Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on March 28, 2007, 08:43:56 AM
-
Hmm..........
Looks like he may actually run?
http://www.sierratimes.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=14&topic=1201
-
Ron Paul '08 or Bust!
Nice find, Wrag.
Since its inception, Sierra Times has been a staunch supporter of Congressman Ron Paul, recognizing him as America's only true statesman worthy of the name. Dr. Paul may be America's best and last hope of returning our nation to the constitutional republic envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
:)
If you look at Paul's stance on the issues and his speeches, you will see he is a stauch constitutionalist; for limited government, fiscal responsibility, protective of American sovereignty, anti-illegal immigration, anti-United Nations, pro-Second Amendment, pro-life, pro-property rights, against government intrusion in education, pro-family. The list goes on and on. In short, he is a Libertarian leaning, conservative constitutionalist and Anti-Federalist.
you go, Paul!
The Ron Paul FREEDOM PRINCIPLES
*Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
*Property should be owned by people, not government.
*All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.
*The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
*Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
*The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.
'nuff said...
America is Sick.
Dr. Ron Paul
is the Cure.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
The Ron Paul FREEDOM PRINCIPLES
*Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
*Property should be owned by people, not government.
*All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.
*The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
*Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
*The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.
MT already said that those are scary.
-
Originally posted by mietla
MT already said that those are scary.
the sheeple scare easily.
-
*All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.
Does this mean he supports Gay marriage?
-
I think it means that he supports the rights of consenting gays to have relationships with each other or go into business together.
I will vote for him if the republican is a shoe in or if it looks like he has a chance to win himself. I will not vote for him if it will help a democrat.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I will vote for him if the republican is a shoe in or if it looks like he has a chance to win himself. I will not vote for him if it will help a democrat.
lazs
Lazs...you're a smart man.
You Repub's can learn from the lesson we Dem's learned in 2000 (and you guys learned in 92)... Nader really hurt us and took quite a few votes in the General election from Gore.
You guys need to be smart when it comes to Ron Paul... I don't think he has the electability to win the General election... but he may be a spoiler in the Primary's should he decide to throw his hat in the ring.
-
What, are you serious? That's a stupid thing to do and symptomatic of what's currently wrong with our current political parties.
Lazs and 100 million other americans would rather vote for the republican / democrat so they don't lose the election, rather then vote for the candidate they truly believe in.
God people are so stupid sometimes.
-
Laser... why is that stupid?
If your candidate isn't going to win... and you know it. Isn't it better to insure that you elect someone you're with on 80% of the issues rather than having the opposing candidate win if you agree with them only 20% of the time? (note these numbers are arbitrary... and selected to simply make a point).
This is politics... not utopia.
-
NO, it's not better. You are saying that you are willing to give up your ideals just to make sure the guy you like the least will not get voted in?
THAT'S ****ING MORONIC.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
NO, it's not better. You are saying that you are willing to give up your ideals just to make sure the guy you like the least will not get voted in?
THAT'S ****ING MORONIC.
No... I'm protecting my ideals so they are not trounced by the opposition should they win.
But hey... don't take my friendly advice... I would LOVE to see Ron Paul on the ballot in 2008... if he is I can guarantee I'll be celebrating that night, because he just wont win a general election.
-
This will be why the revolution will be sooner, rather then later.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
This will be why the revolution will be sooner, rather then later.
Hehehe... ya know with the Patriot act still in effect... you may wanna watch what you type ;)
You're starting to sound like Che...
(http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Alberto-Korda/Che-Guevara-1960-Print-C10287697.jpeg)
-
Dying tragically on a mountain appeals to lasersailor. :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I will vote for him if the republican is a shoe in or if it looks like he has a chance to win himself. I will not vote for him if it will help a democrat.
ummm laz, he'll be "the republican". He's running as an R and IMHO his toughest challenge will be beating Guiliani in the GOP primaries. If he does beat wonderboy Rudy and is in the general, then NOT voting for Ron will help the Dems.
-
Originally posted by DYNAMITE
Laser... why is that stupid?
If your candidate isn't going to win... and you know it. Isn't it better to insure that you elect someone you're with on 80% of the issues rather than having the opposing candidate win if you agree with them only 20% of the time? (note these numbers are arbitrary... and selected to simply make a point).
This is politics... not utopia.
And nothing will change as long as people vote "not to lose", so go ahead and send the party masters (Clinton, Hastert, Palosi, Bush, Kenedy) another clone to manipulate, send Hillary and George one more voice to add to the endless bickering.
