Ron Paul!

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Esmeralda, Jan 29, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Esmeralda

    Esmeralda Well-Known Member

    What do you guys think? I personally want him to take the Republican nomination. Unlikely, but I hold out hope :)

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
     
  2. hammockmonkey

    hammockmonkey Well-Known Member

    i'm voting Ron Paul for prez. my friend is voting for him to be her new grandpa.
     
  3. Random

    Random Well-Known Member


    Ron Paul will never get the Republican nomination. There's a chance he could run as a Libertarian. The Republicans despise his political views. He's a RINO. The nominee will likely be Romney. At some point, people are going to realize that McCain is just too old. And the Republicans don't exactly like him, either.
     
  4. Random

    Random Well-Known Member

    Nice to see you again, BTW. Where did you go?
     
  5. Esmeralda

    Esmeralda Well-Known Member

    Ugh, anyone but Romney. This is what upsets me about the American political system. The ballot should simply say, "Who do you hate the least who has a chance in HELL of winning?"
     
  6. Random

    Random Well-Known Member

    Romney is a very disconcerting character. I'm not a Republican anyway so I wouldn't support him one way or another but I really, seriously don't trust the guy.
     
  7. Random

    Random Well-Known Member

    I like some things about Ron Paul but I don't know too much about his past and some of his ideas seem a little batty.
     
  8. Esmeralda

    Esmeralda Well-Known Member

    Oh, some of his ideas are batty as hell :) But I think that the Congress will keep his more out-landish ideas in check and that some of his REALLY good ideas will make it through. I feel that we need a drastic change and with a fairly neutral Senate and House, we might actually see a difference with someone like Ron Paul. I just really like the fact that he is a Constitutionalist, plain and simple and that he ALWAYS votes according to his beliefs. (see his voting record).

    Almost 100% of his campaign contributions come from private donors (almost no corporations) and 70% of THOSE are donations of $200 or less, meaning that the PEOPLE are actually supporting this man as best they can, which is SO refreshing to me.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 30, 2008
  9. nedflanders

    nedflanders Well-Known Member

    What--like his anti-semitism? :) Like his we-deserved-9/11-ism? :)

    Some ideas are beyond the pale. Some opinions shouldn't be expressed in polite society, or held privately without going to confession.

    Howard Dean also impressed people in 2004 with his broad base of small donors. Thirty years ago, that truly would have been unusual. But in the internet age, it just means you're a nut with a web site.
     
  10. worlds edge

    worlds edge Well-Known Member

    He'll get my vote, but he's already done. In states without open primaries (SC and FL) he can't even get five percent of the vote. And that's in the Republican primary, a group more inclined to take his strict interpretation of the Constitution as a positive. For whatever reason he's attracting nowhere near the support Perot did in 1992 or Buchanan did in 1996 or even Nader did in 2000. (Perot in 1992 actually came in second in the general election in two states, Maine [Clinton 1, Perot 2] and Utah [G.H.W. Bush 1, Perot 2]. No third party candidate has come close to that in 50 years. And Paul won't, either.)

    Paul's already said he won't run as an independent, either. Sorry to be a wet blanket, especially since he's the only candidate on either side who would actually do what he's claiming he'll do on Iraq.
     
  11. worlds edge

    worlds edge Well-Known Member

    Which he doesn't have, save as a smear thrown his way by neo-cons.

    Even that absurd business with the newsletters ultimately blew up in the faces of the people who tried to tag him with it. It was certainly stupid on Paul's part to allow his name to go out on them, but that's ultimately all anyone could say about it.

    Which he never said, of course.

    You mean that America should be a world spanning empire spilling the blood of our children in every pointless war from Darfur to the Balkans to Rwanda to Iraq...and back? But since on that point every Republican (except Ron Paul) and every Democrat (except Kucinich and possibly Gravel) that tried for their party's nomination is in complete agreement, so these "beyond the pale" ideas get a wide circulation.

    But of course since my ancestors happened to have come from beyond the (real) Pale of Settlement around Dublin, Ireland, (hence the expression) perhaps I have a different and slightly more jaundiced view of living in an Imperial state than you do?

    Well, it looks like you're going to get your wish, since McCain is looking stronger and stronger and Hillary is probably going to outlast Obama once they start moving into states with large Hispanic populations. I hope this American Empire brings you all the joy you deserve. And that if you have any children of military age you do your best to encourage them to toodle off to places where angry armed men...ah, the hell with it. Your type always want somebody else's kid to do their dying for them.

    Yes, of course. Wal-mart is so much more trustworthy than that motley bunch of small donors. I should've seen it from the start.
     
