or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Ron Paul Announces He's Running (Is it his time?)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ron Paul Announces He's Running (Is it his time?) - Page 8

post #281 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

But that 60-80 trillion obligation was accumulated over how many years?

We're talking 16 trillion in bailouts in the blink of an eye, here. And they want to do more (probably have without telling us).

It's not accumulated at all. That's sort of the point. (I don't no whether to put a laughing or crying smilie here.)

If there were funds accumulated to actually apply towards a promise then there might be hope. Instead there's a nice 20 trillion dollar hole as a starting point and a bunch of promises for the future.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #282 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

And that's the difference between us, SDW.

You say it should be done, but it's impossible.

I say it should be done, and it is possible.

No, it's not. Congress will never do it. Period.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #283 of 376
When I want a conservative to be landing body blows against the Obama administration and knocking the guy out in fights, I don't want to hear feeble explanations for contrary actions like this one.

I'm not begrudging the man bringing money back to his district. I'm not saying his platform isn't a good one. I'm saying he's had forever to, even if necessary completely memorize a good means of explaining his actions here and instead it is just a muddled mush that will be exploited by the Democratic left.

This article notes Paul's earmarks and it should be noted, anyone claiming Paul is an outsider and not a part of Washington forgets the man has been there since the late 70's.


Am I saying it is wrong to know how Washington works? Not at all. Am I saying reform has to only come from outside of Washington, not at all. I'm saying if you want to win a general election, you can't have contradictions in your actions, explanations and solutions. Paul can't be principled, but then have to mumble through adding earmarks but not voting for them. The public has their eyes glaze over trying to understand the "principles" of such congressional maneuvering. It becomes akin to "I voted for the war before I voted against it." You can't declare you are the man to change Washington when you've already been there for 30+ years and haven't move the needle on change nor taken any sort of large leadership role there.

Ron Paul is a good man. I'd be happy to cast my vote for him as my representative. I'd be happy to have him as my doctor. He is not my first choice for my party nominee because issues like this still haven't been addressed or explained well by him.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #284 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

When I want a conservative to be landing body blows against the Obama administration and knocking the guy out in fights, I don't want to hear feeble explanations for contrary actions like this one.

I'm not begrudging the man bringing money back to his district. I'm not saying his platform isn't a good one. I'm saying he's had forever to, even if necessary completely memorize a good means of explaining his actions here and instead it is just a muddled mush that will be exploited by the Democratic left.

This article notes Paul's earmarks and it should be noted, anyone claiming Paul is an outsider and not a part of Washington forgets the man has been there since the late 70's.


Am I saying it is wrong to know how Washington works? Not at all. Am I saying reform has to only come from outside of Washington, not at all. I'm saying if you want to win a general election, you can't have contradictions in your actions, explanations and solutions. Paul can't be principled, but then have to mumble through adding earmarks but not voting for them. The public has their eyes glaze over trying to understand the "principles" of such congressional maneuvering. It becomes akin to "I voted for the war before I voted against it." You can't declare you are the man to change Washington when you've already been there for 30+ years and haven't move the needle on change nor taken any sort of large leadership role there.

Ron Paul is a good man. I'd be happy to cast my vote for him as my representative. I'd be happy to have him as my doctor. He is not my first choice for my party nominee because issues like this still haven't been addressed or explained well by him.

Agreed. Like many Paul answers, I like the first 30 seconds, and then he goes into outer space. He should have just stuck with the "Congress should make the decisions" line. If pressed on his district, he should have said he supported them each on their own merits. But no, goes into orbit with contradictions.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #285 of 376
We all know Ron Paul is not the best debater. And I agree he could have explained this much better than he did.

The bottom line is this: the government takes this money from his constituents and he wouldn't be a good representative if he didn't make an effort to get some of it back for them.

But when all is said and done, if every rep voted as he does, there wouldn't be earmarks in the first place.

Now I find it amusing that of all the issues there might be an appearance of inconsistency on, this and the Social Security issue are the only ones you can seem to find fault with.

Compare that with the inconsistencies, flip-flopping, and rhetoric of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney (healthcare, anyone?). For some reason, their blaring flaws can be overlooked - no, SHOULD be overlooked - because somehow they will be more consistent and good for this country as president than Ron Paul.

When Ron Paul wins in Iowa, you'll have to start taking him seriously.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #286 of 376

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #287 of 376

I saw it and I frankly thought he had a poor debate overall. He was much better in the last one.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #288 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I saw it and I frankly thought he had a poor debate overall. He was much better in the last one.

