Ron Paul interview in Businessweek

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
Ron Paul on the Evil Fed, the IRS, and Saving the Buck

At 72, Ron Paul is a Web phenomenon. His campaign says that some 80% of the $17 million raised in the past four quarters—including about $4.3 million in one October day—has come from online supporters. And according to a mid-November poll, the Republican Presidential hopeful is gaining ground in New Hampshire, though he's still in single digits. Like maverick candidates such as Howard Dean in 2004 and Ross Perot in 1992, Paul seems to connect with voters hungry for unvarnished positions. Paul, an obstetrician and 10-term congressman from the Texas Gulf Coast, voted against the war in Iraq and wants the troops home fast, but it's his economic ideas that are the most radical: He detests the Fed and would abolish the IRS. Paul was about to climb on a plane for a campaign trip to South Carolina when I caught up with him.

MARIA BARTIROMO

As President, how would you strengthen the economy?

RON PAUL

The most important thing is to get control of the budget, because the more we spend and the higher the deficit, the more we have to tax and borrow and inflate the currency—literally create new credit to buy Treasury bills. We need to restore confidence in the dollar before [its decline] gets out of control. The easiest place to cut spending is overseas because it's doing so much harm to us, undermining our national defense and ruining our budget. I would start saving hundreds of billions of dollars by giving up on defending the American empire. I'd start bringing our troops home, not only from the Middle East but from Korea, Japan, and Europe, and save enough money to slash the deficit. We can actually pay down the national debt and still take care of people here at home. That would restore a lot of confidence.

What is the most important change you would make?

Aim for the federal government to immediately live within its means, to take the pressure off the Fed to create money.

And that means what?

Means no more inflation. If the Fed doesn't create money out of thin air—and they do it mostly to accommodate the deficits—that would restore the soundness of the dollar and give us our purchasing power back.

But as President, you're supposed to be independent from the Fed. You would encourage the Fed to stop printing money?

You know this idea that we can create a secret bank and they manage things and rarely tell us—or Congress or the Executive Branch—what they're really doing, there's a problem there. I can't even go to a monetary policy board meeting of the Federal Reserve, and I'm on the Banking Committee of the U.S. Congress. I want open government, and certainly the Fed ought to be open. But it's an institution that really shouldn't exist. [Its financing] allows Big Government to get bigger without being responsible. And that's why we have runaway spending for both warfare and welfare.

Hasn't the Fed been effective in providing liquidity in the current credit crisis?

You're right, but it's sort of like a drug addict. The drug addict demands more or he's going to have convulsions. The economy would have a convulsion if the Fed didn't inject more credit. But if you continue to do that, the problem gets worse. You can't solve the problem of monetary inflation with monetary inflation. These circumstances have all been created by our government and the Fed.

How was the recent crisis caused by our government?

It was astounding that you could get a mortgage at 4%, and this was all due to the Fed creating money and artificially lowering rates, which gets people to do the wrong thing. Builders do the wrong thing, and people borrow money and buy houses they can't afford.

How would you change tax policy?

Ideally, get rid of the income tax. In the meantime, I'd give huge tax credits to anybody who wanted to take care of their own medical care. I'd give tax credits for all educational benefits. I'd get the government out of managing education and medicine. And do it by changing the tax code. I have a bill right now that is very popular, especially for people who are trying to work their way through college or who are having a tough time making ends meet, and that is to exempt all taxes on tips. People who have a first job or a second job waiting on tables and doing other things, they're harassed by government rules and regulations, and sometimes they have to pay higher taxes than the tips they actually receive. I'd move next to saying no taxes on anybody who's trying to get through college. Why do we tax them, make it hard for them, then give them grants? It doesn't make any sense.

Who are your economic advisers?

I don't have any. I read Austrian economics, which I've been doing for 30 years. So my advisers have been [von] Mises and Hayek and Sennholz.

Do you consider yourself a friend or a foe of Wall Street?

If they believe in freedom, free markets, and sound money, they'll love me. But if they like creating credit out of thin air, they'll see me as a threat. I was one of three people who voted against Sarbanes-Oxley because I thought it was detrimental to Wall Street. I'd repeal it.

You want to take the troops out of Iraq, but what about Iran? What do we do if other nations turn hostile?