Rome wasn't built in a day, support for political "outsiders", or 3rd parties needs to crawl before it can walk.
I vote Independent / Libertarian because the Repubs and Dems job performance has been "felony stupid" for too long... I don't support people who fail to do their jobs... why do any of you?
For years now I've 'thrown away' my vote, now I can laugh at the scandals knowing I had nothing to do with putting that person in power, or sending another loyalist to serve the party masters. This country is going in the toilet because of most of you, I had nothing to do with it... and thats a great feeling... much better than knowing my political team won.
How do some of you people live with yourselves knowing your vote is keeping the downward spiral to the drain spinning?
Remember clone sheeple, on election day the party loves you...
-
Originally posted by DYNAMITE
Hehehe... ya know with the Patriot act still in effect... you may wanna watch what you type ;)
You're starting to sound like Che...
(http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Alberto-Korda/Che-Guevara-1960-Print-C10287697.jpeg)
The difference between me and Che is that I will not murder tens of thousands of people.
-
this is funny... lazer your an idiot.. you are saying that it is a good move to make myself and the country more misserable faster so that we can have a revolution maybe.
I understand that he is pretending to be a republican.. I would vote for him in a primary given a choice. There is no chance of course of him winning a primary for either the republican or democratic party.
voting for a person who has no chance at all is only worthwhile if a large enough percentage do it. In that case.. the real winner MAY move in that direction slightly... The last elections showed that protest votes just put in the scumbag democrats and made em think that they were wanted. They moderated nothing...
The bad thing is that in a close election you may allow the devil himself to win like a hillary or edwards say.
grow up. Face facts. At least lazerers fantasyland includes missery to the point of revolution.. that is the only good outcome in letting democrats in.
lazs
-
You know, I've consciously made the decision that it WOULD be worth it for the democrats to get in office if it pushes up the revolution.
Want to know why? Because the entire system is ****ed. And in the real world, any revolution starts when the revolters are offended.
The american revolution would have gone no where if the british hadn't done stuff that the americans didn't like.
-
one solution to this quandry is to formally change our system of voting over to one of the Condorset Methods, essentially ranking candidates in order of preference...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
-
Originally posted by DYNAMITE
Laser... why is that stupid?
If your candidate isn't going to win... and you know it. Isn't it better to insure that you elect someone you're with on 80% of the issues rather than having the opposing candidate win if you agree with them only 20% of the time? (note these numbers are arbitrary... and selected to simply make a point).
This is politics... not utopia.
The way our two party system works is that many (most?) people cast votes for "the lesser of two evils", but the winner takes every vote as a mandate for their agenda.
Everyone should only vote for someone they truly believe should hold the office. If nobody qualifies, don't vote.
This is the only way to send a clear message to the candidates that they do NOT represent your interests.
Then we need the media to clue in to the fact that a light vote count doesn't mean apathy, it means disapproval. A "none of the above" vote solves this.
All you who vote for the lesser of two evils are just perpetuating the problem.
-
Originally posted by Samiam
All you who vote for the lesser of two evils are just perpetuating the problem.
Absolutely true. I've been guilty of it in the past, but I won't in the future.
-
I'd hate to say it, but I'll have to agree with Laser on this one. If you vote for someone you are telling that person that you approve of him. And that my friends is sending that person the wrong message.
P.S. If the elections where held today I would vote for Dr. Ron Paul.
-
Hardly... If you vote for someone it means that you like what he is pushing more than what the other guy is pushing.... They all have access to polls and such and know exactly why they got in.
A protest vote is a sucker vote if it allows someone who you detest to get in.
You can vote for a person who is in tune with you but is in no way a viable candidate.... The results vary... If the lesser of two evils gets in anyway... No harm no foul... If the worst guy gets in by the percentage that the spoiler took away from the better candidate.... you screwed up..
If the lesser of the two evils doesn't stand a chance... say like when bob dole ran... go ahead and make your protest vote... no harm no foul...
lazs
-
Originally posted by Samiam
All you who vote for the lesser of two evils are just perpetuating the problem.
can't agree with you more. They take it as a mandate for their aganda and NOTHING EVER CHANGES. Gov't keeps getting bigger and bigger, intruding into more areas of our daily lives, spending our money like it grows on trees (well, they can just print more, so it kinda does...), etc...
