The Ron Paul that Ron Paul does not want you to know

blackascoal said:
Yet Paul suggests that he would be a good choice for the Vice President of the United States .. one heartbeat of a 72 year-old man from becoming the President .. John Stossel.

Additionally, many Paul supporters see this as "good news" ..

Ron Paul Included in First Texas Poll .. at 6%
http://paul4prez.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-included-in-first-texas-poll.html

I said .. He's polling at 6% in his own home state where he and his record are better known .. and you think this is good news? Without Thompson in the race he trails Huckabee and a great many people have no clue who he is.

Could a candidate that polls 6% in their own home state and 0-2% nationally be considered a serious candidate for president?

Absolutely not.

I can think of no candidate for president in American history, EVER, that had anything near such an incredibly miserable showing as this in their own home state.

Actually this is further proof that the national polls are correct and the so-called "media/poll" bias is a figment of his supporters imagination.

Much of his support comes from democrats, progressives, and independents, who would not be supporting him against progressive antiwar candidates with far less baggage, insane politics outside of his antiwar views, and a vile background as Paul's.

He's running in the REPUBLICAN primary and REPUBLICANS, many of whom detest him. will not support him under any circumstances.

This is light years from being a "revolution", "express", or even a bandwagon. This is indicative of a slow death.
Click to expand...

I think you are right. I have heard anti-war dems say that they liked Paul, and would rather vote for him than for Hillary. I've clued them in on what "radical libertarian" means. They had no idea. Other than his stance on Iraq, very few people know what Paul is all about.
 
He was clearly speaking tongue in cheek. This is more hyperbole. You really fear this guy who might gain as much as 2% of the R vote in the primaries.
 
IHateGovernment said:

Libertarians are hostile to the New Deal. In fact, opposition to the New Deal, is why I think the american libertarian party came into existance in the 1950s.

Where do you think prohibitions against child labor came from? From the progressives and the New Deal.

I've never met a Libetarian who didn't want to overthrow the New Deal, and return the country to the alleged constitutional principles, prior to the New Deal.

This libertarian supports child labor laws. Ask Damocles, Beefy, Adam Weinberg, Warren, Watermark, RStringfield, Troglodyte and Digital Dave if they support child labor laws.

As for the constitutionality of the New Deal we've had this discussion before. You and I both know the sitting Supreme Court during FDR's tenure was bullied into accepting it. The act of a despot frankly.
Click to expand...
I too support child labor laws. No force or fraud, within the context of informed consent. Minors are recognized as not yet being able to exercise informed consent.
 
Damocles said:
He was clearly speaking tongue in cheek. This is more hyperbole. You really fear this guy who might gain as much as 2% of the R vote in the primaries.
Click to expand...

He apparently likes to say a lot of really dumb shit "tongue in cheek", then people like you come along and call it "hyperbole" when he's challenged on the words that come out of his mouth. .. which is kinda' stupidly ridiculous. He's running for President of the United States but shouldn't be challenged on what comes out of his mouth.

Stupidly ridiculous.

Fear has nothing to do with it. I despise Ron Paul more than any candidate or politician I have ever encountered in my life .. and I've seen a lot of asshole miscreants in, or running for office.

I wouldn't give a fuck if he wasn't running for president, I would still attack him with the truth. I wouldn't give a fuck if he was dead, I would still attack him with the truth.

Hope that clears it up for you.
 
blackascoal said:
He apparently likes to say a lot of really dumb shit "tongue in cheek", then people like you come along and call it "hyperbole" when he's challenged on the words that come out of his mouth. .. which is kinda' stupidly ridiculous. He's running for President of the United States but shouldn't be challenged on what comes out of his mouth.

Stupidly ridiculous.

Fear has nothing to do with it. I despise Ron Paul more than any candidate or politician I have ever encountered in my life .. and I've seen a lot of asshole miscreants in, or running for office.

I wouldn't give a fuck if he wasn't running for president, I would still attack him with the truth. I wouldn't give a fuck if he was dead, I would still attack him with the truth.

Hope that clears it up for you.
Click to expand...
I don't care if you "challenge" his words, but making such a huge deal about a passing remark about Stossel is hyperbole. It really isn't that big of a deal to me. As I said long ago, too much time spent on a candidate that isn't going to get the nomination.

Could you imagine a Ron Paul/Tom Tancredo ticket? I'm sure the Ds would love it.
 
Watermark said:
Anyway.

Lou Dobbs is by far the worst reporter in history. John Stossel trails considerably by any measure.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Dobbs called it right on the fraud of electronic voting which is no small matter.

The greater point is that neither Dobbs, Koppel, Cronkite, Rather, Bradley, or ANY news reporter in history is qualified to be considered as the Vice President. least of all a disgraced one.
 
blackascoal said:
He apparently likes to say a lot of really dumb shit "tongue in cheek", then people like you come along and call it "hyperbole" when he's challenged on the words that come out of his mouth. .. which is kinda' stupidly ridiculous. He's running for President of the United States but shouldn't be challenged on what comes out of his mouth.

Stupidly ridiculous.

Fear has nothing to do with it. I despise Ron Paul more than any candidate or politician I have ever encountered in my life .. and I've seen a lot of asshole miscreants in, or running for office.

I wouldn't give a fuck if he wasn't running for president, I would still attack him with the truth. I wouldn't give a fuck if he was dead, I would still attack him with the truth.

Hope that clears it up for you.
Click to expand...

