TV' than you might want to think about that a little. I hadn't heard of Hunter before two weeks ago either.

Also you still have not taken me up on the bet that you threw out and set the odds for....

 

[skinnyguy]

If you guys want to do this I normally wouldn't have any objection, except that your stupidity is going to affect MY rights. Going down with the ship does nothing.

Well, I don't know how you've voted in other elections, but much the same can be said to you. How has YOUR stupidity affected my rights? Have you excercised your duty to vote? (note that I did not say RIGHT, I believe it is a DUTY) Every vote cast affects somebody, sometimes good, sometimes bad, but the effect is there, and it is up to the individual to say what the effect was/is.

If you are talking purely electability here, well goodbye Constitution! Because the most electable candidate is looking to change the Constitution so that citizens need not be born in the U.S.ofA. That being none other than Conan the Republican, the Governator himself, Mr. Arnold Schwarzenegger. And if that change is allowed to take place, then 2012 and beyond will be the slicing and dicing of whatever is left of the Constitution of the United States of America.

So, by all means and excercise your right to vote for the most electable canditate, and forget the world as we know it. And then we'll see who's stupidity affects who's rights.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Stage 2: What about the rest of the Bill of Rights that George W. Bush and his ilk seem to despise? The Patriot Act, trying to block pornography, and other attempts like the "Free Speech Zones" to restrict the 1st Amendment?

Are gun rights the only rights you are concerned with?

Just for the record, "Free Speech Zones" were a staple at the Democratic National Conventions long before GWB and his pals started using them.

 

[STAGE 2]

You began this thread as a personal name calling attack on Paul. The attack is not even a valid or honest one as you should be aware of. Now you want to claim ignorance on Paul's positions by claiming you don't even know where he is from or much anything about him.

Well, if Paul is offended then he can come here and defend himself. Short of that everything I have said has been correct. He performed dismally in the straw poll. This may not be a very stastically valid assessment, but its still telling nonetheless. I don't know anything about Paul, and if I wasn't a member here I wouldn't know about him at all. He has ZERO national exposure. He has ZERO time on TV. You can't win a national election and not make use of the biggest mediums available to you. Its really that simple.

You claim you are a very well informed person. You can't have it both ways. If your best argument is 'don't vote for him he can't win because I haven't heard of him and I watch lots of TV' than you might want to think about that a little. I hadn't heard of Hunter before two weeks ago either.

Also you still have not taken me up on the bet that you threw out and set the odds for....

Theres nothing conflicting about my statement. I follow politics closely. I have TV, the internet and newspapers to garner my information. Save this site, there hasn't been a single blip on the radar about Paul, except for the results from the straw poll. This isn't going to cut it.

As far as Hunter goes, I didn't think he would be very viable either, which was why I was going to cast my lot with Tancredo. However Hunter must be doing something right since he is able to mix it up with the mainstream candidates.

As far as the bet, why would I donate money to a lost cause? ANY extra money I have is going to purchase things that will likely be banned in the near future.

Its one thing to disagree with me, but if you guys were intellectually honest you would admit that Paul's chances for winning the nomination are virtually nonexistent. Thats not a knock on his beliefs or yours, but a rational assement of what is very likely to happen.

 

[Titan6]

You threw the bet out there if you can't keep your word than what good are you?

 

[STAGE 2]

Yeah, as I recall the bet was 5K if Paul wins the Presidency or nomination, can't remember which. I haven't recanted on that. I just haven't had any takers. It seems people are far smarter than their posts suggest.

 

[skinnyguy]

from Stage 2's first post.

As asn aside for all you true believers, I have $5,000 that says Paul doens't win the party nomination.

Since he can't remember what he bet.

I won't take that bet because I don't have $5,000 to put up against yours. That is the only reason.

 

[Titan6]

You also said that the odds were 998 to one against. I make that as a $5.05 bet against your $5,000. I will take those odds.

So where are you?

 

[Fred Fuller]

Y'know, Stage 2, the first time I ever heard of Hunter was in your first post on this thread. I too consider myself fairly well informed politically. And I never heard of your guy before. So what does that say about him, by the same standard you seem to be using to judge Dr. Paul?

And by the way, if I do get to vote for Dr. Paul in 2008, it won't be the first time I'll have voted for him for president. I voted for him in 1988 when he ran on the Libertarian ticket, and will be glad to vote for him again if I get the chance. Heck, I was willing to re-register as a Republican to get to vote the primary when it gets here- that ought to count for something.

Regards,

lpl/nc