I am disappointed in Ron Paul

Dixie said:
Again... WHY would Paul think this could be a winning political strategy in the GOP?

To put this in perspective Democraps can understand, this is like a democrat seeking his party's nomination on the message that rich people are taxed too much, and we spend too much on entitlements. Would that message make ANY logical sense to Democrat voters? (Not that they require this.) I think Ron Paul had the rare opportunity to grasp the brass ring, and become as immortal as Ronald Reagan, and he missed that chance by being a complete and total political retard. Instead of focusing on the conservative ideas he has, which resonate with a good many Americans, and could have propelled him to a landslide victory for both the GOP nomination and the presidency, he decided to turn into a complete and absolute illogical NUT JOB who no one in their right mind could vote for.
Click to expand...

Probably because Paul wants to atract the undecided voter. It's a fine line between pushing Conservative values and alienating those who are undecided. He doesn't come across as two-faced as most politicians but while his "don't get involved" policies are generally appealing they end up crossing the line. As for turning into a "nut job" that seeems to be the MO of most GOP candidates. Cain talking about never being inappropriate and a 13 year afffair surfaces. Newt talking about 14 year olds cleaning school bathrooms. Santorum with his "no way, never allow an abortion".

Maybe it's just luck/fate the true thoughts of the GOP candidates end up coming out. People are seeing the inherent madness lurking underneath the "regular good guy" image. Even the average Conservative Republican is appalled as shown by the candidates crashing, one by one. It definitely says something as the most Liberal, government-medical-care supporting candidate is in first place.

While Romney is the most threating of all the candidates to Obama it's nice to see the average Repub disavowing the other lunatics. Even they, average Republicans, are witnessing supporters of strong Conservatism are mentally unstable showing there is hope for a united country.
 
apple0154 said:
Probably because Paul wants to atract the undecided voter. It's a fine line between pushing Conservative values and alienating those who are undecided. He doesn't come across as two-faced as most politicians but while his "don't get involved" policies are generally appealing they end up crossing the line. As for turning into a "nut job" that seeems to be the MO of most GOP candidates. Cain talking about never being inappropriate and a 13 year afffair surfaces. Newt talking about 14 year olds cleaning school bathrooms. Santorum with his "no way, never allow an abortion".

Maybe it's just luck/fate the true thoughts of the GOP candidates end up coming out. People are seeing the inherent madness lurking underneath the "regular good guy" image. Even the average Conservative Republican is appalled as shown by the candidates crashing, one by one. It definitely says something as the most Liberal, government-medical-care supporting candidate is in first place.

While Romney is the most threating of all the candidates to Obama it's nice to see the average Repub disavowing the other lunatics. Even they, average Republicans, are witnessing supporters of strong Conservatism are mentally unstable showing there is hope for a united country.
Click to expand...


Again we run into a fatal postscript error with what you posit, as is often the case. It's easy to accept that Paul might be going after the undecided voter, if you presume the undecided GOP voters were the same 2% or less who probably voted in 2008 for Dennis Kusinich as a write-in, the problem is, they are on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Only if Paul were running for the DEMOCRAT nomination, would it make rational sense.

Maybe this is too deep for your little mind to jump into? I would say the smallest possible sliver of voters on the GOP side, are pissed off about Iraq and George Bush. This insignificant minority of nut bags who find themselves opposed to Iraq (and war in general), yet still hold strong Reagan conservative fiscal values, is virtually non-existent. This seems to be the voting block Paul has hung his hat on, and I flat don't get it. Why would you put your political career on the line and use your one sure chance to resonate with the base, to go after a virtually non-existent demographic?

As my OP says, Paul has blown his chance. The results from Iowa and New Hampshire tells us that Ron Paul support in general is strong, perhaps strong enough to beat Romney for the nomination, and that's AFTER Paul's outrageous anti-war ranting, can you imagine where he'd be if he had stuck with a more traditional conservative message, and laid off the left-wing ant-war rhetoric?

Hey, I am open minded, I can see where Ron Paul makes sense, on a great many things. If he had said we need to really think about these wars we get involved in, and we shouldn't get involved unless it is vital to our national interests, or we should avoid using military action unless as a last resort.... any of that, I can accept and say, okay... I get what he is saying there, I see where he's coming from, and I understand that. But Paul has taken it a step further, we shouldn't be involved in ANY war, under ANY circumstance, for ANY reason! If Iran wants a nuke, FINE! If they want to blow up Israel, FINE! It's none of our business, and we should just ignore the world around us... I can't support that, and I don't know of many conservative republicans who can. Other than empty headed OWS types, who are staunch liberals on everything, I don't know of anyone but Ron Paul who holds these silly ideas.
 
Yeah, not wanting to go to war with every country that offends us is really wacky and out of touch with the mainstream. Hell, I'm sure most Americans are already itching for another war, seeing as the Iraq War has come to a close. [/sarcasm]

Tell me, how is it that being anti-war is a "liberal" position, and spending trillions of dollars on war is a "conservative" position?
 
