Ron Paul?

[AggieTool]

Thoughts?

[Frozen Sooner]

One of those guys who knows he can say whatever the hell he wants because there's no chance he ever gets elected. Has good stuff to say a lot of the time, though.

[royalfan5]

He's the Right's Dennis Kuchinch.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

He's the Right's Dennis Kuchinch.He's got about the same odds of winning anything.

[SoonerProphet]

Whether I am reading into it or not, the whole Dennis Kucinic argument bugs me. It seems to imply that if someone expresses views that are outside the the normally confined box of our national discourse, they are labeled as some type of quack.

He was on Bill Maher on Friday with PJ O'rourke and Affleck and as always had some good stuff to say. Been reading him over at Lew Rockwell for a few years now.

[royalfan5]

Whether I am reading into it or not, the whole Dennis Kucinic argument bugs me. It seems to imply that if someone expresses views that are outside the the normally confined box of our national discourse, they are labeled as some type of quack.

He was on Bill Maher on Friday with PJ O'rourke and Affleck and as always had some good stuff to say. Been reading him over at Lew Rockwell for a few years now.
Well, I thought a John Anderson reference was a little dated, as well as Harold Stassen.

[Hatfield]

I have been impressed with what little I have heard/read about him. I like that he at least acts like he is speaking openly about issues.

[soonerscuba]

I think that he would **** off everybody equally. If the government does it, he hates it. This extends to security and war making.

[crawfish]

I think that he would **** off everybody equally. If the government does it, he hates it. This extends to security and war making.

...and this is a bad thing because?

[soonerscuba]

...and this is a bad thing because?

There seem to be a lot of people who think that defense is magic money that isn't involved with government spending.

[SicEmBaylor]

I met Ron Paul at a convention a couple of years ago and talked to him. My conservative group endorses him every two years for Congress and there are several of our members who are on his staff. He's somewhat an old coot who I agree with 100% on domestic policy and 0% with on foreign policy.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Ron Paul is a self-serving jerkoff. After running for office as a libertarian and getting his as*s handed to him, he switched and ran as a Republican. He needs to be honest and call himself a libertarian because that's what he is. He just knows that libertarians are the Right's answer to the Green Party and other wacked out leftist groups.

[OklahomaTuba]

Isn't he one of those "truther" idiots?

No wonder the usual people love him so much.

[SoonerProphet]

Ron Paul is a self-serving jerkoff. After running for office as a libertarian and getting his as*s handed to him, he switched and ran as a Republican. He needs to be honest and call himself a libertarian because that's what he is. He just knows that libertarians are the Right's answer to the Green Party and other wacked out leftist groups.

That is odd, seeing how he ran for the US House in 1974 as a Republican. Truth is better than fiction any day.

[orangekaje]

Ron Paul is a self-serving jerkoff. After running for office as a libertarian and getting his as*s handed to him, he switched and ran as a Republican. He needs to be honest and call himself a libertarian because that's what he is. He just knows that libertarians are the Right's answer to the Green Party and other wacked out leftist groups.

You mean he ran as Republican because independents have 0% chance of winning an election in our 2 party system? Wow...What a dumb idea! :rolleyes: A lot of Republicans or Libertarians. It's not like the two parties are opposites of each other.



Isn't he one of those "truther" idiots?

No wonder the usual people love him so much.

No. Truthers support Ron Paul but Ron Paul isn't a truther. All candidates have their wacked our supporters. Giuliani has most of the neocon support, for instance.

[Okla-homey]

He's big with the "tinfoil hat" crowd. That is a pretty damning qualification IMHO.

[orangekaje]

Oh. I thought that fact that he's against pointless invasions and cares about the Constitution was the reason everyone should like him. *shrug*

I guess he doesn't get paid enough by the lobbyists for ppl to like him.

[HskrGrl]

I hadn't even heard of him :O until I read his page on Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul


He has never voted to raise taxes or congressional pay, and refuses to participate in the congressional pension system.[3] He has consistently voted against the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the Iraq War.



Paul believes in a strong national defense and voted for the attack on Afghanistan in 2001, [15], but suggested alternatives including giving the President authority to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which would allow war to be carried out against individuals rather than foreign countries and allow local bounty hunters familiar with the Afghanistani terrain to be hired to capture Osama bin Laden and his co-conspirators. Paul released a statement about the bill: "Paul's bill would allow Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates using non-government armed forces. Since it is nearly impossible for U.S. intelligence teams to get close to Bin Laden, the marque and reprisal approach creates an incentive for people in Afghanistan or elsewhere to turn him over to the U.S."[16]


In the May 3, 2007, GOP Debate, Paul stated that as President, he would seek the immediate abolition of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the abolition of the income tax. As Congressman, he has long fought for the prohibition of direct taxes by repeal of the 16th Amendment which authorized the income tax.


