Ron Paul On The Record

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]mick28 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
mickey wrote:

Why don’t you count out Rudy?

He is going to bill himself as the only candidate that can beat Hillary, because of the New York factor. But in my opinion he is probably the only candidate who cannot beat Hillary.

Write back soon, it’s Saturday and there isn’t much to do around here.

:slight_smile:

mickey,

You were doing so well until this point. You were receiving my approbation (which means you were right) until this last part.

Once the bloom goes off of Thompson, you’ll see Rudy do his thing.

He really is the only serious candidate (McCain is done) with cross over appeal.

I’m praying for hillary and trusting in Rudy.

JeffR

I don’t think that you’re far from the truth Jeff.

I don’t see mcCain lasting in this race. And I agree The bloom will be off the Thompson rose a few weeks after he is officially in.

But I think you’re underestimating the Romney factor.

He’ll win NH, and probably by a good margin. After that he’ll be perceived as the front runner which will draw even more funds to his already healthy war chest. And I don’t have to tell you how important money is to a campaign, you’ve been around the block. You’re not some starry eyed kid.

As I said to Nominal, I don’t count Rudy out. He’s smart, knows what to say and how to say it, and is very well financed, at least at this point.

But, when it’s all said and done (that means when it’s over:) I would have to guess that Romney will be the nominee.

Rudy’s positions on some issues (as we have already discussed) may just keep him from getting the nomination. And thinking that he can beat Hillary is just off base in my opinion. And I know we disagree.

But quite honestly, If the democrats are smart, and they’re usually not, they’ll nominate Edwards. I think that guy will be unbeatable in a national election at the top of the ticket.

He’s a former Senator from North Carolina. This helps him a great deal with some red states. If he chooses the right person to balance the ticket, no not Hillary or Obama, he wins in a walk.

Not that I’m for the guy. Personally I’d never vote for Edwards.

But millions will.

[/quote]

mick,

I think edwards shot himself in the foot with the $400 haircut, made to look like an amateur by Cheney, and his the War on Terrorism is just another Bush slogan line.

I don’t see him catching fire.

I think rodham beats obama (but it will turn into a scorched earth campaign before the primaries).

You may be right about Romney in N.H. Those guys (N.H.) like to thumb their nose at conventional wisdom.

I’m going to admit to acting like a democrat when it comes to Romney: “I just have a bad feeling.”

He “feels” too slimy to me. I cannot warm up to him.

I watched the cnn sponsored debate. It was clearly their intention to focus on Romney.

Whoever cnn favors must be bad.

Finally, I am DEEPLY distrustful of anyone who made their career in Massachusets.

I’m ashamed to have to admit to thinking like a dem for even one second.

I’ll work on giving the guy a fair hearing.

JeffR

183

[quote]mick28 wrote:

Hey, if he’s the nominee and Hillary is the dems nominee I’m sure you’d have no problem pulling the Romney lever.

[/quote]

No question.

However, that’s a pretty low bar.

JeffR

184

http://roguegovernment.com/

Here is a Ron Paul video interview where he discusses such topics as the “Fed” and IRS.

186

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Thanks for posting the interviews. You know I may have been wrong about the guy. I think I gave him too much credit in the beginning. The more I hear him talk the more two words come to mind, “bat shit”.

[/quote]

What in particular bring those to your mind?

187

[quote]SouthernBrew wrote:
What in particular bring those to your mind?[/quote]

He won’t be able to answer that because he lacks a fundamental understanding of the economic system, which Ron Paul spoke about in that interview, and furthermore, it’s obvious that he has no conception of who Ron Paul is and where he’s coming from.

The fact that he has changed his tune about Ron Paul throughout this thread shows this much. Naturally, he will protest otherwise although he’s made it abundantly clear that he doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about.

Most libertarians could have told you all the way back in 1995 that Ron Paul was the only man in Washington working to abolish the Fed, and everything that entailed.

I don’t see how it would be possible to agree with the core tenets espoused by Ron Paul yet disagree with his proposed changes to government. The one follows from the other. The fact that such sentiments exist widely among the left and the right (which I’ve observed personally) is a strong testament to the general level of ignorance in the public domain today.

