Ron Paul's Candidacy is Finished

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is no such thing as a moderate. Only people that delude themselves into thinking they can have it both ways.[/quote]

Shut the fuck up Captain Anarchy, you live in fantasy land, that’s been established

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

You are either for welfare and big government programs or you are against them, there really is no middle ground, because as history has shown it leads to overreaching government and an entitlement minded nanny state.
[/quote]

There’s a huge middle ground. People called “moderates” live there. I understand you have never heard of it. Few here have.[/quote]

Theoretically maybe, in actual practice in politics it doesn’t work. Once you give a little the politicians/government want more and more.

“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” â??Benjamin Franklin

this is also very pertinent to current problems we are facing.

â??If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.â?? â??Thomas Jefferson

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is no such thing as a moderate. Only people that delude themselves into thinking they can have it both ways.[/quote]

Shut the fuck up Captain Anarchy, you live in fantasy land, that’s been established [/quote]

What’s the matter? Are you one of the deluded majority?

That’s already been established, Captain Insignificant.

Wanting voluntary interactions in society is not anarchy, it is how our government was established. Using the force of the government to take money from people to give others is nothing more than extortion. It shows that we really have no private property or individual rights.

If you want to fund a program fund it, but don’t force others too. I don’t use government to mandate you give my church money, please don’t do something like that to me.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is no such thing as a moderate. Only people that delude themselves into thinking they can have it both ways.[/quote]

Shut the fuck up Captain Anarchy, you live in fantasy land, that’s been established [/quote]

And you apparently life in a universe where you can be half a serf which is somewhere along the lines of being half pregnant.

I don’t think he has a chance at winning the nomination. But of all the candidates running right now he would most closely represent what I think would be a good change for our country. Do I agree with all his ideas, no. But he is more consistent than any other politician out there and represents the ideas the country was founded on.

But to be honest, before the end of the next presidential term I see a major event happening in this country, it is getting hot and something going to happen. Maybe not catastrophic, might be good, might be bad, but something is brewing.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It was already finished. It’s not like the guy was breaking out of the pack towards frontrunner status. [/quote]

He’s been finished since he first ran years ago.

Guy’s got a better chance of becoming the pope than becoming president.[/quote]

Apparently you, and a whole slough of others for that matter, aint got this Paul thing figured out. Maybe I do. Maybe.

Whether he becomes president or not, he IS having an impact. A rather large one, relatively speaking, I believe.

He is promoting the unthinkable notion that this federal government does not have the constitutional wherewithal to plod on like Godzilla, fearing nothing in its quest for ever increasing power.

Obama thinks the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Bush Elder and Younger thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Clinton thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Carter thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Ford thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Nixon thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Johnson thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Kennedy thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Eisenhower thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Truman thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

FDR thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Hoover thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Wilson thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Taft thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Theodore Roosevelt thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Hillary Clinton thinks the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

McCain thinks the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Gore thinks the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Dole thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Dukakis thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Mondale thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

McGovern thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Humphrey thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Pelosi thinks the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Hastert thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Foley thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Wright thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

O’Neill thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Albert thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

McCormack thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Rayburn thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Reid thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Daschle thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Lott thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Mitchell thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Byrd thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Baker thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

Mansfield thought the federal government should get bigger and more powerful.

…and the beat goes on.

Paul IS doing his duty. He’s shoutin’ it from the mountaintop that it aint got to be the way all these above yayhoos were thinkin’ it had to be.[/quote]

(…I saw what you did, Push…! LOL!)

Mufasa

[quote]brnforce wrote:
It’s not that they won’t want to attack us anymore. We would have our full military presence in the US to protect from attacks. That means that the terrorists would have to travel/coordinate across the globe to attack us (which is easier to predict) and then they would have to get through a huge increase in continental security. [/quote]

How does that mean ‘the terrorists wouldn’t have to travel?’ Won’t they be attacking US civilians all over the world still? Won’t they be attacking US embassies all over the world? I ask again, how would Ron Paul’s foreign policy protect US civilians and servicemen and women from al-Qaeda attacks? How would it reduce the number of attacks on US soil?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]brnforce wrote:
It’s not that they won’t want to attack us anymore. We would have our full military presence in the US to protect from attacks. That means that the terrorists would have to travel/coordinate across the globe to attack us (which is easier to predict) and then they would have to get through a huge increase in continental security. [/quote]

How does that mean ‘the terrorists wouldn’t have to travel?’ Won’t they be attacking US civilians all over the world still? Won’t they be attacking US embassies all over the world? I ask again, how would Ron Paul’s foreign policy protect US civilians and servicemen and women from al-Qaeda attacks? How would it reduce the number of attacks on US soil?[/quote]

Which of that three slogans rings a bell:

Yankee stop dressing immodestly!

Yankee stop being free! (increasingly less likely, but could be ironic)

Yankee go home!

IF you can pick the right one, what conclusions could we draw from this?

If you want to buy magic beans from the ISI, the Ayatollah and al-Qaeda that’s your business. Good luck with that.

The questions still remain however. Can anyone explain:

How we would keep shipping lanes open with al-Shabab and al-Qaeda in Yemen strangling the EU’s vital oil supplies?

What the consequences would be in terms of Iranian belligerence against the Arab Emirates, Iraq, Egypt and Israel?

The consequences of the massive increase in massacres of western tourists, aid workers, foreign workers, embassy staff(how would we protect our embassies?)

The consequences of the power vacuums left to be filled by Islamists, the Russians, Iranians, Pakistanis etc?

The consequences of the dramatic increase in terrorist attacks on US soil which would inevitably result from:

  1. The prestige the jihadists will be esteemed for driving out the Russians AND the big Satan from places where Muslims have touched.

  2. The fact that the Pakistanis will again be able to use these groups to launch attacks against the US and the west.

  3. The fact that the Iranians will be likewise emboldened and will escalate their terrorist attacks against the west.

Anyone?

‘We believe that God used our holy war in Afghanistan to destroy the Soviet Union…and now we ask God to use us one more time to do the same to the Americans. We also believe that our battle against America is much simpler than the war against the Soviet Union, because some of our mujahideen who fought here in Afghanistan also participated in operations against the Americans in Somalia - and they were surprised at the collapse of American morale. This convinved us that the Americans are a paper tiger’ - Osama bin Laden, 1997

A paper tiger? Say it ain’t so.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
How’d I do?[/quote]

Well you made me laugh which is more than I expected from this thread. :slight_smile:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

…This convinced us that the Americans are a paper tiger’ - Osama bin Laden, 1997…

[/quote]

RIP, Sammy.
[/quote]

Good point. Now where’s Ayman?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
‘We believe that God used our holy war in Afghanistan to destroy the Soviet Union…and now we ask God to use us one more time to do the same to the Americans. We also believe that our battle against America is much simpler than the war against the Soviet Union, because some of our mujahideen who fought here in Afghanistan also participated in operations against the Americans in Somalia - and they were surprised at the collapse of American morale. This convinved us that the Americans are a paper tiger’ - Osama bin Laden, 1997

A paper tiger? Say it ain’t so.[/quote]

Well, it is so and the US did exactly what he wanted them to do.

Bonus points for him for telling them beforehand, and a Dunces cap for anyone who decides to do exactly what his enemies want him to do.