Ron Paul Facts

[Brass Magnet]

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.

I don't agree that ANY Republican could beat Obama; in fact, I think Paul is in a better position than most to do so..........BUT I would also love to see Obama being pitted against a rock in a poll! :lol::lol:

 

[ManInBlack]

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.

Here's an idea: do something to help the right candidate get the nomination, instead of waiting on the foul winds of Republican chance to decide for you!

 

[georg jetson]

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.

"The political reality right now" is that BOTH parties at ALL levels of government are moving this country to an unrecoverable form of government repugnant to liberty. ANY candidate that adds even minutely to the momentum of the loss of liberty should be shunned.

"The political reality right now" is that Dr. Paul is the ONLY candidate with BOTH the record to show that he may begin pushing us back to a republic, AND the ability to gain enough support to win the nomination and the election.

"The political reality right now" is that any OTHER candidate(at the moment) will bring us more of the same... shame on those that haven't figured this out yet...

 

[eye95]

IMO, there is no "right candidate." The Republicans are currently choosing among a field of high-quality and conservative (to varying levels) candidates.

Ranking them in the order I support them (above the line, enthusiastically; below the line, while holding my nose):

Cain
Gingrich
Palin
Bachman
Santorum
Perry
________________________

Romney
Huntsman
Paul

I like a Cain/Palin ticket the best.

Bloomberg and Trump are not Republicans IMO.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Trying to turn my hijacked thread back OT............again......

Ron Paul is so powerful...they had to create the establishment just so he'd have a worthy adversary.

Ron Paul can take every cent from George Stephanopolous' pocket and turn it into gold with his bare hands.

Ron Paul has a regenerative healing factor, retractable claws of freedom and a skeletal system comprised of adamantium encased liberty.

 

[the_hustleman]

This country would go straight to hell if ron paul became president.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/40855

This is exactly what america DOES NOT need!

*swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*

 

[Brass Magnet]

Quit hijacking!

This country would go straight to hell if ron paul became president.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/40855

This is exactly what america DOES NOT need!

*swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*

Besides, this is B.S. Propaganda. Read up a little before you start spewing racist allegations. The civil rights act is unconstitutional (abolition of the Jim Crow laws was constitutional) and the newsletters were brought up in 07' and refuted. Besides, libertarianism is incompatable with racism. Watch the actual interview with Mathews and the ones in 07', they're all on Youtube.

 

[PracticalTactical]

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.

Fine, I submit Romney for consideration.

Looking at his gubernatorial record and stances pre '07 (not his sudden reversal of positions for the '08 primaries), he supports the worst things that Obama supports. Assault weapons ban, RomneyCare, cap and trade, just to name a few.

Granted, he's not as bad as Obama, but at least people oppose Obama and stop some of his agenda. With Romney, people will give him a pass because he has an R next to his name and not a D.

Take, for example, the Bush Bailouts. The Heritage Foundation said "Normally we wouldn't support this, but....."

And where were the Tea Partiers at that time? Or when they shredded the constitution with the "PATRIOT Act" and it's renewals?

Nothing will stop Romney, and that is why he is worse than Obama.

 

[DangerClose]

And where were the Tea Partiers at that time? Or when they shredded the constitution with the "PATRIOT Act" and it's renewals?

They were busy going to work and happy to be out from under Bill Clinton. Also, if people remember, Bush ran on some opposite things he then did. Bush ran on a non-intervention foreign policy. Er, I mean "isolationist" policy, for those out there who like to make up stuff to bash Ron Paul because you can't do it with facts because he's too awesome. They didn't get on Bush early, but they did get on him later. (Tea Party started under Bush.) Better late than never, I guess.

A big problem with electing a RINO/Democrat-lite Republican/etc is the complacency. Fiscal conservatives and pro-freedom people started to get ticked off under Bush, but without Obama being elected and Dems controlling Congress since the 2006 elections and pushing their crap through, people wouldn't be nearly as ticked off, and Worried!, as they are now.

Kind of like what happened in WI. Walker ran on balancing the budget but not specifically (other than a mention or two) on having the public unions, to borrow a lib phrase, "pay their fair share," so even many Walker supporters didn't like that when it came about. But the more the public unions ran their mouths about their "unfair" compensation and acted like thugs, the more people started to look in their direction and didn't like what they saw.

How's that saying go? The squeaky wheel gets more stares in its direction? Bush wasn't a conservative, but he had an R next to his name, so it took a while for him to squeak enough for people to finally say enough's enough. It might not happen again As Much, but I'd actually probably rather have a crappy Dem in there for another four years than a crappy Rep because Republican voters will tune out the Rep's squeaky wheels more.

It's actually a bit amazing how much has changed in only a few years. In 2008, a common phrase was "Who is Ron Paul?" Now he's a household name, and plenty of people who used to make fun of him now say, "Damn, he was right."

 

[KBCraig]

Take, for example, the Bush Bailouts. The Heritage Foundation said "Normally we wouldn't support this, but....."

And where were the Tea Partiers at that time? Or when they shredded the constitution with the "PATRIOT Act" and it's renewals?

