Author Topic: Who is Ron Paul? (Read 12459 times)

SteveBailey · « **Reply #45 on:** May 17, 2007, 09:08:08 PM »

His position is moot. His 9/11 comments were a candidate killer. period... he's done as a presidential candidate.

Anyone care to wager on it?

Rolex · « **Reply #46 on:** May 17, 2007, 11:00:42 PM »

The republicans are probably moot next year if he isn't their candidate. The others have nothing to offer republicans who are part of the >70% of the country who have had enough of this administration. The country will always search for a new messiah after two terms of anyone. They are just more of the same. The democrats could run Bugs Bunny and win the White House next year against any of the other candidates.

Bugs would probably be a better president than anyone running now, democrat or republican, except Ron Paul.

Sandman · « **Reply #47 on:** May 17, 2007, 11:43:41 PM »

I think you're right Rolex. From what I've read so far, the thirty-percenters are frothing at the mouth over Paul, but the independents see him as an alternative to Clinton or Obama.

Dadano · « **Reply #48 on:** May 18, 2007, 01:00:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SteveBailey
His 9/11 comments were a candidate killer. period... he's done as a presidential candidate.

Isn't it interesting? He was simply regurgitating the findings of the 9/11 report. Incredible that the truth could kill a nominee's run. He's got my vote still.

moot · « **Reply #49 on:** May 18, 2007, 04:04:21 AM »

Bush has a neverending streak of slips and mispronounciations, sometimes nonsensical and/or erroneous even when you sort them out, as well as a history of corruption... he got elected and re-elected.

The other candidates were definitely further up the BS scale in the debates, a few on par with Paul.

Paul has a pretty clean record in voting, standing by his word and the Constitution, and rarely seems to fumble/sidestep/etc his responses to questions, apparently even when those are trolls like the 9/11 one... and this should disqualify him outright?

SteveBailey · « **Reply #50 on:** May 18, 2007, 04:40:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by moot
... and this should disqualify him outright?

I didn't say it "should". I said it did. Whether it should or not is not the point I'm contending.

moot · « **Reply #51 on:** May 18, 2007, 05:29:03 AM »

No, yes, and no, respectively.

Odee · « **Reply #52 on:** May 18, 2007, 06:09:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
I like what I'm seeing from Paul so far; he needs more exposure...

Yeah... If he exposes more to show how dumb he really is, he hasn't a snowball's chance with AlGore.... erm in heck.

What a single digit IQ for a clueless rich guy.

Eagler · « **Reply #53 on:** May 18, 2007, 06:25:34 AM »

too bad RP's foreign policy is outdated ... by over 200 YEARS!
Next thing he'll want to wear wigs and get wooden teeth

Shuckins · « **Reply #54 on:** May 18, 2007, 06:41:32 AM »

Lasz, Huckabee was my governor for ten years. I voted for him twice, but I won't vote for him again. He would support the second amendment, until it becomes inconvenient for him to do so.

My objections to him are largely personal. The man shook my hand and told me what a great job small rural schools such as mine were doing, and how much the efforts of teachers such as myself were appreciated by the people of the state.....and three years did everything he could to force consolidation on us.

He and his supporters spouted a lot of platitudes about efficiency and how the state couldn't afford the small rural schools anymore and how the superintendents of these schools were petty potentates more concerned about greasing their own pockets while being little concerned about the "education and welfare" of their district's children.

Well, he lied. The state state had hundreds of millions of dollars in surplus funds, some of which could have been used to address the needs of the small rural schools. The truth of the matter is he simply didn't want to spend it ON US. The larger districts in the state had been lusting after our tax base for decades, and the inefficiency argument was used by the Huckster and his supporters as the tool for shutting down the largest employer of people in many of the small delta towns, the schools.

The money was there. Meanwhile, some of the largest schools in the state which have been academically "distressed" for years are allowed to remain open.

Why did he do it? He needed a legacy to carry before the nation's voters in his bid for the Presidency. Our heads went on the chopping block to further his political ambitions.

So....I hope he falls flat on his face. The hail with him.

Regards, Shuckins

lazs2 · « **Reply #55 on:** May 18, 2007, 08:17:52 AM »

What will ron paul do to end out dependency on non domestic oil? Will he force the democrats to allow offshore drilling and open up alaskas vast oil fields?

Will he force the democrats to allow nuke plants to be built?

Will he force the democrats and EPA to loosen restrictions on building new refineries?

Of course not. He can't... He would be crucified and his approval rating would be down to 20% in a year.. the democrats would ramp up the media and their trolls and butcher him.

Sooo... he would still need the oil and... he would back out of all "interferance" maybe allow the jews to go it alone and perish...

meanwhile.. the democrats would get their way and gas would go up to $10 a gallon..

I just don't see how you can even talk about staying out of world affairs and isolationism until you have a stable oil supply that will meet your needs.

shuckins.. I had heard he was for vouchers... that would make him very much someone I would vote for. Have you any info that he has ever gone back on his very strong second amendment message? As you may know.. I am not a fan of public schools at all. I am not a marxist.

lazs

Charon · « **Reply #56 on:** May 18, 2007, 09:37:06 AM »

Quote

What will ron paul do to end out dependency on non domestic oil? Will he force the democrats to allow offshore drilling and open up alaskas vast oil fields?

That won't solve a thing. Those "vast" oil fields aren't vast. We are no longer a notable oil producing nation relative to our demand, and haven't been since the 1960s. !973 was the obvious tipping point.

Quote

Will he force the democrats to allow nuke plants to be built.

Who knows. I can't remember which party was controlled by the coal interests these days.

Quote

Will he force the democrats and EPA to loosen restrictions on building new refineries?

The oil industry has about as many refineries as it wants and needs. Environmental concerns might play a role here or there, but by and large overcapacity is not a free market goal of the industry, and that was addressed when they shut down about 150 refineries starting in 1981. Gas prices rapidly dropped for consumers in the years following, BTW due to increased efficiencies and a step back from the regulated market put in place after 1973.

Quote

I just don't see how you can even talk about staying out of world affairs and isolationism until you have a stable oil supply that will meet your needs.

That's the way he is being spun but that's not what he is saying. His refusal to stick to well rehersed, short, feel good superficial soundbytes can be an advantage to the spinmasters looking to twist his words, but I find him refreshing. Of course, they find it easy to play those not paying enough attention. They count on your solid R vote when it comes down to Rudi or Hillary.

BTW, in the global oil market we don't get our oil from the Middle East per se. It all goes in one big pool. They can effect that pool, but drastic measure tend to hurt them as much as us and impacts other countries as well. That's why the oil embargo of 1973 hasn't been repeated -- it was a tough lesson for BOTH sides.

Charon

Toad · « **Reply #57 on:** May 18, 2007, 09:40:33 AM »

IIRC, Charon, you do this oil industry analysis stuff as a profession, is that correct?

Toad · « **Reply #58 on:** May 18, 2007, 09:44:32 AM »

Here's what Paul has listed under "Issues" on his website. Nothing on gun control but I suspect I know what a Constitutional Libertarian would say.

Quote

Issues
Debt and Taxes
Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives. (more...)

American Independence and Sovereignty
So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. (more...)

War and Foreign Policy
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. (more...)

Border Security and Immigration Reform
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan: (more...)

Privacy and Personal Liberty
The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters. (more...)

Property Rights and Eminent Domain
We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches. (more...)

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

WilldCrd · « **Reply #59 on:** May 18, 2007, 09:48:00 AM »

Ya knooow, if somebody could convince Fred Thompson and Ron Paul to run "together" i betcha a $100 they would win.
personaly id go with a Thompson/Paul idear for el presidente