I usually end a post like that with "If you need me to be any clearer, let me know" I like your ending too though.
 
Damocles said:
I don't care if you "challenge" his words, but making such a huge deal about a passing remark about Stossel is hyperbole. It really isn't that big of a deal to me. As I said long ago, too much time spent on a candidate that isn't going to get the nomination.

Could you imagine a Ron Paul/Tom Tancredo ticket? I'm sure the Ds would love it.
Click to expand...

I respect your right to believe that. However, in my opinion, little to ZERO scrutiny of Paul has been paid and I intend to expose any and every flaw and deception in who he is.

I believe that it's telling for him to even remotely suggest Stossel as a VP choice. Americans SHOULD question DEEPLY into the character of anyone who intends to be president .. even if they don't have a ghost of a chance of winning.

Additionally, it should be pointed out to democrats and progressives who support him, of how foolish and incredibly ignorant that thought is.
 
Hey BAC! I don't think you've been here since the changeover. Notice anything different about the site?
 
blackascoal said:
I respect your right to believe that. However, in my opinion, little to ZERO scrutiny of Paul has been paid and I intend to expose any and every flaw and deception in who he is.

I believe that it's telling for him to even remotely suggest Stossel as a VP choice. Americans SHOULD question DEEPLY into the character of anyone who intends to be president .. even if they don't have a ghost of a chance of winning.

Additionally, it should be pointed out to democrats and progressives who support him, of how foolish and incredibly ignorant that thought is.
Click to expand...

All anyone knows about him is that he's just about the only anti-war person running in either party.

Maybe Mike Gravel is anti-war. But even Ron Paul polls above Mike Gravel.

Oh yeah, Obama... he's anti-war, right? Nevermind.
 
Not like Democrats and progressives can vote for poll anyway. Not like any of them would, if it weren't that he were just being held in comparison to all of the other Republican candidates.
 
Watermark said:
All anyone knows about him is that he's just about the only anti-war person running in either party.

Maybe Mike Gravel is anti-war. But even Ron Paul polls above Mike Gravel.

Oh yeah, Obama... he's anti-war, right? Nevermind.
Click to expand...

The antiwar movement doesn't need Paul. He could have been more effective and useful years ago when being antiwar wasn't popular. As I point out in another thread I started, republicans are running for their political lives and legislation demanding troop withdrawal is inevitable.

Paul isn't as antiwar as he appears given that he voted for the invasion of Afghanistan even though there were antiwar protests against that scam before it started and Barbara Lee voted against it.

An even bigger point I think is that he's a one issue candidate running in a party that has been against him on that one issue. As legislation gets passed to get our troops out as more republican leaders smell the coffee .. who needs a Ron Paul? The democrats will unfortunately look good again because they have been pushing the legislation that will ultimately get passed and reclaim their undeserved mantle as the antiwar party.

Ron Paul isn't needed and serves only as an interesting folly to the republican debates.
 
"The antiwar movement doesn't need Paul. He could have been more effective and useful years ago when being antiwar wasn't popular."

?

He was opposed to the war back then. As you've made abundantly clear in this thread, Ron Paul doesn't care about what's popular.


"Paul isn't as antiwar as he appears given that he voted for the invasion of Afghanistan even though there were antiwar protests against that scam before it started and Barbara Lee voted against it."

The Afghan war obviously wasn't as objectionable as the Iraq war, being that the UN did not oppose us then and they were harboring the organization that had just attacked us. Barbara Lee was the only person in federal government to vote against it - even other members of the Black Caucus didn't agree.
 
Watermark said:
"The antiwar movement doesn't need Paul. He could have been more effective and useful years ago when being antiwar wasn't popular."

?

He was opposed to the war back then. As you've made abundantly clear in this thread, Ron Paul doesn't care about what's popular.
Click to expand...

He also doesn't care about what is effective either. "Back then" he was resigned to academic writings against the war along with an occassional speech on the House floor. HE DID NOT TAKE A BOLD VOCAL AND VISIBLE STANCE, he did not align himself with other antiwar people, nor did he gather his legion of Ronbots to challenge republican strategy.

Nice writings .. but about as effective as a flea on an elephant's ass. Most Americans, including a large number of antiwar persons, had no clue who he was.

He spent more time with racist hate groups then he did with the antiwar movement. He isn't needed to bring the troops home. Those who stood at the forefront, put their careers on the line, participated in demonstrations and awareness, and aligned with the antiwar movement are the ones to be applauded.


"Paul isn't as antiwar as he appears given that he voted for the invasion of Afghanistan even though there were antiwar protests against that scam before it started and Barbara Lee voted against it."

The Afghan war obviously wasn't as objectionable as the Iraq war, being that the UN did not oppose us then and they were harboring the organization that had just attacked us. Barbara Lee was the only person in federal government to vote against it - even other members of the Black Caucus didn't agree.
Click to expand...

Why would the UN factor into any decision he makes? He opposes everything about the UN.

The invasion of Afghanistan was every bit as much a plot and contrivance of the same dark elements that brought us Iraq. Lee figured it out, obvioulsy he didn't.

It wasn't the first time and expect it won't be the last that the CBC got it wrong.

Point is that Ronbot belief that Ron Paul is the Oracle of All That is Antiwar is far from the truth. On the issue of Iraq there were 132 other politicians, including all of the CBC, who were against that madness. If he couldn't figure out the fraud of the Afghanistan attack, he is no more "antiwar" than at least 132 other politicians, includiing Barbara Lee on both wars.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top