ford nut
Local nut case
Good point fossten my hats off to you you have picked who you like and defended him to the bitter end.
Calabrio on the other hand has not come out for anybody, just who he is against which is a easy stand to take.
Now THIRD place in Iowa: Ron Paul
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
Good point fossten my hats off to you you have picked who you like and defended him to the bitter end.
Calabrio on the other hand has not come out for anybody, just who he is against which is a easy stand to take.
No, I called his supporters Nazis....
His supporters bought the blimp.
nice try... eventually one of your charges will be substantiated.
You're logic is horribly flawed. As is the judgement of the rag-tag group of misfits that make up the Ron Paul campaign.
Let's first establish what we agree on. Ron Paul IS courting the "truthers." You do not dispute this?
Is Ron Paul a truther? I'd like to think he wasn't. On Beck, he distanced himself from the Truthers. So I do not have any need to provide you quotes, because I've never made the claim that Paul was a truther.
He has made other odd-ball, conspiratorial statements in the past, and I HAVE posted some of them before. Yesterday I posted Paul talking about how the invasion of Afghanistan was motivated by the desire to build an oil pipeline, a sentiment similar to the one made by Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 911.
And after Bhutto was killed yesterday, he managed to find a way to indirectly blame America for it, somehow.
It's tiresome being asked by you to defend statements I've never made.
I haven't said that Paul was a Nazi. I never said he was a "Truther" (Truther being the group that specifically believes that 9/11 was a inside job).
You can't possibly be this obtuse.
Paul does court some conservatives. Good.
But he also courts Truthers and lunatics.
Actively courts them. So when criticisms of his "support" are made, they are valid. And when you criticize Paul, it's fair to criticize his judgment for courting those lunatics.
Oh, another excuse.
You've made very specific charges recently, that I'm in favor of big federal government and that I'm a supporter of the U.N.
That's not subjective statement.
As mentioned before, I have thousands of posts. If that were the case, you should be able to find at least one example of either of them, provided you weren't either lying, or terribly confused.
Never said anything about ALL Paul supporters being lunatics.
Wow, I have nothing to add to that.
I'm just going to quote that for emphasis.
"By the way, I hope Ron Paul does go independent. Would teach the Republican RINOs a lesson."
You're on the record now.
That'll teach the GOP a lesson, alright.
I fail to see how four to eight years of a Democrat President Obama-Clinton would be good for the country. You do understand that a Democrat victory will likely also lead to an expanded majority in the Congress?
Paul can't win, Paul has to court lunatics, because he can't generate the support in the general population. Some people aren't ready to embrace that kind of libertarianism, the rest of us realize he'd simply be a bad President. If Paul were a strong candidate, he'd be a front runner. If you need proof that it's possible for a second tier guy to shoot up, despite the N.E. power structure, Huckabee demonstrates that it's possible. If Paul were a better candidate, had better foreign policy, and a better grasp of political reality, he'd have broken out of the single digits by now.
What lesson do you think you'd teach the country by indirectly electing Obama or Clinton? That in four years, the population will respond by electing some one in the mold of Ron Paul?
No, to the contrary. Either, as the fed expands, the public either embraces it or simply accepts and expects it. Since it's near impossible to end a government program, expect any high minded social liberal policy to last long past the 4-8 years the next President serves.
And if things really did get bad. The backlash, or the political recoil, doesn't mean the public votes for some like Paul, they would look for the fed to fix the problems quickly, regardless the cost in money or freedom. Especially if we're dealing in a time of war or continued hostility.
You Paulestinians live in a vacuum. It's not about him. Politics is not an all-or-nothing endevour.
Hopefully Paul has better sense than you do and makes good on his statements saying he has no plans or interest in running third party.
Defend him in the face of logic and reason.
I don't consider that a positive attribute.
I'm not making a relative stance, who I ultimately vote for only serves as a distraction in a thread like this. I'm not arguing that one candidate is better than another. I'm not even arguing to persuade someone to support anyone in particular.
I'm simply pointing out how horribly flawed the Paul campaign is, and I've repeatedly cited (in the various threads) some of his ridiculous statements, his poorly informed policy, and the gross misrepresentations of reality made on his behalf by his supporters.
My position is simply Paul is the worst of the candidates.
Given Paul's inability to break out of the single digits, it's really irrelevant. He has NO chance of being nominated. No chance of being selected for Vice-President. I'm glad he's returning to congress and I hope he uses his new found prominence to recruit college kids and educate the public on libertarianism.
