Ron Paul Facts

[Malcolm]

Ron's got mine as well.

-M


Very funny list by the way.

 

[Cisco]

Funny! I gotta share that!

 

[hermannr]

My wife and I have supported, and voted for Ron Paul since 1988. He is the only one that will fix the "busness as usual" attitude in DC.

Ron respects the constitution as it was written, and he also respects the citizens of the US...having him as President will be a true breath of fresh air.

 

[user]

I have a friend who told me yesterday that her official stance in her local Republican Committee was that if Paul wasn't on the ballot in Virginia, she'd write him in, even if it means a win for Obama. I've decided I agree with her. The Constitution represents a number of political compromises that have already been settled, and I'm not interested in nickel-and-diming it to death any more. No more compromises. It's Ron Paul's way or the highway.

 

[eye95]

No, for most Paulistas, it's Ron Paul's way or it will end up being Obama's way.

Face it. He will not even come close to getting the nomination. (Frankly, I'm glad.) The only question is, "Will the Paul supporters petulantly stay home again and give us Obama again?"

He has a noisy tiny minority supporting him. While his constitutional grounding is appealing, his wack-a-doodle isolationism will correctly turn almost all Americans, left and right, off to him.

 

[ManInBlack]

No, for most Paulistas, it's Ron Paul's way or it will end up being Obama's way.

Face it. He will not even come close to getting the nomination. (Frankly, I'm glad.)

You must be putting it mildly. For someone as committed to statism as you, I'd be surprised if you didn't throw a party. Those of us who give a damn about limited, constitutional, republican government see things differently.

The only question is, "Will the Paul supporters petulantly stay home again and give us Obama again?"

I could easily make the argument that it was "Republican Party first, America second" voters like yourself who gave us Obama by settling on Milquetoast McCain, quite possibly the weakest presidential candidate in memory.

He has a noisy tiny minority supporting him. While his constitutional grounding is appealing, his wack-a-doodle isolationism will correctly turn almost all Americans, left and right, off to him.

Ummm...I assume by "wack-a-doodle isolationism" (typical name calling that your friends in the media would be proud of, by the way) you mean Dr. Paul's foreign policy...the same foreign policy dictated in the Constitution and advocated by Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural address? Left or right, those principles should ones that all Americans can get behind.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Ummm...I assume by "wack-a-doodle isolationism" (typical name calling that you friends in the media would be proud of, by the way) you mean Dr. Paul's foreign policy...the same foreign policy dictated in the Constitution and advocated by Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural address? Left or right, those principles should ones that all Americans can get behind.

And George Washington's Farewell address.

 

[ManInBlack]

And George Washington's Farewell address.

True enough!

 

[Citizen]

You must be putting it mildly. For someone as committed to statism as you, I'd be surprised if you didn't throw a party.

I don't understand guys like that.

You would think they'd realize that an interventionist foreign policy contributes heavily to being at war somewhere frequently, which costs hundreds of billions of dollars, makes enemies of more of the people in whichever country we're "intervening," expands the security apparatus here at home with attendant privacy invasions and government power increases, and drives the national debt to the moon.

 

[user]

I think this is our last chance to establish a Constitutionally based system of government on this continent. On the one hand there's Paul and a couple of other people who talk government-limited-by-Constitutional-rule-of-law, and all the antifederalist imperial system people, half of whom change their agenda to suit the latest trends in political talk. I'd take either Perry or Bachman as VP candidate, but for me, the choice is between Paul, on the one hand, and Tweedledee and Tweedledum on the other. I've been a Republican since the Nixon administration (my family was all Byrd Democrat, but as Reagan said, "I didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left me"), but party loyalty ain't worth spit if the country's in the toilet.

Reminds me of a friend who had a pet raccoon. Sometimes he'd give the 'coon some corn bread as a joke. Because they have to wash everything in water before they eat it, the 'coon would put the corn bread in the water and then wonder why there wasn't anything left of it when he pulled his paw out. My friend thought it was really funny. The Republican "system guys" don't realize they're squabbling over power like the 'coon fussing with the corn bread, not realizing the last shreds of what they're trying to gain have already washed away.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Some more "Facts"!

Ron Paul got an email telling him he won $475 million in the Nigerian Lottery, he responded, and got his check in two days.

Ron Paul's back is always sore because even when he sleeps he never changes his position.

Ron Paul blew up both Death Stars, but the media spun the facts in favor of Luke and Lando.

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Ron Paul Causes Liberty, Individualism, Peace, Prosperity, Equality and may Impair Tyranny.

SELECT * FROM government WHERE clue > 0
1 Result Returned
Ron Paul

 

[since9]

I have a friend who told me yesterday that her official stance in her local Republican Committee was that if Paul wasn't on the ballot in Virginia, she'd write him in, even if it means a win for Obama. I've decided I agree with her. The Constitution represents a number of political compromises that have already been settled, and I'm not interested in nickel-and-diming it to death any more. No more compromises. It's Ron Paul's way or the highway.