I agree his last one was better. But the moderators avoided one of his best issues: the Federal Reserve. I give props to the heckler in the audience who asked them to discus the Fed, even though they blew him off.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #289 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

We all know Ron Paul is not the best debater. And I agree he could have explained this much better than he did.

The bottom line is this: the government takes this money from his constituents and he wouldn't be a good representative if he didn't make an effort to get some of it back for them.

That's total nonsense. They're only "getting it back" through porkbarrel spending, which he supposedly opposes.

Quote:

But when all is said and done, if every rep voted as he does, there wouldn't be earmarks in the first place.

"I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it." That's what he's doing. If he supports earmarks, then he supports them. After all, while I don't support them, there is a case to be made that Congress should allocate money instead of the executive branch. This where Paul begins the countdown to liftoff, because if he stopped there he would be fine. But no, he has to brag about how he's NEVER voted for an earmark despite the fact that he's personally requested them. Come on.

Quote:

Now I find it amusing that of all the issues there might be an appearance of inconsistency on, this and the Social Security issue are the only ones you can seem to find fault with.

That's because Paul's problem is generally not inconsistency. These simply show that he is not the paragon of virtue he's made out to be.

Quote:

Compare that with the inconsistencies, flip-flopping, and rhetoric of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney (healthcare, anyone?). For some reason, their blaring flaws can be overlooked - no, SHOULD be overlooked - because somehow they will be more consistent and good for this country as president than Ron Paul.

When Ron Paul wins in Iowa, you'll have to start taking him seriously.

Their inconsistencies have been anything but overlooked. Romney has been grilled on healthcare and has had a consistent answer every time. He supports what they did in Mass, and doesn't want it implemented federally. It's not hard to understand. The only position which he's changed on blatantly is abortion, which he has also explained numerous times. He's been pro-life for years now. If anything, it's Paul who has escaped real criticism and scrutiny...because he's Ron Paul.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #290 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's total nonsense. They're only "getting it back" through porkbarrel spending, which he supposedly opposes.

You would rather let the government take their money and keep it to use elsewhere?

Quote:
"I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it." That's what he's doing. If he supports earmarks, then he supports them. After all, while I don't support them, there is a case to be made that Congress should allocate money instead of the executive branch. This where Paul begins the countdown to liftoff, because if he stopped there he would be fine. But no, he has to brag about how he's NEVER voted for an earmark despite the fact that he's personally requested them. Come on.

He's telling the truth. He's never voted for an earmark. What do you want to hear from him? Lies?

Quote:
That's because Paul's problem is generally not inconsistency. These simply show that he is not the paragon of virtue he's made out to be.

And he's not made out to be a "paragon of virtue". Compared to his opponents he sure looks good, and his supporters are enthusiastic about that.

Quote:
Their inconsistencies have been anything but overlooked. Romney has been grilled on healthcare and has had a consistent answer every time. He supports what they did in Mass, and doesn't want it implemented federally. It's not hard to understand. The only position which he's changed on blatantly is abortion, which he has also explained numerous times. He's been pro-life for years now. If anything, it's Paul who has escaped real criticism and scrutiny...because he's Ron Paul.

Because all they've been able to come up with on Ron Paul is earmarks. You don't accept his explanation, but I think most people do. And really, compared to the larger problems we face, I don't think people are extremely concerned about earmarks right now.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #291 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You would rather let the government take their money and keep it to use elsewhere?

I'd rather not have earmarks at all. I certainly wouldn't claim to be against them while putting them in bills myself.

Quote:


He's telling the truth. He's never voted for an earmark. What do you want to hear from him? Lies?

He voted for it before he voted against it. Gotcha.

Quote:


And he's not made out to be a "paragon of virtue". Compared to his opponents he sure looks good, and his supporters are enthusiastic about that.

Yes, he is, particularly by his supporters. You've practically deemed him the second coming of Christ.

Quote:

Because all they've been able to come up with on Ron Paul is earmarks. You don't accept his explanation, but I think most people do. And really, compared to the larger problems we face, I don't think people are extremely concerned about earmarks right now.

Got it...so the inconsistency doesn't matter.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #292 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You've practically deemed him the second coming of Christ.

Absolutely ridiculous assertion. He's my candidate of choice, but I have NEVER made such a claim.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #293 of 376

Come on man, give me at least a time mark on that. It's 20 mins long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I agree his last one was better. But the moderators avoided one of his best issues: the Federal Reserve. I give props to the heckler in the audience who asked them to discus the Fed, even though they blew him off.

