Marshall
Member
It does seem that way sometimes. Especially when many come her for that purpose. But, don't leave, we are not all RP supporters.
Tonight's Debate?
- Thread starter Phaetos
- Start date
- Status
It does seem that way sometimes. Especially when many come her for that purpose. But, don't leave, we are not all RP supporters.
SoCalShooter
Member
Well for me if Paul was on the ticket I would vote for him, if it was hunter or tancredo I would vote for them, I will however not vote for any other republican or Democrat and if that means I have to spend my vote on the third party I will.
Ratzinger_p38
Member
I would support these as well as Huckabee. I've always liked him.
Glockfan.45
member
Ha....Ha....Ha! Aside from his AWB, I loved when the moderator called him out on his spanish language phone line
.maasenstodt
Member
That was what struck me as well. He was the best received candidate on the stage, IMO. His answers were on the money and he sounded presidential as well, with none of the equivocating or platitudes offered by much of the rest of the field.
Given the debate's location, this was a particularly key debate for Paul, and he handled it very well. I look for his campaign to continue to pick up speed.
ServiceSoon
Member
Romney in his own words on the second amendment.
What does primaried mean? I have never heard of this word. If you have good or bad things to say about Ron Paul please say them. I will listen attentively. However, you shouldn't judge Paul on the actions of what a select few of his supporters do, nor should you call him childish names.
What does primaried mean? I have never heard of this word. If you have good or bad things to say about Ron Paul please say them. I will listen attentively. However, you shouldn't judge Paul on the actions of what a select few of his supporters do, nor should you call him childish names.
pcosmar
member
Press #7 for English.
If you wish to express your opinion, here is the CNN poll on tonights debate.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/debates/scorecard/gop.debate/
And you can leave your comment here on CNN:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/05/who-won/
Also CNBC poll (read questions carefully):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18963731/
Don't forget to cut and paste URL so it will not show as coming from THR.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/debates/scorecard/gop.debate/
And you can leave your comment here on CNN:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/05/who-won/
Also CNBC poll (read questions carefully):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18963731/
Don't forget to cut and paste URL so it will not show as coming from THR.
samtechlan
Member
Anybody that calls Ron Paul a "left wing pacifist" has very little knowledge of political philosophy or American history. As Paul repeatedly states it is the republican conservative tradition that is historically non-interventionist.
Non-interventionism is an America First philosophy that believes in defending the national interest when it is threatened but does not believe that we should be the policeman of the world trying to impose western style democracy on nations, like Iraq, that never had democracy and never will.
Neo-cons (and Bush has placed many neocons in positions of power) are diametrically opposed to an America First policy. Their first love and loyalty is to Israel and they are quite willing to waste American treasure and spill American blood to make the world safe for Israel.
Someday neo-cons will be viewed the way we conservatives view folks like Alger Hiss--quasi traitors.
The neo-cons despise Ron Paul; that is about the best endorsement one can imagine.
Non-interventionism is an America First philosophy that believes in defending the national interest when it is threatened but does not believe that we should be the policeman of the world trying to impose western style democracy on nations, like Iraq, that never had democracy and never will.
Neo-cons (and Bush has placed many neocons in positions of power) are diametrically opposed to an America First policy. Their first love and loyalty is to Israel and they are quite willing to waste American treasure and spill American blood to make the world safe for Israel.
Someday neo-cons will be viewed the way we conservatives view folks like Alger Hiss--quasi traitors.
The neo-cons despise Ron Paul; that is about the best endorsement one can imagine.
SoCalShooter
Member
I think the polls are a little skewed but I do believe that between guliani and mcain they have the most rehearsed answers and have avoided and convoluted the most answers to questions. it ticked me off to no end that they would not listen to the moderator and that wolf would not step up and put them in there place and tell them they are done and to be quiet.
poor_richard
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2006
- Messages
- 466
I disagree. I think their first love an loyalty is to their own power.
General Geoff
Member
I like how all the professionals pretty much ignore Ron Paul in all their opinions, yet Ron leads in all the polls.
This election is going to be memorable, one way or another.
This election is going to be memorable, one way or another.
samtechlan
Member
Poor Richard,
Below is one of the best articles describing Neo-con foreign policy.
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
Below is one of the best articles describing Neo-con foreign policy.
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
TGT
Member
gengarnett,
If you're still out there checking up on this thread......
Don't get yourself worked up with the Ron Paul Robots. He has about as much charisma as our own Wayne LaPierre. And both have about the same chances of becoming this nation's next president.
Easy acess to full auto weapons, and the legalization of drugs is clearly what most voting citizens are heading to the polls for. And what better a candidate to represent these vital issues then Ron Paul.