Sadly, this post underscores the shortcomings of our modern system of voting:

1. Fallacy of the two-party system. Why shouldn't Michelle, Ron, Rick, and Rand all run against Obama? Oh, that's right - it would split the Republican vote in four directions. However, that's only because our system of voting is VERY antiquated. A simple "Would you accept this person as President?" system with a Yes/No checkbox next to all candidates names would reveal the most-accepted candidate and do away with a lot of party politics in the process: Obama - no. Michelle - yes. Rick - yes. Ron - yes. Rand - yes.

Ok, this is a big one, but it's the most easily fixed. Seriously - if you thought Obama needed the boot, but three of the four Republican contenders would make equally good Presidents, then you'd vote "yes" for three and "no for two.

And how's this for justice: All uncompleted ballots will be discarded. That's right! If you voted "yes" for Michelle and left the rest black, it won't count. You need to both know enough and be confident enough in your yes/no votes to decide on all candidates before your votes will be counted.

Well, it's only one point this evening. Let's work on that one for a while, as it solves the second problem:

2. Split votes.

 

[Brass Magnet]

In an attempt to reintroduce the "funny" to the thread.......

In a vacuum, you can still hear Ron Paul speak.

While not a proctologist, Ron Paul could save this country's ass.

Ron Paul let the dogs out. They were being held without due process.

Ron Paul taught John Wayne how to ride a horse.

Ron Paul is fighting a battle of ideas against unarmed opponents.

 

[georg jetson]

Ron Paul is fighting a battle of ideas against unarmed opponents.

LOL!!! Now that says it all...

 

[Tony4310]

I've found as of late that I'm arguing more with Repubs then I am Dems over the presidency. That is really scary,but on the other hand it shows how worried they are about Ron Paul.

 

[PracticalTactical]

I've found as of late that I'm arguing more with Repubs then I am Dems over the presidency. That is really scary,but on the other hand it shows how worried they are about Ron Paul.

They all seem to be of the opinion that any republican is better than Obama, so therefore you should just shut up and support their guy.

Also, the idea that Paul will never go anywhere and therefore shouldn't be supported is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and they know it. But, every time they see him poll up there with the 'top tier' candidates they stick their fingers in their ears and start yelling "Isolationism! Gold standard! Whargarble! Whargarble!"

I think eye95 watches too much cable news.

 

[DangerClose]

In case people missed it. Jon Stewart of The Daily Show of all people had a great segment on Ron Paul last week about how the media is ignoring him. "How did Ron Paul become the 13th floor in a hotel?" http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/m...corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier

This is the kind of help Ron needs to win over more independents. Pass it around.

 

[eye95]

They all seem to be of the opinion that any republican is better than Obama, so therefore you should just shut up and support their guy.

Also, the idea that Paul will never go anywhere and therefore shouldn't be supported is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and they know it. But, every time they see him poll up there with the 'top tier' candidates they stick their fingers in their ears and start yelling "Isolationism! Gold standard! Whargarble! Whargarble!"

I think eye95 watches too much cable news.

I do not believe that any Republican would be better than Obama. Surely there is at least one somewhere who is worse. However, I would challenge you to name one of the announced and unannounced candidates who would be worse--and to expound on why he or she is worse.

If you see anything that I have posted that you should "shut up and support [my] guy [Cain]," I invite you to point it out. I would need to correct that statement.

Paul is isolationist and, IMO, that is good reason not to support him in the primaries. BTW, I would support him in the general, because he is better than Obama. Are you, or any of the other Paul supporters willing to say the same about other candidates other than Paul? I am seeing exclusively the opposite. That is closer to the intransigence of which you speak than my position on supporting "my guy" is.

The gold standard, IMO, puts an unneeded rigidity into the commodity markets, while a currency that is allowed to relativistically float, but carefully aligned with national productivity and wealth, acts as a lubricant to that productivity and to commerce in general. The problem is not that lack of a gold standard, but wild spending that causes some to want to use the money supply to pay for that spending and to inflate away the debt, rather than tying the money supply to productivity and wealth.

Of course, I have come to expect that you will make the argument personal. Please note my rational reply to your having gotten personal.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Paul may or may not be the right man for the job, but can he win? I think not. If he can not win it does not matter how good he "would have been" for the job. The political reality right now, Paul is not the candidate that can beat Obama. Could it change, sure anything is possible. I'll wait until we have a nominee then work to defeat Obama. If Paul is the nominee, I'll work to get him elected. He would fall under the "anybody but Obama" banner.

All the data I've seen is that he would do very well against Obama, it's the Republican primary that's the issue and I don't disagree that his "nominatability" is a problem. I don't question his electability though.

 

[eye95]

...it's the Republican primary that's the issue and I don't disagree that his "nominatability" is a problem. I don't question his electability though.

On this we agree. However, his electability is more a function of Obama's reelectability--or lack thereof. If the economy continues to tank and if Obama continues to regulate and squash Liberty at every turn and if spending continues on its current trend, Obama's reelectability fades even further, making the prospects good for any opponent put up, whether that opponent be Paul, any other Republican, a tree-stump, a potato, or even a rock.

I'd love to see the results of a poll pitting Obama against a rock.