Send a message! Vote for the candidate you BELIEVE in, or don't vote. Or abandon your principals, vote for the lesser of two evils and be part of the problem.
Of course, '08 could be different. If Ron Paul wins the primary and is up against the Dem in the general, it's a no-brainer that Reps will vote for him. The primary will be his toughest challenge, IMHO.
-
I understand what you are saying laz, believe me. I don't think these people care how they won, but only that they won. If a greater percentage of the American PEOPLE voted for the person(not the party) that they truly believed in, America would not be as F upped as it is today. Voting for a party is just continuing this stupid cycle.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Hardly... If you vote for someone it means that you like what he is pushing more than what the other guy is pushing.... They all have access to polls and such and know exactly why they got in.
A protest vote is a sucker vote if it allows someone who you detest to get in.
You can vote for a person who is in tune with you but is in no way a viable candidate.... The results vary... If the lesser of two evils gets in anyway... No harm no foul... If the worst guy gets in by the percentage that the spoiler took away from the better candidate.... you screwed up..
If the lesser of the two evils doesn't stand a chance... say like when bob dole ran... go ahead and make your protest vote... no harm no foul...
lazs
I admit that it's a gamble - or a leap of faith - lazs. But if you vote for the lesser of two evils, and that candidate wins, he believes he has a mandate. This is potentially WORSE than if the worse candidate wins knowing that his win was precarious.
I know many in here think Clinton was evil incarnate. But the reality is that in principle he was way farther left than he wound up acting on as president, and this is in part because he knew that between G.H.W. Bush and Perot, he really didn't have a mandate.
Being a true conservative, and seeing the absurd turn the republican party has taken away from conservative ideals under W, I'd say my interests were better represented by Clinton w/ no mandate and a republican congress than they would have been by Bush Sr. with a "mandate" and a republican congress. Even though on paper, Bush was the lesser of two evils for me.
But I'm also a strong believer in gridlock and think that congress should always be controlled by the opposite party than the president. So you know I'm a nut.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Hardly... If you vote for someone it means that you like what he is pushing more than what the other guy is pushing.... They all have access to polls and such and know exactly why they got in.
A protest vote is a sucker vote if it allows someone who you detest to get in.
lazs
Ah, but your words are foolish. It is not I who make the protest vote, but you.
I vote for someone I believe in.
YOU vote against the other guy. Instead of fixing the system, you just protest the other party.
-
laser, if the guy you're voting for will give up on what he believes in (which is identical to what he presents as his "plan", otherwise he's a crook) just because the votes don't come in, he's not worth voting for.
If your vote goes to someone who does not win, your vote is in vain. If in addition to that, it allows the worse worse/worst (this qualitative relative to you) candidate to get in, then not only was your vote to elect someone who lost in vain, but you also made it easier for said worse/worst candidate to -guess what- further his efforts against what you stand for.
You've effectively elected the opposite of who you voted for, something else than "what you believe in". Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what you say so far, you have zero tolerance for anything else than what you believe in.. so why would you do the above?
Skuzzy's idea of a forum (in the litteral sense) where candidates present their "plan" in text; that is, set their words in stone, is still the best idea.
No one will deny a truth once it's understood.. Candidates would have nowhere to go but towards the truth, should they fight in this text/idea-based medium.. it would shift the survival of the fittest type of fight you find being fought with money, nowadays, shifted back to where it belongs: IDEA.
Skuzzy's idea would allow candidates to fight on this even ground, no amount of money would matter, only the truth, only common sense.. no BS.
It would also allow people with short memory to keep track of how much any candidate's word is worth.
-
Ron Paul will be interviewed on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher tonight, Friday Mar 30 at 11PM
Set your tivo's!
America is Sick.
Dr. Ron Paul
is the Cure.
Ron Paul '08 or bust!
-
bs.. it would be great it ron paul got the republican nomination... it would make voting for him one of the least distasteful votes I have cast in a few decades.. maybe more.
What are the chances of that? About the same as me winning the $60 million lottery on a dollar ticket. maybe a little less.
I can not think how you guys can live with yourself when you vote for a ross perot say.. and let some scum bag sneak in because you voted your consience.
and that is it laser.. you have a simplistic concience.. you don't care what harm you do yourself or others so long as you can sooth it in the short term. Your vote helps get the worst guy on the ballot elected... It is you who's words are foolish. or, at least narrow and short sighted.
given your inexperiance in life it is understandable.. How could you know? Come back when you have a few more scars from battles fought and lost and we can discuss what the lesser of two evils really means.