So you think the liberal media complex who clearly has come off the benches is going to just feed Ron Paul his best issues during a debate? That's only the darn point there Jazz. They're going to ask Obama about how awesome his books are and they will ask Ron Paul about newsletters from the 80's and he will just sit there and explain and get his ass handed to him. Where's the Ron Paul that declares the gotcha and sideshow questions to be nonsense and who refocuses the debate and his responses onto his strong points and the relevent issues. Your explanation completely makes the case as to why he would not be strong enough to win a debate over Obama. You can't be passive when the media narrative is already going to be you are too old and your ideas are too outmoded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's total nonsense. They're only "getting it back" through porkbarrel spending, which he supposedly opposes.

"I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it." That's what he's doing. If he supports earmarks, then he supports them. After all, while I don't support them, there is a case to be made that Congress should allocate money instead of the executive branch. This where Paul begins the countdown to liftoff, because if he stopped there he would be fine. But no, he has to brag about how he's NEVER voted for an earmark despite the fact that he's personally requested them. Come on.

Exactly and again I can forgive what he does, and I can understand it but don't sit there and make the cause that you are principled and everyone else is riddled with terrible compromises related to political concessions when this clearly is in the same league. (along with Social Security) I mean honestly it isn't like we are paid political consultants or anything and we've both said "I voted for the earmark before I voted against it." It's easy to understand and no amount of long winded explanation about principles will excuse it and still leave Paul with the "principles" high ground. He's a guy who's been in Washington D.C. since 1978 and his record and actions show the same issues and baggage as anyone else.

Quote:
That's because Paul's problem is generally not inconsistency. These simply show that he is not the paragon of virtue he's made out to be.

The main point too is that I cannot recall the last time someone endorsed a principle over a personality. They forgave Clinton his fling but not Bush his tax increase. On principle Bush did EVERYTHING right per our claimed centrist/lefist friends. He tried to balance the budget and consented to a tax increase. He nominated David Souter. He only took action on Iraq under U.N. consent and with broad help that went quickly and achieved a very limited goal.

He didn't get reelected. No one remember the claimed principles he was serving. The Democrats turned right around and crucified him with the very compromises he conceded to meet principles like a balanced budget.

Which leads to the next point, claiming a principle over a plan means others can argue about how you should meet that principle. "Ron Paul stands for a balanced budget but shouldn't that mean tax the fat cats?" You need to articulate a plan, not just mutter about the Constitution, the Founders and the Fed.

Quote:
Their inconsistencies have been anything but overlooked. Romney has been grilled on healthcare and has had a consistent answer every time. He supports what they did in Mass, and doesn't want it implemented federally. It's not hard to understand. The only position which he's changed on blatantly is abortion, which he has also explained numerous times. He's been pro-life for years now. If anything, it's Paul who has escaped real criticism and scrutiny...because he's Ron Paul.

The point is that Romney even with all his compromises and problems real or imagined has much more support than Paul who should be such a clear, easily understood, and easy to explain choice. Instead Paul allows himself and what he wants to do get dismissed through lack of assertiveness and his own inability to explain it forcefully and clearly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You would rather let the government take their money and keep it to use elsewhere?

How is this different than what Romney and Gingrich explain? Would you rather Hillarycare have passed? Would you rather the Republicans never have achieved majority status and gotten a balanced budget for a few years? Would you rather Romney have never planted the seeds that are helping with conservative gains?

How is any of this any different? Here's a hint. It isn't and saying, but it's Ron Paul doesn't explain that and it is why his appeal has always been limited. Saying you don't have to explain because darn it, it's a principle doesn't work for liberals or conservatives (or libertarians) when you have to explain how you act in reality.

Quote:
He's telling the truth. He's never voted for an earmark. What do you want to hear from him? Lies?

He's using a workaround. It's like saying oral sex isn't real sex.

Quote:
And he's not made out to be a "paragon of virtue". Compared to his opponents he sure looks good, and his supporters are enthusiastic about that.

You (and most of his supporters) make him out to be the only uncompromised choice and the only one who will vote for what should be done instead of what is politically expedient. I'm not claiming those aren't some decent points. I'm saying that alone doesn't get you to 50+1%. You keep falling back on that argument while and then declare he's not claiming to be virtuous, principled, etc which is the real strong argument for electing him over others. That's called having your cake and eating it too.

Quote:
Because all they've been able to come up with on Ron Paul is earmarks. You don't accept his explanation, but I think most people do. And really, compared to the larger problems we face, I don't think people are extremely concerned about earmarks right now.