If you're still out there checking up on this thread......
Don't get yourself worked up with the Ron Paul Robots. He has about as much charisma as our own Wayne LaPierre. And both have about the same chances of becoming this nation's next president.
Easy acess to full auto weapons, and the legalization of drugs is clearly what most voting citizens are heading to the polls for. And what better a candidate to represent these vital issues then Ron Paul.
ebd10
Member
No, it's lower taxes, smaller government, and an end to the Persian Excursion. Ron Paul is the only candidate that has definitively stated that he will DO these things instead of spewing a bunch of rehearsed platitudes.
samtechlan
Member
The fact of the matter is that Ron Paul does not have to get elected President to make a difference in this country's future. By even changing the definition of what it means to be a conservative and consistently stressing, smaller government, liberty, 2nd A rights and a non-interventionist foreign policy he transforms the terms of the debate.
As much as I support Paul I'm realistic enough to know that a man who can't raise $100 million from corporate coffers can't get to the White House in
2008, maybe someday but not next year.
What is the point then? Well, one of the most important American politicians of the 2oth century ran 3 times for the presidency and never even came close yet transformed American conservatism in so doing. In fact this guy never even served in Congress, the highest office to which he was elected was Governor of Alabama.
That's right George Wallace made it possible to criticize busing, affirmative action, the excesses of the 60's, the intellectual elites who had no connection to Middle America. In his campaigns he drew huge crowds and fervent supporters on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. In 1972 he was running a hell of a campaign when he was shot and almost killed during the primay season.
Wallace's message was adopted by the New Right, and what came to be known as the Reagan movement. Populist, conservative, agressive against the left and elites, pro-religious, and with broad appeal to former Democrats, the so-called Reagan Democrats.
Of course Reagan presented a more likeable and optimisted figure and sold the Wallace message better than Wallace himself but it was the Wallace message which crushed the left and the liberal Republican establishment. Some of us feel that Wallace would have done a better job with the conservative revolution than the more moderate Reagan but that's another story.
In short Paul does not have to get elected to make a difference--he just has to be another Wallace.
www.ronpaul2008.com
As much as I support Paul I'm realistic enough to know that a man who can't raise $100 million from corporate coffers can't get to the White House in
2008, maybe someday but not next year.
What is the point then? Well, one of the most important American politicians of the 2oth century ran 3 times for the presidency and never even came close yet transformed American conservatism in so doing. In fact this guy never even served in Congress, the highest office to which he was elected was Governor of Alabama.
That's right George Wallace made it possible to criticize busing, affirmative action, the excesses of the 60's, the intellectual elites who had no connection to Middle America. In his campaigns he drew huge crowds and fervent supporters on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. In 1972 he was running a hell of a campaign when he was shot and almost killed during the primay season.
Wallace's message was adopted by the New Right, and what came to be known as the Reagan movement. Populist, conservative, agressive against the left and elites, pro-religious, and with broad appeal to former Democrats, the so-called Reagan Democrats.
Of course Reagan presented a more likeable and optimisted figure and sold the Wallace message better than Wallace himself but it was the Wallace message which crushed the left and the liberal Republican establishment. Some of us feel that Wallace would have done a better job with the conservative revolution than the more moderate Reagan but that's another story.
In short Paul does not have to get elected to make a difference--he just has to be another Wallace.
www.ronpaul2008.com
xd9fan
Member
funny this sounds your talking about Bush....look where it got the party....and the nation!!
No thanks I'll just stick to the Bill of Rights as my.....savior.
TheOtherOne
Member
You are right. I'm voting for Paul in the primaries but after the rest of the country wrongly puts forth Rudy McRomney instead of the best man for the job, I'll re-register as a libertarian and vote for the libertarian candidate in the general election.gengarnett said:
No more "lesser of two evils" for me.
Autolycus
Member
I went fishing and I missed the debate. Does anyone know when it will be replayed? Or perhaps has a youtube link?
texas bulldog
Member
sigh...i hear and read this type of statement a lot, and i always find it disheartening. i can certainly understand why you feel this way, but please keep in mind that there are many positions at the federal, state, and local levels that are also up for grabs when you go to vote for the next president. in fact, i'm guessing that your locality has an election of some kind at least once, if not twice, per year. in many ways, these races closer to home will ultimately have a much greater effect on your day to day life than that of the presidency.
so please...be sure to pay attention to ALL the races that will be on the ballot in your area, not just the presidency. i am personally hoping that i will get a chance to vote for paul myself, but i will certainly be at the polls regardless. even if i have to leave that box blank, i'll still find something on the ballot worth voting for.
just my $.02...i hope i did not offend.
- Status