I think that people who win elections know exactly why they won... that is what the whole expensive machine they hire is doing the whole time... seeing why we vote one way or the other...
They don't really think they have a mandate but they act as if they do anyway because... they have the power. They say they do for our benifiet not theirs.. they are gonna act the same no matter what.
A close election that a hillary won would not moderate her in the least for instance.... all the worthless votes cast for ross perot or nader did nothing to move the winner in that direction.
lazs
-
Yep.. Vain is the word, in all its meanings.
-
I always wondered why the current political system is the way it is with both sides being very corrupt.
Then I just read this thread and see the answer why.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
bs.. it would be great it ron paul got the republican nomination... it would make voting for him one of the least distasteful votes I have cast in a few decades.. maybe more.
What are the chances of that? About the same as me winning the $60 million lottery on a dollar ticket. maybe a little less.
if people who agree with RP in principle choose not to vote for him because they figure Ron's not "electable"and instead vote for Guiliani or Thompson (in the primary) then you're right, he doesn't have a chance. In that scenario, I see the Dem winning due to the anti-war vote. With RP as the GOP candidate, the Dems won't be able to use the war to steal the votes of the anti-war conservatives. I think RP can beat the Dem candidate in the general. We've just got to give him the chance. I'm even registering as a Rep (UGH!) so I can vote for him in the primary.
and that is it laser.. you have a simplistic concience.. you don't care what harm you do yourself or others so long as you can sooth it in the short term. Your vote helps get the worst guy on the ballot elected... It is you who's words are foolish. or, at least narrow and short sighted.
IMHO it's those who think like you that are shortsighted, Lazs. You're thinking about the next 4 years, I'm worried about the future of this great country.
-
bs... I will vote for him in the primary because it does no harm and does send a message to the republican party..
It does no harm because all the republican candidates are interchangeable and all are better than any democrat.
How would allowing another bill klinton for 8 years and then another carter for 8 years help me or "this great country of ours"
Unless you subscribe to the lazer notion that it would drive us to revolution then I would put forth that it is you who are being short sighted not I.
I would rather try to change republicans in powers ideas than to try to change a democrats in power.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
bs... I will vote for him in the primary because it does no harm and does send a message to the republican party..
It does no harm because all the republican candidates are interchangeable and all are better than any democrat.
I disagree. It's my opinion that the Rep's and the Dem's are almost equally bad for the future of this country. One side has us heading towards a police state and the other has us heading towards a nanny state. Both are bad for freedom.
How would allowing another bill klinton for 8 years and then another carter for 8 years help me or "this great country of ours"
Unless you subscribe to the lazer notion that it would drive us to revolution then I would put forth that it is you who are being short sighted not I.
I would rather try to change republicans in powers ideas than to try to change a democrats in power.
here's my thinking, Lazs...
GOP claims to be the "conservative" party (smaller fedgov, lower taxes, etc...) and accuses Dems of being the "big gov't" party (higher taxes, bigger fedgov, etc...)
GOP voters realize the GOP are hypocrites and are taking us down the same road as the Dems, so enough vote L to enable the Dem to win.
GOP thinks "gee, wonder why our voter base turned against us? Maybe we should get back to supporting the principles we supposedly stand for." Next election cycle they realize that if they want to win they've got to change their ways and actually EARN votes instead of simply counting on the anti-dem vote. Finally, a true conservative who respects the constitution is elected and we all live happily ever after.
Things may continue to worsen during the 4 (8, 12, whatever...) years that the Dems are in, but really, things are getting worse regardless. The reason I'm so excited about RP running is that I see his candidacy (and potential election) as short-circuiting the cycle I just described. He could effect a turn-around and get this country headed in the direction we need to be going again without having to suffer thru another Dem POTUS.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it... :)
-
well then... we disagree. The parties are not interchangeable... watch the votes in the senate... watch the judges being appointed... they laws passed.
Things get worse a lot faster when democrats get in. You want me to let democrats get in.
There is no way that RP could get the nomination much less the pres. I can't believe that you would even consider that to be a possibility.
I would be better off supporting nader or some commie who would siphon off votes from the democrats than to support RP who will siphon off republican votes.
If the two parties are as you say, equal, then how do you explain that RP's support is almost totally from republicans?
Why isn't he running as a democrat if the parties are interchangeable? Why has no libertarian ever run as a democrat?
lazs