Paul voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico. Paul opposes illegal immigration as well as amnesty for illegal immigrants. He also introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution to stop giving automatic citizenship to babies who are born in the United States to non-citizen parents, which has been in effect since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.[17]


Oh, and he's an obgyn

[SicEmBaylor]

It's easy to dismiss Ron Paul as a tin-foil hat nut becuase of his foreign policy and the coverage he has recieved from his presidential campaign, but Ron Paul has remained a steadfast advocate for individual rights and limited government for years. I challenge anyone here to find a member of Congress who has been so consistent in his principles that people should govern the affairs of their own life and that government should be small and limited in scope.

As for his for foreign policy views, the world may have changed too much for Ron Paul but for most of the history of American conservatism and the Republican Party he holds the default foreign policy position. It was only VERY VERY recently that conservatives began to advocate a more robust and forceful foreign policy and even more recently that they started advocating the spread of democracy even if it has to be forced.

So you people can trash Ron Paul all you want, but the truth is most conservatives would kill to have a Congress full of Ron Paul's voting the way he does.

[Frozen Sooner]

Don't forget that according to Rudy Guiliani, Ron Paul is a terrorist sympathizer. So he's got that going for him.

[orangekaje]

heh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSk4SUpWVuY

[Okla-homey]

It's easy to dismiss Ron Paul as a tin-foil hat nut becuase of his foreign policy and the coverage he has recieved from his presidential campaign, but Ron Paul has remained a steadfast advocate for individual rights and limited government for years. I challenge anyone here to find a member of Congress who has been so consistent in his principles that people should govern the affairs of their own life and that government should be small and limited in scope.

As for his for foreign policy views, the world may have changed too much for Ron Paul but for most of the history of American conservatism and the Republican Party he holds the default foreign policy position. It was only VERY VERY recently that conservatives began to advocate a more robust and forceful foreign policy and even more recently that they started advocating the spread of democracy even if it has to be forced.

So you people can trash Ron Paul all you want, but the truth is most conservatives would kill to have a Congress full of Ron Paul's voting the way he does.

For the record, isolationism is an anachronistic and completely impractical foreign policy. Someone should explain that to Dr. Paul. Maybe take him on a field trip or something.

Also, I wonder if Dr. Paul knows that every single leaf of lettuce he eats between the months of September and April is grown in Arizona and New Mexico and is cultivated, picked and packed by illegal immigrants?

See, that's the problem with you nativists. You simply won't (or can't) see that our economy and quality of life depends on this permanent underclass that does all the dirty (or sweaty) work.

[proud gonzo]

He's the guy who looks good in drag, right?

[AggieTool]

It's easy to dismiss Ron Paul as a tin-foil hat nut becuase of his foreign policy and the coverage he has recieved from his presidential campaign, but Ron Paul has remained a steadfast advocate for individual rights and limited government for years. I challenge anyone here to find a member of Congress who has been so consistent in his principles that people should govern the affairs of their own life and that government should be small and limited in scope.

As for his for foreign policy views, the world may have changed too much for Ron Paul but for most of the history of American conservatism and the Republican Party he holds the default foreign policy position. It was only VERY VERY recently that conservatives began to advocate a more robust and forceful foreign policy and even more recently that they started advocating the spread of democracy even if it has to be forced.

So you people can trash Ron Paul all you want, but the truth is most conservatives would kill to have a Congress full of Ron Paul's voting the way he does.

Agreed!

Kinda what I was 'thinkin too.:)

Unfortunately, right wing goobers are just as brainwashed as left wing goobers.

"If yer not fer what GW does...then yer a terrist sympathizer"!!!;)

Anyhoo, RP seems to have one thing both parties lack...common sense and the balls to withstand extremist pressure from both sides.

Those with an IQ approaching triple digits will keep an eye on RP.

[Frozen Sooner]

But those with IQs exceeding triple digits will ignore him? ;)

[AggieTool]

But those with IQs exceeding triple digits will ignore him? ;)


UUUgghhhwwwrrrriiiigghhhttttt.....:rolleyes:

[SicEmBaylor]

UUUgghhhwwwrrrriiiigghhhttttt.....:rolleyes:
So, who's the double digit IQ crowd, otherwise known as OSU, supporting in this national :chicken: fight?

j/k

[AggieTool]

So, who's the double digit IQ crowd, otherwise known as OSU, supporting in this national :chicken: fight?

j/k

FT's cool. I just hope he's got as much fortitude as RP.:cool:

[SicEmBaylor]

FT's cool. I just hope he's got as much fortitude as RP.:cool:
My only problem with RP is that he spoke at our convention a couple of years ago, and several of us were talking to him afterward and he tried to bait us into not supporting the war out of fear that we could get drafted. He knows damned well that the draft is highly highly unlikely and it seems as if he was telling us not to support the war because we may actually be called upon to support our country.