You’ve got neocons who hate the deficit but want the U.S. to continue to be the world’s military superpower. And, then you’ve got silly liberals who want to protect civil rights by handing over guns to the government. There is obvious, widespread misunderstanding of economics, civics, social dynamics, you name it.

This is the result of over half a century’s worth of public schooling and indoctrination at all levels of society. The children of the welfare state have grown up, and the majority of them are just as clueless as they were taught to be.

He’s not here to discuss real issues. He’s here to play the part of the obnoxious spectator who sits on the sidelines and taunts the players.

189

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

He’s not here to discuss real issues. He’s here to play the part of the obnoxious spectator who sits on the sidelines and taunts the players. [/quote]

In all fairness, somebody has to represent the average voter…

190

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Ron Paul: “all wars are started to cause fear with the American public, war on drugs, poverty etc.”
[/quote]
Hmmm…how else do these unwinnable wars garner support if the public isn’t ascared?

Was it rhetoric? Yes. So what?! Whenever some public opinion group attaches emotive words like “war on” to its cause, it is meant to make people believe the defeat of these ideals is a just public cause. POG’s like to use words like “war” because they know they can rely on blind patriotism from the mindless masses to garner support…which you have proven to fall for.

191

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Ron Paul: “all wars are started to cause fear with the American public, war on drugs, poverty etc.”

Hmmm…how else do these unwinnable wars garner support if the public isn’t ascared?

Was it rhetoric? Yes. So what?! Whenever some public opinion group attaches emotive words like “war on” to its cause, it is meant to make people believe the defeat of these ideals is a just public cause. POG’s like to use words like “war” because they know they can rely on blind patriotism from the mindless masses to garner support…which you have proven to fall for.[/quote]

And there never has been scaremongering to promote certain agendas, no reefer madness, no anarchists ready to blow up the republic, no communist infiltration scare, no exploitation of 9-11…

Using fear as a political tactic?

Ridiculous…

192

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Ron Paul: “all wars are started to cause fear with the American public, war on drugs, poverty etc.”

Read that over and over again and tell yourself that the guy is not bat shit all you want.

He’s loony and he’s going to lose…BIG TIME.
[/quote]

While Ron Paul’s desire to achieve the Republican nomination appears quite improbable at this point in the political process his failure to achieve this goal isn’t necessarily an inevitability. As mentioned on a previous occasion historical outcomes are sometimes filled with completely unexpected hairpin turns, causing one’s mouth to hang open at the result.

Time permitting; it would be most interesting to hear a few examples as to why you consider Ron Paul’s ideas “loony.” I believe your arguments exist, however my curiosity is behooving me to request specific explications on your reasons for arriving at such a conclusion.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Yes, yes we are all ignorant. In fact, the next time someone at a very high level of government has to make an important decision I bet they send for a libertarian college student to help make that decision…oh no…wait…I guess they won’t.
[/quote]

Unfortunately most individuals are quite unaware of the subject of economics and the ramifications ignorance of the subject on the part of individuals, as well as the political class, can have. True a college student isn’t the best source for pursuing knowledge on the subject, yet Ron Paul fortunately has acquired a great deal of knowledge on the subject throughout his seventy-one years. Thus, he’s certainly qualified to speak on the subject.

Once one begins studying economics the dramatic change in how one views history can often be surprising. The direction the United States is heading holds many eerily similar characteristics to ancient Rome’s expansive empire. The vast majority of said problems appear to be heavily influenced or even outright caused by economic policies. For those interested the following link will provide some interesting insight into the Roman Empire’s ultimate demise: http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=2389

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
No, actually I originally joined the thread to point out all of the good reasons why Paul would NEVER be elected President of the United States Of America.
[/quote]

I see little wrong in acknowledging reasons that would deny Ron Paul the nomination or presidency. Considering the nature of the kleptocracy that all governments must eventually become it should be unsurprising that a given political party would find little use in an honest individual such as Mr. Paul. However, again, history can sometimes surprise even the most skeptical of individuals. Who knows?

[quote]
And seeing that, and how doggedly you defend him, it’s become shear entertainment to continue to not only spread a few facts on this thread but also poke a stick at you now and then and your immature goofy ideas. [/quote]

One should be more interested in defending the ideas ones political candidate espouses rather than the individual himself. If one can convince others of the soundness of the ideas in question then the likelihood of ones favored candidate becoming elected improves.

