Ron Paul

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat May 05, 2007 7:08 am

Just a goofy little MSNBCommunist Poll, yeah, but Dr Paul is a winnah.
Vote yourself and then you can see all the results.

Ron Paul

Thoughts on Paul, or Paul on the issues .... ?

stuckinia · Post by **stuckinia** » Sat May 05, 2007 7:35 am

I don't know much about Paul and I did not watch the debate.

However, after looking at his propaganda site, he seems to have a lot of good ideas, but, unfortunately, his shit doesn't smell partisan enough to even afford a glance at the nomination.

We will be stuck with talking heads and complete douchebags.

WAR elections.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat May 05, 2007 3:38 pm

He's a well meaning nutjob.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon May 07, 2007 7:20 am

Why do you hate the constitution .... ?

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon May 07, 2007 4:44 pm

poptart wrote:Why do you hate the constitution .... ?

I said a well meaning nutjob. He's this year's version of Alan Keyes. Like his ideas but he has a snowball's chace in Phoenix of coming in in the top seven.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue May 08, 2007 4:53 am

Alan Keyes had never had a chance.
He is almost purposefully confrontational in his approach.

Paul is much easier to digest, and he does not blatantly pimp 'faith in God' like Keyes does.

I figured Dinsdale would dig Ron Paul, but maybe not.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue May 08, 2007 7:07 am

Paul won't get anywhere in the primaries for the same reason Keyes didn't (even though both have ideas appealing to a large segment of the GOP)- he just isn't electable.

Otherwise he'd be a great candidate.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri May 11, 2007 3:05 pm

poptart wrote:Thoughts on Paul, or Paul on the issues .... ?

He's too extreme a libertarian to ever be elected. Sorry, but I want the Feds inspecting meat packing plants and providing a safety net for older and legitimately disabled persons. Though I appreciate his stance on Iraq, he's too dogmatic. His take that an isolationist foreign policy is "pro American" is as naive as Kucinich saying "Peace is inevitable."

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri May 11, 2007 3:23 pm

BSmack wrote:
poptart wrote:Thoughts on Paul, or Paul on the issues .... ?
He's too extreme a libertarian to ever be nominated.

FTFY.

And if that wasn't enough, his stance on the WOT (which you so appreciate) would be the kiss of death as well.

Unless he was a Dem, of course. Neo-isolationist scum.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri May 11, 2007 10:02 pm

BSmack wrote:Sorry, but I want the Feds inspecting meat packing plants and providing a safety net for older and legitimately disabled persons.

And what part of the Constitution authorizes the fed to do this?

Those duties are completely on the states and individual communities to enact.

Just like the Founders said.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri May 11, 2007 10:05 pm

poptart wrote: I figured Dinsdale would dig Ron Paul, but maybe not.

Ya'think?

We Just Marched In (So We Can Just March Out)

by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

Before the U.S. House of Representatives on April 17, 2007

All the reasons given to justify a preemptive strike against Iraq were wrong. Congress and the American people were misled.

Support for the war came from various special interests that had agitated for an invasion of Iraq since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, stated that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was official U.S. policy. This policy was carried out in 2003.

Congress failed miserably in meeting its crucial obligations as the branch of government charged with deciding whether to declare war. It wrongly and unconstitutionally transferred this power to the president, and the president did not hesitate to use it.

Although it is clear there was no cause for war, we just marched in. Our leaders deceived themselves and the public with assurances that the war was righteous and would be over quickly. Their justifications were false, and they failed to grasp even basic facts about the chaotic political and religious history of the region.

Congress bears the greater blame for this fiasco. It reneged on its responsibility to declare or not declare war. It transferred this decision-making power to the executive branch, and gave open sanction to anything the president did. In fact the founders diligently tried to prevent the executive from possessing this power, granting it to Congress alone in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

Today just about everyone acknowledges the war has gone badly, and 70% of the American people want it to end. Our national defense is weakened, the financial costs continue to drain us, our allies have deserted us, and our enemies are multiplying - not to mention the tragic toll of death and injury suffered by American forces.

Iraq is a mess, and we urgently need a new direction- but our leaders offer only hand wringing and platitudes. They have no clear-cut ideas to end the suffering and war. Even the most ardent war hawks cannot begin to define victory in Iraq.

As an Air Force officer serving from 1963-1968, I heard the same agonizing pleas from the American people. These pleas were met with the same excuses about why we could not change a deeply flawed policy and rethink the war in Vietnam. That bloody conflict, also undeclared and unconstitutional, seems to have taught us little despite the horrific costs.