I've come up with much more than that in this thread alone. Obviously I don't dig on tearing the man apart so we are keeping it civil but it isn't hard to act like a crazy leftist and see the lame arguments they would make to pick the man apart. As part of that civil discussion we aren't going to call the man racist, or hateful, crazy, uncompassionate or anything like that but the left will have no problem portraying him in a number of interesting ways and I've certainly hinted at them in this thread.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #294 of 376
The piece below arrived in my inbox today from an acquaintance. I was partially sold on Ron Paul, but it appears as if he is just another establishment conman, dressed up as a libertarian.

Quote:
I would point out that Ron Paul is actually much worse than the others in the critical area of economics.

Ron Paul's $1 trillion in savage austerity cuts to the US federal budget qualify him as the most genocidal candidate by far in a crowded field.

It is nice to argue against foreign wars and domestic oppression, but this is more than eclipsed by his rabid Austrian school-libertarian ideology, which claims not to be fascist but somehow brings fascism closer with everything that it does.

Look at Paul's Restore America proposed federal budget and see the true horror.

After all his gadfly remarks, we finally have a statement of what he would do. In short, he would kill. Paul's budget, after all his relentless demagogy about foreign wars, would cut Pentagon spending by a mere 15%. By contrast, Paul would cut child nutrition (WIC) by $7 billion or 33%.
He would cut child health (S-CHIP) by $5 billion or 44%. He would gouge Medicaid, meaning health care for the poor and nursing home care, by $95 billion or 35%. Almost 50 million Americans survive thanks to Food Stamps -- Paul would strip them of $50 billion or 63% of the current spending. The $180 monthly food allowance would go to a little over $60 or $15 per week. Too bad if you died.

If you are scoring these cuts, they have already attained genocidal proportions -- many Americans will die. The Departments of HUD, Energy, Interior, Commerce, and Education would cease to exist. No help to build fast rail, no weather bureau, no financial aid so poor kids can go to college. Pottersville. Dickensian cruelty.

All US foreign aid would cease, including food aid. How many would die in the third world? Paul does not care - he does not object to mass death, he only refuses to pay for it.

Paul says he would keep Social Security, but he would let younger employees opt out, meaning that the program would soon die for want of revenue.

At the same time he would abolish the estate tax and the capital gains tax, favoring parasites and speculators. Koch and Soros will be delighted. The corporate income tax would go down to 15%, and there would be no tax on foreign profits. This is the most extreme budget in the interests of the 1% of oligarchs of any candidate of any party.

He would destroy unions, the only organizations remotely capable of resisting totalitarianism, by ending the Davis-Bacon Act, which mandates union pay scales on federal construction jobs.
This is fascist economics in action. By my calculation, Paul's austerity is four times more severe than that of Bruening in Weimar Germany between 1930 and 1932, which destroyed the economy and the political system and opened the door for Hitler. Paul would pitch the US into civil war, and end world civilization as we have known it.

Paul is therefore a proto-fascist or fascist, ready to sacrifice millions of lives for ideological chimeras like the free market and the balanced budget.

Many of Paul's followers make up a personality cult of ideologues and fanatics, mainly right wing anarchists. His ceiling seems to be about 15% nationally, but the ideological poison he spews has aready shifted the US spectrum towards economic fascism. He is a hater of FDR and the New Deal, and a defender of outrageous oligarchical privilege. His son Rand (named after the Russian fascist Ayn Rand) is a sickening example of nepotism.

Paul demands genocide against the American people with these savage cuts. I will oppose him in every way possible and I urge you to do the same.


Thoughts?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #295 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

The piece below arrived in my inbox today from an acquaintance. I was partially sold on Ron Paul, but it appears as if he is just another establishment conman, dressed up as a libertarian.

He's a conman because a "real" libertarian making a trillion in cuts wouldn't have some opinion piece declare it to be genocide?

Quote:
Paul demands genocide against the American people with these savage cuts. I will oppose him in every way possible and I urge you to do the same.

Thoughts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Except the media and all the recipients of those funds will declare they are of course life and death. They are already coming out with death estimates based on slightly less funding. Whole sale elimination will allow them to declare genocide for goodness sakes. The crazy thing is that when the economy is growing, all you have to do is slow the rate of growth and the economy catches up to and balances the budget rather quickly. That is what happened in the 1990's. Then you let the hysteria pass over the cuts. Everyone can see the media is full of shit and Grandma isn't dead. Then you have built credibility for much larger cuts.

My thought is that I should be making even more money with my predictions.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #296 of 376
Ron Paul just came up with a little home truth that has remained a taboo until now. Michele Bachmann hates Muslims.

It's not just Bachmann who "hates Muslims". Its the greater part of the Washington DC establishment (and a large segment of middle America) that hates Muslims. The hatred of Muslims (and Arabs) has been indoctrinated into the minds of mainstream America ever since the end of WWII.