  12. nedflanders

    nedflanders Well-Known Member

    (For those not up to speed on this, Ron Paul was a congressman from 1978-1984 and from 1996-present. While he was out of Congress, he published a newsletter called the "Ron Paul Political Report" for a number of years.)

    The newsletters contained grotesquely anti-Black and anti-Semitic articles. The articles themselves were uncredited, so it's not perfectly clear who wrote them. The newsletters were published by Ron Paul, under his name, and so he was perfectly responsible for their contents.



    At the 15 May 2007 Republican presidential debate, Ron Paul said,

    So Ron Paul most certainly does believe that we deserved 9/11 because we'd been enforcing the no-fly zone over Iraq since 1991. And I therefore conclude that he's a piece of shit.


    Yes. America is the only nation that can bring civility to some of these nasty places. Unfortunately, we can't bring it to all of them all at once.

    If every candidate, from Sen. Obama on the left to Sen. Brownback on the right, endorses (to varying degrees) continuing the war in Iraq, it does suggest that you Ron Paul types are getting a little far out.

    My ancestors were from Poland, which has most certainly learned what it's like to be crushed under an empire of evil. But I really don't see the relevance.

    I hope you're right about McCain (my guy, for want of Fred Thompson), but I have no idea who'll win the Democratic nomination. Hillary's a fairly talented politician, but everyone loves to hate her.

    Of course--I want the enemy's kids to do the dying, like all decent people.


    Since that motley bunch of small donors are all wearing tin-foil hats, yes, I do find Wal-Mart to be more trustworthy.
     
  13. Esmeralda

    Esmeralda Well-Known Member

    Ron Paul never said we "deserved" 9/11, only that it's not surprising that the people in the Middle-East hate our guts when we are constantly bombing the shit out of them. I personally think we need to stop policing the entire world and worry more about what is going on in our own back yard. I mean, what the F are we still doing in Korea?

    I also agree that the United Nations is a bullshit organization that we have no business being a part of and that the Patriot Act is a load of crap that undermines the right to privacy.

    And McCain is a warmonger who just seems to wanna blow shit up for some reason. I think he's still a touch bitter about being a P.O.W.
     
  14. worlds edge

    worlds edge Well-Known Member

    Nader takes steps towards another White House bid

    Speaking of Nader...

    Pity he's no longer someone to be taken seriously. I mean, c'mon. :rolleyes:
     
  15. nedflanders

    nedflanders Well-Known Member

    Anya, you've been watching too much al-Jazeera. We weren't bombing the shit out of muslims in the years leading up to 9/11. We bombed Saddam's anti-aircraft missile launchers whenever they'd fire at an American plane enforcing the no-fly zone. We bombed Christian Serbians to deter them from harming Kosovar and Albanian muslims.

    Jihad, like Bolshivism, is motivated by nothing more than evil. To try to couch it in reasonability, as Ron Paul does, shows that he fundamentally misunderstands the problem.

    So you're on the Invade Canada bandwagon too? Kewl.

    Protecting our friends from our enemies. Having to do it for decades is part of the price for not destroying our enemies back in the 1950s.

    Yes, it sucks that we have to shoulder these burdens essentially alone. But that's what makes America better than other countries.

    Yes, the UN is useless at best, and a platform for Equal Rights for Despots at worst. But unfortunately, it exists, and some fraction of the world's population gives its pronouncements at least some moral credit. So we're much better off remaining in it, and blocking the worst of its crap via our security council veto, than walking away and having a new denunciation of the bloodthirsty US passed by the sainted UN every other week.

    The Patriot act isn't nearly as offensive as most people reflexively believe. But if you really want to get rid of the need for it, all you've gotta do is send in more Marines to kick more muslim asses in their countries, before they come back to ours.

    If McCain will keep us on track with Iraq, and, for example, impose a naval blockade on Iran to force an end to its nuclear program, he'd be a hero to anyone who doesn't like jihadis running the world.
     
  16. nedflanders

    nedflanders Well-Known Member

    And apropos of the presidential election, I can't believe that no one posted this article, from America's Finest News Source:

    http://www.theonion.com/content/news/depressed_candidate_runs_attack_ad
     
  17. Esmeralda

    Esmeralda Well-Known Member

    Maybe, but that was just one statement. I DO think that this whole attitude that the U.S. is the best country in the world and we know what's best for everyone is bullshit though. We have ridiculously high crime rates and a broken 2-party system that doesn't allow for any real fundamental change. We sell guns and bombs to Iraq to fight Iran and then those same weapons are used against us when we decide we want to go to war with the same people we once supported. We can't win in the Middle-East because it's too dynamic over there. Regimes change as often as most people change their underpants. I say we leave them to duke it out amongst themselves and if we don't like the last man standing, THEN maybe we can intervene, but since we can't even comprehend the psyches of the people in that region, we are setting ourselves up for failure. We went in with no real plan and now we are paying the price. Not to mention the fact that it is an illegal war to begin with.