Once again, though everyone now accepts that the original justifications for invading Iraq were not legitimate, we are given excuses for not leaving. We flaunt our power by building permanent military bases and an enormous billion-dollar embassy, yet claim we have no plans to stay in Iraq permanently. Assurances that our presence in Iraq has nothing to do with oil are not believed in the Middle East.

The argument for staying- to prevent civil war and bring stability to the region- logically falls on deaf ears.

If the justifications for war were wrong;

If the war is going badly;

If we can't afford the costs, both human and economic;

If civil war and chaos have resulted from our occupation;

If the reasons for staying are no more credible than the reasons for going;

THEN...

Why the dilemma? The American people have spoken, and continue to speak out, against this war. So why not end it? How do we end it? Why not exactly the way we went in? We just marched in, and we can just march out.

More good things may come of it than anyone can imagine. Consider our relationship with Vietnam, now our friendly trading partner. Certainly we are doing better with her than when we tried to impose our will by force. It is time to march out of Iraq and march home.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri May 11, 2007 10:06 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
BSmack wrote:Sorry, but I want the Feds inspecting meat packing plants and providing a safety net for older and legitimately disabled persons.
And what part of the Constitution authorizes the fed to do this?

Those duties are completely on the states and individual communities to enact.

Just like the Founders said.

The record of the states protecting their citizens is even worse than the Federal government. 14th Amendment out front should have told you.

And if that isn't enough, don't forget the Commerce Clause.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

And the Constitution was once again completely trashed in doing so.

I'm getting just about tired of tyrants denying my Rights.

The Day will come. Be very afraid, traitors...very afraid.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat May 12, 2007 6:40 pm

Dinsdale wrote:And the Constitution was once again completely trashed in doing so.

I'm getting just about tired of tyrants denying my Rights.

Abe Lincoln is dead.

Leave him out of this.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sat May 12, 2007 8:54 pm

Unlike his GOP rivals, Ron Paul is at least sane and coherent as to the collapse and corruption of basic Republican principles and policies. Unlike the Chimp 'n Cheney, that is, his neck certainly doesn't belong in a noose.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun May 13, 2007 8:37 am

If Ron Paul were elected president America would then endure 4 of the worst years in the history of the nation.
There would be more folks pissin', bitchin', and moanin' than ever before.

It'd be some 'tough love' for America, if you will.

But it would take a hell of a lot longer than 4 yrs to straighten out the mess that America has become.
It would take continuation of policies which honor the constitution.
Good luck with that.

But this is all fantasy, because the REAL money and power holders in the U.S. would never allow Paul (or anyone like him) to set foot in the oval office.

If elected, he'd be murdered.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sun May 13, 2007 9:31 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:...sane and coherent...

Irony.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sun May 13, 2007 9:36 am

poptart wrote:If Ron Paul were elected president America would then endure 4 of the worst years in the history of the nation.
There would be more folks pissin', bitchin', and moanin' than ever before.

It'd be some 'tough love' for America, if you will.

But it would take a hell of a lot longer than 4 yrs to straighten out the mess that America has become.
It would take continuation of policies which honor the constitution.
Good luck with that.

But this is all fantasy, because the REAL money and power holders in the U.S. would never allow Paul (or anyone like him) to set foot in the oval office.

If elected, he'd be murdered.

And then his running mate would take over.

You do realize he has the same chance of being nominated as Paul does, I hope.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:06 am

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

Holy smokes!!!!

The WAKEY WAKEY has begun!!!!!

Now, if only a few more of you could pull your heads out of your establishment-plungered anuses and WAKEY WAKEY, this nation might become great again.

Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

WOW! Someone who grasps the concept that the People grant government rights, and not the other way around.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:21 am

Paul will show very well come NH.

The media will continue to crucify and mock him, but his message will continue to resonate with thinking people.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:17 am

So, Dinsdale has only a superficial knowledge,
barely scraping the surface of an issue or person before
posting as if he has some kind of profound insight. When
actually he doesn't know shit.

I'm just astounded.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:33 pm

Link?

I posted a link to some stats, and a direct quote. I then gave brief commentary on those stats and quote.

Never claimed to have "profound insight," nor did I post in any manner that would suggest I did.

Mikey, you need help, dude... seriously. Your boner to "get over on Dinsdale" is making you delusional, bud. Not sure exactly what I did to deserve this much of your attention, but rest assured, it was unintentional.