Paul and Huckabee are the only two candidates I'm actively opposed to.
And though I loved Rudy as a Mayor, I'm not excited to see him as the President. If there's any candidate who would use legal maneuvers to erode our freedoms in an effort to pursue a policy goal, I'm confident it would be him.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Ron Paul is a Nut
December 27, 2007
Ron Paul Is A Nut
Because "respectable" opinions must make sense, right?
by James Leroy Wilson, jim102670@yahoo.com
Ron Paul is a nut, and his supporters are crackpots. If you are a conservative, it is better to support Obama or Clinton than Paul, and if you are a progressive, it is better to support Giuliani, McCain, Romney, or Huckabee than Paul. Because if you are a reasonable Democrat or Republican, you acknowledge and embrace several core ideas that have evolved over the past century, which Paul has the audacity to question. Paul's views on the Constitution, national security, and money are just too far out of the mainstream. Moreover, they are crazy.
While there may be some room for quibbling around the edges, most educated, rational people would agree with all, or almost all, of these seventeen principles:
1. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which states "The Congress shall have power ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes," gives the federal government the power to tell you what decisions you can make regarding your own property.
2. The penumbra of the Bill of Rights creates a "right to privacy" that forces states to respect a woman's right to choose abortion, but does not force the federal government to respect a woman's right to choose medical marijuana.
3. The United States has an obligation to fight poverty worldwide - and also has an obligation to create even more poverty through economic sanctions against certain regimes we don't like.
4. Iraq was a failure in execution, but not in principle; in principle America's young men and women should be sent overseas to fight wars that have nothing to do with the security of the United States.
5. Inflationary policies are good for the poor, and falling prices relative to precious metal-backed dollars are bad for the people.
6. Deficits don't matter.
7. There should be compulsory national service (military or civil) for young people; the Constitution's prohibition against "involuntary servitude" means something else.
8. The Second Amendment empowers the federal government to restrict personal firearms ownership.
9. If you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't trouble you that the government is monitoring your activities.
10. When the country starts an ill-conceived war, rather than end the war, we must instead pull together and try to save the careers of the politicians responsible.
11. The Crusades were evil, but we must impose Western-style freedom and democracy on foreign peoples through the barrel of a gun.
12. Imperialism and colonialism were racist and evil, but today the USA and European powers have the right to dictate the economic and defense policies of every other country in the world.
13. Prohibition didn't work, but we must continue the War on Drugs.
14. Communism doesn't work, but central planning in education and health care is a necessity.
15. Fascism is evil, but the federal government must invest the Chief Executive with more powers, must go to war against more countries, must spy on its own people without warrants, must regulate the campaign speech of non-incumbents, and must control the economy while Big Business collects the profits.
16.When Congress authorizes the President to "use force," i.e., to start a war, Congress is exercising its Constitutional power to "declare war." And when it authorizes unelected bureaucrats to write and impose regulations on businesses, Congress is fulfilling its responsibility to "regulate commerce." That is to say, Congress has the authority to surrender its powers to the Executive Branch.
17. "Free trade" doesn't mean unregulated, tariff-free trade, it means surrendering the nation's sovereignty by transferring its power to make its own laws to bureaucrats in international organizations. This is a good thing.
How can anyone, Left or Right, liberal or conservative, possibly dispute these rational, common-sense positions? It's not possible, but Ron Paul is doing it. That's why he must be stopped, by any means necessary.
James Leroy Wilson blogs at Independent Country and writes for DownsizeDC.org.
December 27, 2007
Ron Paul Is A Nut
Because "respectable" opinions must make sense, right?
by James Leroy Wilson, jim102670@yahoo.com
Ron Paul is a nut, and his supporters are crackpots. If you are a conservative, it is better to support Obama or Clinton than Paul, and if you are a progressive, it is better to support Giuliani, McCain, Romney, or Huckabee than Paul. Because if you are a reasonable Democrat or Republican, you acknowledge and embrace several core ideas that have evolved over the past century, which Paul has the audacity to question. Paul's views on the Constitution, national security, and money are just too far out of the mainstream. Moreover, they are crazy.
While there may be some room for quibbling around the edges, most educated, rational people would agree with all, or almost all, of these seventeen principles:
1. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which states "The Congress shall have power ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes," gives the federal government the power to tell you what decisions you can make regarding your own property.