If there is any discomfort re. Ron Paul's pointedly accurate statement, it would is that the little secret that nobody dared to discuss is now in the open. I don't particularly like Ron Paul's platform, but he is honest and straightforward, which is far more than can be said about *any* of the others, barring Gary Johnson.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #297 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

We all know Ron Paul is not the best debater. And I agree he could have explained this much better than he did.

The bottom line is this: the government takes this money from his constituents and he wouldn't be a good representative if he didn't make an effort to get some of it back for them.

But when all is said and done, if every rep voted as he does, there wouldn't be earmarks in the first place.

Now I find it amusing that of all the issues there might be an appearance of inconsistency on, this and the Social Security issue are the only ones you can seem to find fault with.

Compare that with the inconsistencies, flip-flopping, and rhetoric of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney (healthcare, anyone?). For some reason, their blaring flaws can be overlooked - no, SHOULD be overlooked - because somehow they will be more consistent and good for this country as president than Ron Paul.

When Ron Paul wins in Iowa, you'll have to start taking him seriously.

Keep dreaming
post #298 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Ron Paul just came up with a little home truth that has remained a taboo until now. Michele Bachmann hates Muslims.

It's not just Bachmann who "hates Muslims". Its the greater part of the Washington DC establishment (and a large segment of middle America) that hates Muslims. The hatred of Muslims (and Arabs) has been indoctrinated into the minds of mainstream America ever since the end of WWII.

If there is any discomfort re. Ron Paul's pointedly accurate statement, it would is that the little secret that nobody dared to discuss is now in the open. I don't particularly like Ron Paul's platform, but he is honest and straightforward, which is far more than can be said about *any* of the others, barring Gary Johnson.

Do you think Paul is honest?This man is bigoted and it has been proven again and again with his writings.
post #299 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Do you think Paul is honest?This man is bigoted and it has been proven again and again with his writings.

Bigotry? Did that ever lose anyone any votes? If Bachmann openly admitted her hatred for Muslims on TV, she would probably win the GOP nomination hands down.... and probably win the presidential election too....

Is there anyone in Washington DC with honesty? If you swim in a cesspool, you're going to emerge dirty, yes? Ron Paul has kept his nose relatively clean compared than the others, especially Newt Gingrich... who has more baggage than an airline terminal.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #300 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Ron Paul just came up with a little home truth that has remained a taboo until now. Michele Bachmann hates Muslims.

It's not just Bachmann who "hates Muslims". Its the greater part of the Washington DC establishment (and a large segment of middle America) that hates Muslims. The hatred of Muslims (and Arabs) has been indoctrinated into the minds of mainstream America ever since the end of WWII.

If there is any discomfort re. Ron Paul's pointedly accurate statement, it would is that the little secret that nobody dared to discuss is now in the open. I don't particularly like Ron Paul's platform, but he is honest and straightforward, which is far more than can be said about *any* of the others, barring Gary Johnson.

Paul is just lashing out because it has become clear over the last several debates that rather than just have a more isolationist foreign policy, that Paul would act as a outright passivist. Bachmann keeps hammering him on this and it is clear he would rather harm the messenger than address what he would do if Iran went nuclear as an example.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #301 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Paul is just lashing out because it has become clear over the last several debates that rather than just have a more isolationist foreign policy, that Paul would act as a outright passivist.

Any alternate foreign policy set would be preferable to the current, unsupportable economy-busting, paranoid, jingoistic global imperialism. We are pursuing the most destructive, "shooting ourselves in both feet", and most inappropriate-for-the-times model of all. As of 31 December 2010, U.S. Armed Forces, alongside civilian contractors were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries.... a huge government run welfare program... sucking a huge proportion of revenue into a $ black hole that produces nothing of worth, and is a national security liability. Meanwhile, back home, the aging urban infrastructure continues to crumble....

Quote:
Bachmann keeps hammering him on this and it is clear he would rather harm the messenger than address what he would do if Iran went nuclear as an example.

To keep things in perspective here: Does anyone *honestly* believe that if, on joining the world's exclusive nuclear club, Iran is going to get ambitiously imperialist and start creating a new Persian Empire in the mid east? Or going ahead and "wiping out Israel"? These are the least likely set of outcomes, by far... its never, ever going to happen. Ahmadinejad is all bark... he fires off some undiplomatic rhetoric from time to time.. but he's not stupid. And he'll be off the political in due course.... either by the ballot, or by the bullet. And the latter possibility wonlt be anything to do with his local opposition.