Get a new hobby, dude -- the messageboard thing is obviously a little too intense for you.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:37 pm

Wassamatter Dinsy.

You feeling picked on?

:cry:

I'm sorry...

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:59 am

mvscal wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:
Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

WOW! Someone who grasps the concept that the People grant government rights, and not the other way around.
Of course he doesn't. He's far too clever for that. No, what he does is insert earmarks on bills that are certain to pass and then votes against the bill.

It's called 'having your cake and eating it too' just so long as you aren't unduly disturbed by the incidental hypocrisy. It's what makes America great.

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpol ... 4.paul.pdf

65 pages of letters to the HOR, ands you're saying he voted against all of the requests for funding he made on behalf of his district?

Wassamatter Dinsy.

You feeling picked on?

:cry:

I'm sorry...

Damn, Mikey. Spinsy usually turns tail and runs when his weaknesses are pointed out.

You've cracked the shell. Props, M.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:35 am

A good rebuttal ..........

Ron Paul is 100% for transparency in bills, including earmarks; 100% against self-serving earmarks; 100% for Congress "reading" bills in their entirety. The fact that he also has earmarks attached to his name should be accepted only after noting that his earmarks for his district divert already appropriated $$ from horrendous channels and point them in positive directions. Also, local governance and maintenance of infrastructures locally will only come about after major changes are made in the entire system and that is going to take some time.

..... a brief look at the list of earmarks brings only applause from me. No bridges to nowhere...no land improvements in an area that backs up to his home to improve his property value...no paybacks for contributions. Just an honest Representative trying to see that his district gets their "fair share" until the time when States can take care of States...communities take care of communities. I see much needed infrastructure appropriations; I see concern about health issues; I see concern about the economy in his district. I see an honest Politician/Statesman.

titlover · Post by **titlover** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:59 pm

Dinsdale wrote:Link?

I posted a link to some stats, and a direct quote. I then gave brief commentary on those stats and quote.

Never claimed to have "profound insight," nor did I post in any manner that would suggest I did.

Mikey, you need help, dude... seriously. Your boner to "get over on Dinsdale" is making you delusional, bud. Not sure exactly what I did to deserve this much of your attention, but rest assured, it was unintentional.

Get a new hobby, dude -- the messageboard thing is obviously a little too intense for you.

you're the one whining like a sticky cunt.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:34 am

Poptart or whoever he quoted there is spinning so hard he's developing gravitational pull.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:31 am

mvscal wrote:I see pure, bullshit spin. If these earmarks are so laudable, then he should vote to appropriate the money, but he doesn't.

The money is already appropriated.
Done deal.

That being so, he's just channeling it as positively as possible.

When life gives you lemons, make lemonade ........ or something like that.

People are trying way too hard to pin something on Paul to make him look less than credible.
To be expected, as his credibility laps that of ANY of the current crop of empty suits.
Not close.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:41 pm

poptart wrote:
mvscal wrote:I see pure, bullshit spin. If these earmarks are so laudable, then he should vote to appropriate the money, but he doesn't.
The money is already appropriated.
Done deal.

That being so, he's just channeling it as positively as possible.

When life gives you lemons, make lemonade ........ or something like that.

People are trying way too hard to pin something on Paul to make him look less than credible.
To be expected, as his credibility laps that of ANY of the current crop of empty suits.
Not close.

I'd like to point out Pop that if Ron Paul is as forthright and honest as you say he is, wouldn't he be the one making the statement you quoted above?

It's seems rather conniving and devious to be going about getting money in that way.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:25 am

Conniving and devious?? haha

I see you're struggling to grasp the concept that ..... THE MONEY HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROPRIATED.

He's channeling the money (already appropriated money) to be used in the best manner that he can see.

Do your own research on Ron Paul and his background.
His voting record.
Who he is and what he's about.

If you're not convinced that his integrity blows the doors off any of the other empty suits then you're either not paying attention, or you, like mvscal, are a partisan sheep.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:12 am

What, you haven't figured out that babs is totally phony? Like Dinsdale and Js810 and Goober and these other puppet jerk-circle hands? Let me hip you, bitch. In the words of Todd Rundgren, "It's our world!" These nervous twirps are runnin'! and have got nowhere to go.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:39 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:In the words of Todd Rundgren, "It's our world!"

Based on your posting history, it looks like not a whole lot is right in "your" world.

T1B

Ron Paul

Ron Paul

Re: Ron Paul

Re: Ron Paul

Re: Ron Paul