I was highly turned off by that tactic. I'm much more isolationist now than I was back then, but of everything he said and I talked to him about I realized pretty quick that I agreed with 100% of his domestic policy principles and 0% of his foreign policy principles. Today it's more like 100/80.

[AggieTool]

My only problem with RP is that he spoke at our convention a couple of years ago, and several of us were talking to him afterward and he tried to bait us into not supporting the war out of fear that we could get drafted. He knows damned well that the draft is highly highly unlikely and it seems as if he was telling us not to support the war because we may actually be called upon to support our country.

I was highly turned off by that tactic. I'm much more isolationist now than I was back then, but of everything he said and I talked to him about I realized pretty quick that I agreed with 100% of his domestic policy principles and 0% of his foreign policy principles. Today it's more like 100/80.

Yeah, that was cheesy. I agree.

It's tough you know. If you don't support our guys being targets for bombs in Iraq...then yer a "cut and run" or "terrist symp", and if yer for bombing the **** outa anyone who REALLY threatens us, then yer a GW war mongerer.

The middle and cerebral road is the hardest.:(

[SicEmBaylor]

Yeah, that was cheesy. I agree.

It's tough you know. If you don't support our guys being targets for bombs in Iraq...then yer a "cut and run" or "terrist symp", and if yer for bombing the **** outa anyone who REALLY threatens us, then yer a GW war mongerer.

The middle and cerebral road is the hardest.:(

Well, it's not really the state of the war that leads me to oppose it. I can't even really say that I oppose it since I believe we damned well ought to finish and win any war we commit ourselves to regardless of how difficult and how long it may take. The problem I have is with Bush's and the GOP's grand Wilsonian pro-democracy world view that has us globe trotting spreading freedom and democracy like a couple of evangelical teenagers in the hinterland.

I've got a serious problem with nation-building, and I tend to believe that big government abroad leads to big government at home.

[AggieTool]

Well, it's not really the state of the war that leads me to oppose it. I can't even really say that I oppose it since I believe we damned well ought to finish and win any war we commit ourselves to regardless of how difficult and how long it may take. The problem I have is with Bush's and the GOP's grand Wilsonian pro-democracy world view that has us globe trotting spreading freedom and democracy like a couple of evangelical teenagers in the hinterland.

I've got a serious problem with nation-building, and I tend to believe that big government abroad leads to big government at home.

Oh I agree.

The real question is, where is the point of victory?

I say it was when we ran Saddam outa town and the Iraqis voted. At worst, it was when the bastard was hung.

In any event, the purpose of our military efforts have been fulfilled. We defeated the opposing army with success.

Now we're just standing around getting blown up with no enemy to shoot back at. Let the Iraqis deal with that sh#t.

As far as spreading "freeberty", I'm for it, as long as the recipients are too.

[SicEmBaylor]

Oh I agree.

The real question is, where is the point of victory?

I say it was when we ran Saddam outa town and the Iraqis voted. At worst, it was when the bastard was hung.

In any event, the purpose of our military efforts have been fulfilled. We defeated the opposing army with success.

Well, that's the problem. The goalpost for victory keeps getting moved further and further away. Initially the idea was to remove Saddam, then it was to set up a government with free elections and get out, and now it's stabilize the country.

I agree with you, we did our job and that should be enough. If the goal post for victory hadn't been continually moved then we could have declared the invasion a success by now and gone home.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Well, that's the problem. The goalpost for victory keeps getting moved further and further away. Initially the idea was to remove Saddam, then it was to set up a government with free elections and get out, and now it's stabilize the country.

I agree with you, we did our job and that should be enough. If the goal post for victory hadn't been continually moved then we could have declared the invasion a success by now and gone home.Isn't the REAL point to help establish an environment that could lead to a lessening of radical Islamism. We can declare the removal of Sadam a success if that's good enough to fight terrorism in the future. We know it's not. I wish we could cut and run, and all would turn out fine. I don't believe it would/will.

[SicEmBaylor]

Isn't the REAL point to help establish an environment that could lead to a lessening of radical Islamism. We can declare the removal of Sadam a success if that's good enough to fight terrorism in the future. We know it's not. I wish we could cut and run, and all would turn out fine. I don't believe it would/will.
It's not a cut and run, it's the recognition that there are limits to how much we can do in that particular region. If you seriously believe that Iraq is going to start a domino effect of liberty across the broader mid-east then you're smoking some serious dope.

Let me be more direct, there is nothing we can do as a nation neither diplomatically nor militarily to cause the Muslim world to embrace freedom and democracy.

[Scott D]

Isn't the REAL point to help establish an environment that could lead to a lessening of radical Islamism. We can declare the removal of Sadam a success if that's good enough to fight terrorism in the future. We know it's not. I wish we could cut and run, and all would turn out fine. I don't believe it would/will.

cut and run? COMMIE LIB!!!!!!! WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!