This is a cheap, vote-catching piece of opportunism by Bachmann, who is preying on baseless fears which have been seeded throughout the US (and the industrial west) by the legions of pro-Israeli people in prominent positions in successive US administrations, alongside influential think tanks and foundations aligned with the Zionist geopolitical cause. And yes, she does hate Muslims... as does most of DC.

When Pakistan surprised everyone when they successfully tested the "Islamic Bomb" in the 1990s, who did that unstable nation (run by a crazy dictatorial thug) attack? Nobody.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #302 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Any alternate foreign policy set would be preferable to the current, unsupportable economy-busting, paranoid, jingoistic global imperialism.

I disagree it's jingoistic, paranoid or imperialist. I do agree it's over zealous at times and certainly economy-busting as a result. Certainly it could be worse, however. Paul's position is unrealistic though.

Quote:
We are pursuing the most destructive, "shooting ourselves in both feet", and most inappropriate-for-the-times model of all. As of 31 December 2010, U.S. Armed Forces, alongside civilian contractors were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries.... a huge government run welfare program... sucking a huge proportion of revenue into a $ black hole that produces nothing of worth, and is a national security liability. Meanwhile, back home, the aging urban infrastructure continues to crumble....

It's not welfare, and our infrastructure is not the decaying nightmare it's made out to be. That said, we should greatly consolidate our foreign presence. I'd rather see maybe 24 major bases and 75 ancillary bases around the world. 800 is FAR too many.

Quote:

To keep things in perspective here: Does anyone *honestly* believe that if, on joining the world's exclusive nuclear club, Iran is going to get ambitiously imperialist and start creating a new Persian Empire in the mid east? Or going ahead and "wiping out Israel"? These are the least likely set of outcomes, by far... its never, ever going to happen. Ahmadinejad is all bark... he fires off some undiplomatic rhetoric from time to time.. but he's not stupid. And he'll be off the political in due course.... either by the ballot, or by the bullet. And the latter possibility wonlt be anything to do with his local opposition.

I believe it's quite possible. Two words: The Mullahs.

Quote:

This is a cheap, vote-catching piece of opportunism by Bachmann, who is preying on baseless fears which have been seeded throughout the US (and the industrial west) by the legions of pro-Israeli people in prominent positions in successive US administrations, alongside influential think tanks and foundations aligned with the Zionist geopolitical cause. And yes, she does hate Muslims... as does most of DC.

When Pakistan surprised everyone when they successfully tested the "Islamic Bomb" in the 1990s, who did that unstable nation (run by a crazy dictatorial thug) attack? Nobody.

So because Pakistan didn't attack anyone, Iran won't?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #303 of 376
GOP will take off the gloves if Ron Paul wins Iowa

^^^An interesting article touching on what the GOP (led by Newt Gingrich, no less) did to Buchanan after he won the New Hampshire primary in 1996.

Will the GOP establishment try to do the same thing to Ron Paul if he wins in Iowa? Count on it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #304 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

GOP will take off the gloves if Ron Paul wins Iowa

^^^An interesting article touching on what the GOP (led by Newt Gingrich, no less) did to Buchanan after he won the New Hampshire primary in 1996.

Will the GOP establishment try to do the same thing to Ron Paul if he wins in Iowa? Count on it.

Of course. You post this with such outrage. <gasp> They'll attack Paul if he wins!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #305 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Of course. You post this with such outrage. <gasp> They'll attack Paul if he wins!

Outrage? You got that from what I wrote? Wow.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #306 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Outrage? You got that from what I wrote? Wow.

Maybe not the right term. Definitely posted with some indignation though...perhaps surprise?

As for the nomination, it now looks like Gingrich is in his initial descent phase, with Romney climbing. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...s-front/46360/

The reality is that with Gingrich tanking, Romney's plan has worked. He hasn't gone whole hog in Iowa, but has run significant ads. The soon to be also rans did the rest for him (Bachman, Santorum). He didn't engage Gingrich or attack him at the recent debate, deciding to remain above the fray and focus on Obama. His focus has always been New Hampshire, where he is solidly pounding everyone.

As for Paul, he may or may not win Iowa. It really doesn't matter, because he won't be able to compete with Romney in NH or most other places. But right now, it's looking like Romney might even win Iowa. If that happens, the nomination is sealed.