195

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
It wasn’t really the use of the word “war” that bothers those of us who see Ron Paul for what he is. It’s how he said that the government started “all these wars to scare people.” [/quote]

If I remember correctly he was discussing the use of the word “War”.

I think we can all agree that he is right when he says the government tends to put the word “War” before many things in an attempt to make it sound bigger and “scarier”.

The “War on Drugs” is no more a war than what happens when the police enforce speeding laws…why don’t we call it the “War on Speed” or the “War on Traffic”?

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
But, there is no proof what so ever that the government started them to “scare” people.
[/quote]

I think it is pretty damn obvious the government tends to preface statements or terms with the word “War” in an attempt to drum up support for a policy or actions.

The word “War” carries a lot of weight and the government DOES use that weight when it is unnecessary.

196

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Start with his description of “all wars” above. If you can explain that away to my satisfaction we can move on.[/quote]

I responded to this earlier but will do so again.

He was referencing the frequent use of the word “War” by the Government in order to drum up support and in some cases fear.

I share your opinion that he is going to have to pull off a miracle to win the Presidency however despite his personal lack of charisma and speaking abilkity I do think he would make a better President than anyone else running.

As such I plan on voting for him

197

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
It wasn’t really the use of the word “war” that bothers those of us who see Ron Paul for what he is. It’s how he said that the government started “all these wars to scare people.”
[/quote]
It is the use of the word “war” by the gov’t that causes us to support someone like Ron Paul. That’s why we understand his use of rhetoric and don’t blow it out of proportion

Have you been listening to the other candidates at all!?

198

The sad thing about this country is that I think people like Mick are in the majority. Totally focused on why people outside the two parties can’t win and ensure that we will stuck in the same dysfunctional political system that we’ve been in for years.

I’m not saying that Ron Paul is the answer but hating on someone and feeling the need to gloat the fact that an honest man has no chance(ha,ha prove me wrong, bet me, etc.) is not only juvenile it is sad.

199

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Well, yes and no. At this level I’d like you to name even one modern Presidential election where a no name congressman with no money and less charisma than Dick Cheney actually won the Presidency.[/quote]

Maybe I’ll just cherry-pick the stinking BS out of your posts rather than going through trouble of a formal rebuttal.

  1. He has over 5 million dollars and is receiving greater numbers of donations than the leading Democratic candidates (not sure about the Republicans because it wasn’t cited in the statistics I saw, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he was doing equally well compared to them). 5 million dollars is less than the establishment candidates have, but it is not pocket change and it does give him a fighting shot in the first primaries, which is really all that he needs.

  2. He is not, by any means, a “no-name Congressman”. He is the most well known paleo-conservative/constitutionalist/libertarian politician in the entire government. Ron Paul is the single biggest cannon in the arsenal of the Old Right and you can rest assured that many people have known about him for a long time. If you don’t believe me, run a date-restricted query on him in a search engine (pre-2007).

The fact that YOU don’t know him doesn’t mean shit. Everyone in Washington knows, “Dr. No”. He has been standing out like a sore thumb in Congress for a decade. He has presented the lone dissenting vote on scores of legislation.

  1. You keep prattling on and on about “charisma,” which is as subjective a quality as one gets. Get this: “Charisma,” in politics, is generally used to make up for a lack of substance. In other words, most “charismatic” politicians are full of shit. Ron Paul is most definitely NOT full of shit. 2008 may well be the second time in American political history that voters choose the honest, straight talking guy.

And even if honesty alone won’t do it, there are other things about him that might. Like being the only Republican candidate to have voted against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. And being the strongest anti-neocon at a time when public opinion of the neocon platform is at an all-time low. Among his other strengths…

200

[quote]storey420 wrote:
The sad thing about this country is that I think people like Mick are in the majority. Totally focused on why people outside the two parties can’t win and ensure that we will stuck in the same dysfunctional political system that we’ve been in for years.

I’m not saying that Ron Paul is the answer but hating on someone and feeling the need to gloat the fact that an honest man has no chance(ha,ha prove me wrong, bet me, etc.) is not only juvenile it is sad.[/quote]

It’s a modern “self-fulfilling prophecy”…