Dixie said:
Again we run into a fatal postscript error with what you posit, as is often the case. It's easy to accept that Paul might be going after the undecided voter, if you presume the undecided GOP voters were the same 2% or less who probably voted in 2008 for Dennis Kusinich as a write-in, the problem is, they are on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Only if Paul were running for the DEMOCRAT nomination, would it make rational sense.

Maybe this is too deep for your little mind to jump into? I would say the smallest possible sliver of voters on the GOP side, are pissed off about Iraq and George Bush. This insignificant minority of nut bags who find themselves opposed to Iraq (and war in general), yet still hold strong Reagan conservative fiscal values, is virtually non-existent. This seems to be the voting block Paul has hung his hat on, and I flat don't get it. Why would you put your political career on the line and use your one sure chance to resonate with the base, to go after a virtually non-existent demographic?

As my OP says, Paul has blown his chance. The results from Iowa and New Hampshire tells us that Ron Paul support in general is strong, perhaps strong enough to beat Romney for the nomination, and that's AFTER Paul's outrageous anti-war ranting, can you imagine where he'd be if he had stuck with a more traditional conservative message, and laid off the left-wing ant-war rhetoric?

Hey, I am open minded, I can see where Ron Paul makes sense, on a great many things. If he had said we need to really think about these wars we get involved in, and we shouldn't get involved unless it is vital to our national interests, or we should avoid using military action unless as a last resort.... any of that, I can accept and say, okay... I get what he is saying there, I see where he's coming from, and I understand that. But Paul has taken it a step further, we shouldn't be involved in ANY war, under ANY circumstance, for ANY reason! If Iran wants a nuke, FINE! If they want to blow up Israel, FINE! It's none of our business, and we should just ignore the world around us... I can't support that, and I don't know of many conservative republicans who can. Other than empty headed OWS types, who are staunch liberals on everything, I don't know of anyone but Ron Paul who holds these silly ideas.
Click to expand...

Paul is no Liberal or Democrat. He's just taking the Repub line of thinking to it's logical end which is "to hell with everybody."
 
Thoth said:
Yeah, not wanting to go to war with every country that offends us is really wacky and out of touch with the mainstream. Hell, I'm sure most Americans are already itching for another war, seeing as the Iraq War has come to a close. [/sarcasm]

Tell me, how is it that being anti-war is a "liberal" position, and spending trillions of dollars on war is a "conservative" position?
Click to expand...

Paul has taken it to the point, though, that he says America was wrong to enter into WW2 against Hitler.......
 
apple0154 said:
Paul is no Liberal or Democrat. He's just taking the Repub line of thinking to it's logical end which is "to hell with everybody."
Click to expand...

He's not taking the republican line of thinking anywhere, opposition to the Iraq war is NOT a republican line of thinking, nor has it ever been. Look, I can't deal with you today, if all you want to do is interject stupid partisan retorts into every conversation. Really, I can't.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Paul has taken it to the point, though, that he says America was wrong to enter into WW2 against Hitler.......
Click to expand...

What's interesting is, when you pin down the typical anti-war, anti-Iraq, Bush-hating liberal, they have the SAME sentiment! They'll all deny it if you ask straight up, but if you get them talking enough, they will reveal they think just like Ron Paul on it.
 
Dixie, since when is spending a trillion dollars on the military a "conservative" position?

Why is one who opposes going to war with every country that pisses us off automatically a "liberal"?
 
Dixie is a Classic Chicken Hawk.

He would never have served, but he believes any war is a good war and that its your patirotic duty to support it.
 
Thoth said:
Dixie, since when is spending a trillion dollars on the military a "conservative" position?

Why is one who opposes going to war with every country that pisses us off automatically a "liberal"?
Click to expand...

Paul's viewpoint has nothing to do with conservative or liberal. His is an untenable position we can't afford to ever take on the world stage. I don't care if you agree with that or not, it's a fact of life. The world is like a great big schoolyard, and there are indeed 'bullies' in the yard, we can choose to stand up to them or we can cower and get our asses kicked, those are our choices. There is not a choice to ignore them and not pay any attention to them, they won't allow that... haven't you ever been around bullies before? They will pick and antagonize until we have to do something... we can either stand up to them or run away like cowards. Unless you think we should run away like cowards, it's best we have the strongest offensive weapons to confront them with, and that requires spending money on a military.

Also, this has nothing to do with going to war with countries who "piss us off." I know that liberal mush-brains like yourself, have to tell yourself this is what has happened, and this is the case, but that is just plain not true. Do the police arrest people because those people pissed them off? Or is it because those people may have violated the law? Well, such is the case with the US and war, we go to war when other countries are in violation of international law. In most cases, war is absolutely not necessary, all they have to do is comply with the law. Now if the police are trying to make an arrest, and the perp begins firing shots at the police, is it the police who are at fault for that, or does it mean the police are mad at the perp when they start returning fire? Of course not, you're not so retarded as to believe that to be the case, I am sure... so you can understand, when we fire missiles and drop bombs, it has nothing to do with our personal feelings, it's just how war is waged.