Here is an interesting part of the article:

Quote:
The bad news for Paul, however, is that when asked for their second choice for President, only 9% said they would vote for him after their preferred candidate. That means if supporters of any of the second-tier candidates sense defeat and decided to abandon their choice at the last minute, those votes are more likely to go to Romney. Even if Romney doesn't win, the stronger than expected showing could be the snowball that starts a primary avalanche for him.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #307 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Any alternate foreign policy set would be preferable to the current, unsupportable economy-busting, paranoid, jingoistic global imperialism. We are pursuing the most destructive, "shooting ourselves in both feet", and most inappropriate-for-the-times model of all. As of 31 December 2010, U.S. Armed Forces, alongside civilian contractors were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries.... a huge government run welfare program... sucking a huge proportion of revenue into a $ black hole that produces nothing of worth, and is a national security liability. Meanwhile, back home, the aging urban infrastructure continues to crumble....

Well four years of Democratic House control, four years of a Democratic President and what will be at least 6 years of Democratic Senate control sure have done a lot about that haven't they?

Oh wait, they haven't. What happened with the Obama "shovel ready" stimulus of $800 billion? Oh yes, it bought votes.

Quote:
To keep things in perspective here: Does anyone *honestly* believe that if, on joining the world's exclusive nuclear club, Iran is going to get ambitiously imperialist and start creating a new Persian Empire in the mid east? Or going ahead and "wiping out Israel"? These are the least likely set of outcomes, by far... its never, ever going to happen. Ahmadinejad is all bark... he fires off some undiplomatic rhetoric from time to time.. but he's not stupid. And he'll be off the political in due course.... either by the ballot, or by the bullet. And the latter possibility wonlt be anything to do with his local opposition.

This amounts to saying how dare you suggest the past could become the present and how dare you take them at their word. Ignore the past and ignore their statements isn't persuasive.

Quote:
This is a cheap, vote-catching piece of opportunism by Bachmann, who is preying on baseless fears which have been seeded throughout the US (and the industrial west) by the legions of pro-Israeli people in prominent positions in successive US administrations, alongside influential think tanks and foundations aligned with the Zionist geopolitical cause. And yes, she does hate Muslims... as does most of DC.

The problems in the Middle East aren't new. They aren't related to whether Bachmann likes or dislikes them. You make it sounds like all would be well if not for these mean people in Washington. That simply isn't and hasn't been true.

Quote:
When Pakistan surprised everyone when they successfully tested the "Islamic Bomb" in the 1990s, who did that unstable nation (run by a crazy dictatorial thug) attack? Nobody.

Ask yourself if Pakistan had overrun Kuwait what the response would have been. Now substitute Iran and the Gulf of Oman and all the countries that need and use it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I disagree it's jingoistic, paranoid or imperialist. I do agree it's over zealous at times and certainly economy-busting as a result. Certainly it could be worse, however. Paul's position is unrealistic though.

The savings could be considerable if we learned how to project power rather than having to be everywhere. As you note, there's a large expanse between pure passivism and just not wanting to be the cop of the world.

Quote:
It's not welfare, and our infrastructure is not the decaying nightmare it's made out to be. That said, we should greatly consolidate our foreign presence. I'd rather see maybe 24 major bases and 75 ancillary bases around the world. 800 is FAR too many.

Good points.

Quote:
I believe it's quite possible. Two words: The Mullahs.

Two more words:

Their history.

Quote:
So because Pakistan didn't attack anyone, Iran won't?

Pakistan also cannot limit the access to the sea of two historical rivals by closing off one little opening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

GOP will take off the gloves if Ron Paul wins Iowa

^^^An interesting article touching on what the GOP (led by Newt Gingrich, no less) did to Buchanan after he won the New Hampshire primary in 1996.

Will the GOP establishment try to do the same thing to Ron Paul if he wins in Iowa? Count on it.

Of course they did that to Buchanan. Buchanan basically gave Clinton the election in 1992 due to his primary challenge to Bush. He split the party and Perot came in and cleaned up as a result. I've already told you that something will come up at some point with Paul and his newsletters. You don't claim to not know who was writing your newsletters and then claim to have the moral authority and principles to run the country.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #308 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Maybe not the right term. Definitely posted with some indignation though...perhaps surprise?

Not at all. It's no secret the GOP establishment hates Paul. I merely meant to draw attention to the nasty tactics employed by the party in the past as precedent for what they will likely do if Paul wins.

Quote:
As for the nomination, it now looks like Gingrich is in his initial descent phase, with Romney climbing. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...s-front/46360/

I think Gingrich is just about done as the media's "flavor of the month" and those easily influence by the media (read the majority of voters) will lose interest. Romney will soon be back in the spotlight as the establishment candidate of choice (unless a new candidate enters the race).

Quote:
As for Paul, he may or may not win Iowa. It really doesn't matter, because he won't be able to compete with Romney in NH or most other places. But right now, it's looking like Romney might even win Iowa. If that happens, the nomination is sealed.