2. The penumbra of the Bill of Rights creates a "right to privacy" that forces states to respect a woman's right to choose abortion, but does not force the federal government to respect a woman's right to choose medical marijuana.
3. The United States has an obligation to fight poverty worldwide - and also has an obligation to create even more poverty through economic sanctions against certain regimes we don't like.
4. Iraq was a failure in execution, but not in principle; in principle America's young men and women should be sent overseas to fight wars that have nothing to do with the security of the United States.
5. Inflationary policies are good for the poor, and falling prices relative to precious metal-backed dollars are bad for the people.
6. Deficits don't matter.
7. There should be compulsory national service (military or civil) for young people; the Constitution's prohibition against "involuntary servitude" means something else.
8. The Second Amendment empowers the federal government to restrict personal firearms ownership.
9. If you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't trouble you that the government is monitoring your activities.
10. When the country starts an ill-conceived war, rather than end the war, we must instead pull together and try to save the careers of the politicians responsible.
11. The Crusades were evil, but we must impose Western-style freedom and democracy on foreign peoples through the barrel of a gun.
12. Imperialism and colonialism were racist and evil, but today the USA and European powers have the right to dictate the economic and defense policies of every other country in the world.
13. Prohibition didn't work, but we must continue the War on Drugs.
14. Communism doesn't work, but central planning in education and health care is a necessity.
15. Fascism is evil, but the federal government must invest the Chief Executive with more powers, must go to war against more countries, must spy on its own people without warrants, must regulate the campaign speech of non-incumbents, and must control the economy while Big Business collects the profits.
16.When Congress authorizes the President to "use force," i.e., to start a war, Congress is exercising its Constitutional power to "declare war." And when it authorizes unelected bureaucrats to write and impose regulations on businesses, Congress is fulfilling its responsibility to "regulate commerce." That is to say, Congress has the authority to surrender its powers to the Executive Branch.
17. "Free trade" doesn't mean unregulated, tariff-free trade, it means surrendering the nation's sovereignty by transferring its power to make its own laws to bureaucrats in international organizations. This is a good thing.
How can anyone, Left or Right, liberal or conservative, possibly dispute these rational, common-sense positions? It's not possible, but Ron Paul is doing it. That's why he must be stopped, by any means necessary.
James Leroy Wilson blogs at Independent Country and writes for DownsizeDC.org.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Exactly as I and Ford Nut said. You are an attack dog. You serve no substantive purpose. You are irrelevant.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Yes, the United States sucks. We are an evil empire set on destroying the world. - Taken from the Book of the Paulestinians.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You still think this is a free country? You think we're heading in the correct direction? You know better than that. Don't knee-jerk like your incompetent moderator Calabrio. Think about what I'm saying. Of course America is a force for good in the world. We just need to start acting like it. And we need to focus harder on the problems we have here at home. We're swooning over every two-bit dictator around the world and in the meantime we're losing all our civil liberties and our buying power.
ford nut
Local nut case
I thinks its been more your opinion then logic and reason.
Or any thread you only bash canidates and mostly Ron Paul of as late.
Who would you make a stand for if you had to....like fossten has.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
He doesn't dare. He knows how easily I would take his candidate apart. His noodle backbone quakes at the thought. My prediction - he will NEVER tell us who he supports until after the primary in Florida. I doubt he will even vote in the primary.
And my opinion is based on logic and reason. If you go through the countless pages of banter, of me making arguments and Fossten responding by stating why he need not answer them, you'll find countless criticisms of Paul based on statements he's made and policies he's publicly supported.
I haven't made any unsubstantiated claims or criticism of Ron Paul. And I briefly entertained the premise of supporting him several months ago.. until I did the research.
If YOU would like to have a rational discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the Paul candidacy contrasted with any other candidate in particular, I would be very happy to partake in it. Fossten has demonstrated himself incapable of doing so.
The mere fact that I'm on friendly terms with everybody BUT Fossten around here is yet another thing that distinguishes Fossten from myself.
There is no politician who I would blindly defend and align myself with in the manner that Fossten has. There is no such thing as a "perfect candidate." Fossten's inability to recognize the critical flaws of the Paul campaign demonstrates a blind, unreasonable, allegiance. I would not make a stand like that for any politician.
We are talking about politicians, not spiritual leaders. Fossten apparently heard Paul speak and drank the Kool-Aid.