When the PATRIOT Act was signed into law, we were still 6 years from the first Tea Party rally, which was a Ron Paul fundraiser held in December 2007 (coinciding with the date of the original Boston Tea Party).

During the Bush Bailouts, the Tea Party movement as it existed at that time (as opposed to the straphangers who have coöpted the phrase) was strongly and vocally in opposition.

 

[user]

Well, on the one hand, a noted authority once said, "By their fruits you shall know them."; I didn't wait to see the results, I'd seen enough of Bush I to know that he was a reactionary, not a conservative. And the machine he began constructing at that time is now in the hands of an administration that no one has yet figured out. It's like being the passenger in a car that's going downhill on one of those twisty California seacoast roads with no brakes and a drunken driver. I resigned my position as vice-chairman of the Fairfax Republican Committee when Bush I became the party's official candidate.

The thing that has always amazed me is that people support these "wars" against indefinite and poorly defined targets: the "war on drugs", and the "war on terror". Just give us more money and power, and we'll work on solving these terrible problems for you... indefinitely. Sort of like the bandits' approach to the villagers in "The Magnificent Seven", or paying protection to the Mafia.

I think we need to pull the leeches off and burn 'em.

 

[eye95]

Fine, I submit Romney for consideration.

Looking at his gubernatorial record and stances pre '07 (not his sudden reversal of positions for the '08 primaries), he supports the worst things that Obama supports. Assault weapons ban, RomneyCare, cap and trade, just to name a few.

Granted, he's not as bad as Obama, but at least people oppose Obama and stop some of his agenda. With Romney, people will give him a pass because he has an R next to his name and not a D.

Take, for example, the Bush Bailouts. The Heritage Foundation said "Normally we wouldn't support this, but....."

And where were the Tea Partiers at that time? Or when they shredded the constitution with the "PATRIOT Act" and it's renewals?

Nothing will stop Romney, and that is why he is worse than Obama.

You may disagree with this assessment of your argument, but here is how I see what you are saying:

Romney is not as bad as Obama. Therefore, people will be less worried about what he would do. As a result, he would be able to get some noxious stuff through. Therefore, he is worse than Obama. So the reason Romney is worse is because he is not as bad??

Um. No. By that logic, anyone who is not as bad as Obama, but is not perfect (read: anyone other than Paul) is worse than Obama.

However, I am not surprised. That is typical paulbot thinking. Paul is perfect. All others fall short of the glory of Paul and, therefore, are excreable.

 

[georg jetson]

Paul is perfect. All others fall short of the glory of Paul and, therefore, are excreable.

Ah ha!!! We're back on topic.

 

[eye95]

...That is typical paulbot thinking. Paul is perfect. All others fall short of the glory of Paul and, therefore, are excreable.

Ah ha!!! We're back on topic.

Typical unacknowledged snipping to create a misimpression of something I have said. I have included the quote with sufficient context as not to change its meaning.

Even when it is done in humor, I detest being misquoted in a way that changes my meaning. Please do not do that.

I was, in case this went unnoticed, ridiculing that kind of thinking.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Typical unacknowledged snipping to create a misimpression of something I have said. I have included the quote with sufficient context as not to change its meaning.

Even when it is done in humor, I detest being misquoted in a way that changes my meaning. Please do not do that.

I was, in case this went unnoticed, ridiculing that kind of thinking.

I kind of detest when a thread that was supposed to be humorous and light-hearted get's taken over by humorless anti-paulites, but to each his own.

 

[eye95]

I kind of detest when a thread that was supposed to be humorous and light-hearted get's taken over by humorless anti-paulites, but to each his own.

I have done nothing in this thread but respond to decidedly non-humorous comments about Paul. Check it out.

So, since I have done nothing in this thread that you have not also done, try not to hurt yourself as you extricate yourself from your vertically-enhanced equine.

 

[georg jetson]

I was, in case this went unnoticed, ridiculing that kind of thinking.

That is what maximized the levity.

 

[eye95]

That is what maximized the levity.

Dishonesty is not levity. At least, not for the honest at heart.

Moving on from your bit of dishonesty.

 

[Brass Magnet]

I have done nothing in this thread but respond to decidedly non-humorous comments about Paul. Check it out.

So, since I have done nothing in this thread that you have not also done, try not to hurt yourself as you extricate yourself from your vertically-enhanced equine.

Yet you (and others) continue to hijack a thread that I've tried multiple times to set straight. You know, you are free to start a "Ron Paul sucks and he's a dangerous isolationist and I don't like him and I don't care what anyone else thinks" thread.

 

[eye95]

Yet you (and others) continue to hijack a thread that I've tried multiple times to set straight. You know, you are free to start a "Ron Paul sucks and he's a dangerous isolationist and I don't like him and I don't care what anyone else thinks" thread.

Again, I have hijacked nothing. I have merely responded to serious, non-humorous assertions in this thread (as have you), and I will continue to do so (as you seem to be doing so right now).

If the pro-Paul posters stop posting seriously and positively about him (and you stop bellyaching about OT), there will be nothing to which I will bother responding.