A Paul win in Iowa could prompt "decided" voters to take another look at him and draw some significant support for him in New Hampshire and elsewhere in spite of media ignore/smear tactics.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #309 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Not at all. It's no secret the GOP establishment hates Paul. I merely meant to draw attention to the nasty tactics employed by the party in the past as precedent for what they will likely do if Paul wins.



I think Gingrich is just about done as the media's "flavor of the month" and those easily influence by the media (read the majority of voters) will lose interest. Romney will soon be back in the spotlight as the establishment candidate of choice (unless a new candidate enters the race).



A Paul win in Iowa could prompt "decided" voters to take another look at him and draw some significant support for him in New Hampshire and elsewhere in spite of media ignore/smear tactics.

Come on. You don't really believe that, do you? No way NH goes for Paul. He might stay alive there, but that's at best.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #310 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Come on. You don't really believe that, do you? No way NH goes for Paul. He might stay alive there, but that's at best.

Did I stutter?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #311 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Did I stutter?

And we're back to being delusional. You literally just make stuff like that up with no backing, precedent or logical reason it might happen.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #312 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And we're back to being delusional. You literally just make stuff like that up with no backing, precedent or logical reason it might happen.

And now we're back to ad-homs. Please just say you disagree with me and state why.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #313 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

And now we're back to ad-homs. Please just say you disagree with me and state why.

It's not an ad-hom at all. You stated this:

Quote:
A Paul win in Iowa could prompt "decided" voters to take another look at him and draw some significant support for him in New Hampshire and elsewhere in spite of media ignore/smear tactics.

I suppose you at least said "could," but other than that, it's based on pure fantasy. There is no logical reason, historical reason, or data point that supports this. It's literally a delusion.

I honestly don't mean it to attack you, despite how it must read. It would be fine if you said this was your hope, or that a Paul win "might, just might" make people reconsider him. But that's not what you've stated. It's just like stating that Paul can win as a third party candidate, or that he won't deliver the election to Obama if he runs as a third party candidate. Hope against hope! Never give up...never surrender! One man...left for dead! One mission!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #314 of 376
It's simple, just leave the "you're delusional" part out of it and just state why you disagree with me.

"There is no logical reason, historical reason, or data point that supports this" would have more than sufficed.

You're focusing more on trying to portray me as a lunatic than actually stating why you disagree with me.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #315 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

It's simple, just leave the "you're delusional" part out of it and just state why you disagree with me.

"There is no logical reason, historical reason, or data point that supports this" would have more than sufficed.

You're focusing more on trying to portray me as a lunatic than actually stating why you disagree with me.

I'm really not trying to portray you as anything. You're obviously not a lunatic, as I would hope everyone can see. On the flip side, I don't think simply saying why I disagree is sufficient. Your statements on Paul (at least like this one) are just not reasonable. They do come off as wishful thinking at best. I'm not sure what else to call that. Anyway, I don't mean to insult you.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #316 of 376
Romney now leading Iowa. Gingrich in third. If he wins, it's unlikely to be a long race.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ublican_caucus
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #317 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Romney now leading Iowa. Gingrich in third. If he wins, it's unlikely to be a long race.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ublican_caucus

As I suspected, Gingrich's record, personality, and poor campaign organization are too much for him to overcome.

If Romney wins Iowa, he will be declared the Republican nominee by the establishment media.

If Paul wins, they will say it doesn't count.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #318 of 376
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #319 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

How Ron Paul invests his money.

Thanks for the link. I think this information does more to help Paul's reputation than hurt it. Another example of him "walking the walk".

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #320 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

As I suspected, Gingrich's record, personality, and poor campaign organization are too much for him to overcome.

Agreed.

Quote:

If Romney wins Iowa, he will be declared the Republican nominee by the establishment media.

Agreed again.

Quote:

If Paul wins, they will say it doesn't count.

Agreed, but only because it won't actually count. Iowa has a very mixed track record of selecting the nominee. Romney was never expected to win Iowa, merely stay in the top three or even four. His anchor is New Hampshire. In other words, Romney will be the clear favorite because he outperformed expectations. On the other hand, Paul has gone all-in with Iowa. He's put all his eggs in that one basket, hoping momentum from a win will help in down the road. But it's clear that's not going to happen. He'll never win NH or in some of the purple states. So, a Paul win in Iowa is very likely meaningless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Thanks for the link. I think this information does more to help Paul's reputation than hurt it. Another example of him "walking the walk".

I'll actually agree with that, though I think it also shows him to be as nutty as he comes across sometimes.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Ron Paul Announces He's Running (Is it his time?)