    My boy Ron Paul actually proposed a bill to declare war against Iraq and then summarily voted against it, just so that if it DID pass, at least the war would be legal and constitutional. But no, it's just a "military action".


    [/QUOTE]Yes, it sucks that we have to shoulder these burdens essentially alone. But that's what makes America better than other countries.[/QUOTE]

    The Korea thing is crap. We need to stop spreading ourselves so thin and bring our scattered troops home. God forbid we should actually have to fight a REAL war. We don't have the troops to do it!



    [/QUOTE]Yes, the UN is useless at best, and a platform for Equal Rights for Despots at worst. But unfortunately, it exists, and some fraction of the world's population gives its pronouncements at least some moral credit. So we're much better off remaining in it, and blocking the worst of its crap via our security council veto, than walking away and having a new denunciation of the bloodthirsty US passed by the sainted UN every other week.[/QUOTE]

    I say we get out and mind our own business. This going through the UN thing every time somebody in our country wants to take a piss is getting really old, really fast. Then, when we actually have the audacity to go against the UN on something, the international community treats it like it's treason. Screw 'em.



    [/QUOTE]The Patriot act isn't nearly as offensive as most people reflexively believe. But if you really want to get rid of the need for it, all you've gotta do is send in more Marines to kick more muslim asses in their countries, before they come back to ours.[/QUOTE]

    I just think it's bullshit that the President can break the fundamental laws of our country under the guise of protecting us from the big bad terrorists. Please. And don't even get me started on Guantanamo. So because we think we're the best country in the whole wide world we are allowed to kidnap suspected "terrorists" and hold them offshore without trial for years on end? Such crap.



    [/QUOTE]If McCain will keep us on track with Iraq, and, for example, impose a naval blockade on Iran to force an end to its nuclear program, he'd be a hero to anyone who doesn't like jihadis running the world.[/QUOTE]

    Ugh. More money, more troops, more war to be passed down to our children. Well, they better institute the draft again in that case because we're gonna need it.
     
  18. worlds edge

    worlds edge Well-Known Member

    I've seen people take Onion pieces as being for real...wish I was kidding, but I'm not. Seems that irony is something of a lost art these days.

    Once upon a time I even had a job like very much Herbert Kornfeld, Accounts Receivable Supervisor. I'm afraid I literally shot coffee out my nose the first time I read one of his "columns"...but when I passed it on to somebody else in my department I actually got a response back of how "unprofessional" his "style" was. :rolleyes: I think it was this column:

     
  19. Esmeralda

    Esmeralda Well-Known Member

    Too bad that Romney stuff isn't true. It would be nice to see a candidate with a sense of humor.
     
  20. Random

    Random Well-Known Member

    I'll probably make a complete response to your post later when I'm feeling better but I just want to respond to this statement.

    Now what I want you to try and do is stop thinking in terms of black and white for a moment. I know that's difficult for some people but at least try.

    Now let me ask you this. who are your enemies? And I don't mean foreigners. Think of the people who have been your personal enemies over the years. Who do you dislike?

    Next question. Why do you dislike them?

    Those are two very simple questions and I'm going to give you my answer to the second one. The various people I've disliked over the course of my life had done something to me or concerning me that I personally took offense to.

    What am I trying to say? Enemies don't come out of thin air. People don't dislike one another because they're evil. People are selfish. I'm selfish. We all are. We take offense when someone else does something to us out of their own self interest. Saying this person or that person is evil is way too simplistic. If you only have one or two enemies, a "destroy them" mentality might work. When you have many enemies, a different tack is required. You can't just go around destroying everyone who dislikes you. There's a name for that and the name is genocide.

    I've been watching this thing with the Arabs get more and more serious and the name calling and finger pointing getting more and more shrill. There are billions of Arabs. We can't destroy them all. And if we did, we would be as disgusting as any tyrannical dictatorship ever.

    Sure. We should go after terrorists but when you do that, you have to be very careful if those terrorists are claiming to be doing what they're doing in the name of their race or their religion. It's very easy to step over the line and turn the whole thing into a holy war. That's exactly what those original terrorists wanted. Not every Arab feels the same way but they can be provoked if they get upset with us just as anyone else. People don't think clearly when they're angry and they feel threatened.

    Everyone looks at things from their own perspective. Everyone is interested in their own people. What they did was wrong but we weren't attacked for no reason as far as they're concerned. Just as when we attack someone, we usually have a reason. They might try and say it was unprovoked but that kind of thing is almost never unprovoked. It's a big, crazy world and you have to be careful what you do.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 30, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.