Sometimes I wish I were so simple-minded I could be a liberal. Really, I do! If I could wash away the decades of history I've learned, and forget about the millions of Americans who fought and died for freedom and democracy, and cling to some Utopian fantasy that the world can live in peace and harmony, and everyone can love each other... It would be nice to be able to do that, but I can't. I understand there are times when the US military has been the only power to save the world from certain doom, or at least something so reprehensible we can't comprehend. This has been the case a few times, actually. As you can see, when we entertain the silly notions of Utopian liberals and Ron Paul, we could very easily end up with a military incapable of confronting the next threat.

Let's be clear on this, conservative or liberal makes absolutely NO difference if we lose our freedom and democracy. If we allow the world around us to collapse in chaos, then we will have to face the consequences. Freedom and democracy known in America for 250 years is not some game we can't lose, which is guaranteed to always exist regardless of what we do. You emotive doves don't seem to realize this, you just take for granted that nothing could ever change things. Our military superiority is what guarantees our freedoms and way of life are protected. I kind a think that is a big deal.
 
Jarhead said:
Dixie is a Classic Chicken Hawk.

He would never have served, but he believes any war is a good war and that its your patirotic duty to support it.
Click to expand...

Jarhead is a classic LIAR.

I wanted to serve but couldn't. I was mainly interested in the education aspects, as we weren't in any military conflicts back then. I have great admiration for the generation now serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, and on behalf of them let me say, you make me sick. No one WANTS war. To make such an insane accusation, is reprehensible and shows the lowest of character. War is serious, people die, people are changed forever by it. Stop turning it into a political baseball bat to advance your fucked up socialist liberal agenda, fuckwad!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Paul has taken it to the point, though, that he says America was wrong to enter into WW2 against Hitler.......
Click to expand...

Paul is quite consistent with his Libertarian positions- He illuminates perfectly why idealism is untenable in absolute practice. The reason is simple- it relies on everyone in the world being Libertarian and following the rule(s) of do no harm to others.
 
Dixie said:
He's not taking the republican line of thinking anywhere, opposition to the Iraq war is NOT a republican line of thinking, nor has it ever been. Look, I can't deal with you today, if all you want to do is interject stupid partisan retorts into every conversation. Really, I can't.
Click to expand...

Today is a new day so time to deal. :)

Paul doesn't care about anyone. No one. While the typical Repub doesn't care about the poor and ill and less fortunate Paul takes it a step further. His opposition to wars is not based on morality or what's right or wrong. His opposition is to doing anything that might help another. He doesn't look at war as "this is a just/good war" or "this is an unjust/bad war". Paul's philosophy is "what's in it for me?" What he tries to sell as freedom is nothing more than simply not giving a damn.

It's the same thing we hear from the Repubs. Government help is twisted into government control. "Don't let the government help with medical care. They'll control you." "Don't let the government expand social programs. They just want control over your life."

Of course, we know that's bullsh!t. Let's say the government came out and said they'd keep medical care strictly private, no forced coverage for pre-existing conditions, no interference in insurance companies or how a person obtained insurance, no "control" whatsoever, HOWEVER, if a person required medical care and didn't have the resources the government would cover the cost and tax you for the bill. Would that be OK with you?

No death panels. No government decisions regarding your medical care. Absolutely no interference. All you had to do was help pay for the other person's medical expenses. That would solve the so-called "problem" the Repubs spout, wouldn't it? If a person is entitled to Unemployment Insurance they should receive benefits and if they want to lie on the beach all day the government shouldn't interfere in their lives. The same with welfare. The Repub argument is welfare's restrictions prevent people from seeking work so we should get rid of welfare. How about removing the restrictions? Let people be free on welfare. If they want to live in a group and cut their rent expenses don't cut their benefits. If they want to do a little work under the table, let them.

The problem is the Repubs/Conservatives insist on the restrictions because they don't want people to qualify for benefits. Then, in their miserly, miserable, begrudgingly twisted minds they complain about how the government restrictions, restrictions they insisted upon, are harming people and their solution is to get rid of social programs which was their goal from the very beginning. They design a program with problems built in so they have a ready-made reason to oppose it. That's why the Dems dismissed them when ObamaCare was being discussed. They would have deliberately included conditions they could point to later and say, "See, I told you it wouldn't work."

Neither Paul nor the Repubs give a damn about anyone but themselves. Their reasoning may differ, their plans may differ, but their objective is the same. Help no one.
 
Dixie said:
Jarhead is a classic LIAR.

I wanted to serve but couldn't. I was mainly interested in the education aspects, as we weren't in any military conflicts back then. I have great admiration for the generation now serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, and on behalf of them let me say, you make me sick. No one WANTS war. To make such an insane accusation, is reprehensible and shows the lowest of character. War is serious, people die, people are changed forever by it. Stop turning it into a political baseball bat to advance your fucked up socialist liberal agenda, fuckwad!
Click to expand...

You sound like Newt Gingrich... I wanted to serve but couldent... Waaaaa! If that story makes you feel like less of a chicken hawk stick with it...!

You havent met a war you were not all for. If you could still do it all over again, you would redo the Iraq war, which clearly was unjustified. If you understood how bad war is, if you had served in a way, you would never have supported the paper thin reasoning to go into Iraq, but then again you liked the way the guy who took us there looked in bluejeans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top