I'd treat them something like what we did with the Soviets. I was called to military duty [as a U.S. Air Force flight surgeon] in the '60s when they were in Cuba, and they had 40,000 nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, and we didn't have to fight them. We didn't have to invade their country. But to deal with terrorism, we can't solve the problem if we don't understand why they [attack us]. And they don't come because we're free and prosperous. They don't go after Switzerland and Sweden and Canada. They come after us because we've occupied their land, and instead of reversing our foreign policy after 9/11, we made it worse by invading two more countries and then threatening a third. Why wouldn't they be angry at us? It would be absolutely bizarre if they weren't. We've been meddling over there for more than 50 years. We overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953; we were Saddam Hussein's ally and encouraged him to invade Iran. If I was an Iranian, I'd be annoyed myself, you know. So we need to change our policy, and I think we would reduce the danger.

You have vehement new supporters. What's driving the sudden interest in your candidacy?

I think they're sick and tired of what they're getting. They've lost all trust and faith in the government. They believe in the American Dream, and they're getting a nightmare. And they're rallying behind the program I've been working on for 30 years—defending the Constitution, limited government, free markets, sound money, and self-reliance; believing people can take care of themselves better than government can. The nanny state doesn't work, the police state doesn't work, and neither does the warfare. And they know it.

Maria Bartiromo is the anchor of CNBC's Closing Bell.
 
Paul is a loon. Sorry. More dangerous than Hitlary.
You're absolutely wrong, Bryan. And you've never heard the man speak in person. I have. And calling him names simply lowers your own stature. You have yet to actually discuss the issue for which you call him a loon.

Let's talk about the elephant in the room - why you think he's a loon - his antiwar stance and his foreign policy. Other than that, his positions are conservative, can we agree on that?

Ron Paul believes that we should pull the troops out of Iraq. He also believes that our presence in the Middle East over the last 50 years has provoked attacks on us. Let's deal with that.

1. I don't believe we should pull the troops out before they're done. Let's let them finish the job. I know that Hillary has admitted that we can't pull out early anyway. Bush is doubtless going to try and wrap this up for the most part and not leave the job unfinished before he leaves office. But even if it's not over in Iraq by then, I guarantee you that even Hillary or Paul could NOT bring the troops home before the job is finished. It's just not feasible.

I will strengthen this argument by making another point. Ron Paul wants to abolish the IRS. He has admitted that he can't do it right away, so he would offer tax breaks out the wazoo while he's working on the problem. Applying that same logic to the troops in Iraq, he will have to admit that he cannot. This should remove any fear that he's going to pull a Blackhawk Down on us like Clinton did.

2. Ron Paul believes that we should not be projecting our military power around the world, building up this big empire. After listening to him in detail explain this, it makes sense to me. Should we protect ourselves? Yes. Should we keep our military strong? Yes. Should we invade other countries at the behest of the United Nations and without Congress' express Declaration of War? No. Is Ron Paul saying that we should talk to Al Qaeda? No he's not. Do I think we provoked these attacks on our soil? No I don't. I don't agree with him about this. But avoiding the temptation to bully other countries is a good thing. Stick with the Monroe Doctrine and protect our hemisphere.

My bottom line is this: I do not think Ron Paul will abandon the Iraqis. He can't do it right away. He will, however, attempt to restore many of our civil liberties that we have lost over the last 80 years. He will attempt to abolish or wither many of our intrusive agencies that have taken away many of our freedoms. And he will attempt to lower our budget and cut spending. In addition, he has established the position that we need federalism back in our country. Keep the Feds out of the States' business.

Bryan, I've been a conservative since I knew what politics was. I used to think Ron Paul was crazy and wrong about foreign policy. I'm no dupe and I'm no wacko. I've come to understand why he believes the way he does. And I do believe that there is no other candidate who will follow the Constitution the way he has and will.

If you really want to learn something, this link will take you to the Constitution Party's website, specifically their position on foreign policy. Take the time to read it. By the way, the Constitution Party has decided to back Ron Paul in this election. If you really think after reading the entire thing that their policy is crazy, then I won't argue with you any more. But at least, out of a sliver of respect for me, take the time to read it.

Glenn Beck has invited Ron Paul to be on his show for one hour. Stay tuned. I'll let you know when he's on. Glenn Beck also thinks he's a loon, so it will be interesting to see how the conversation goes. Beck was very friendly to Huckabee and didn't challenge him about his nanny state tendencies.
 
Don't know how accurate it is, but I read a quick review of Ron Paul's political stances on Wiki... some of his ideas aren't bad.

-Paul's nickname "Dr. No"[34] reflects both his medical degree and his contrarian insistence[167] on "never vot[ing] for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."[33][168] Paul adheres deeply to Austrian school economics and libertarian criticism of fractional-reserve banking, opposing fiat increases to money in circulation;[37] he has authored six books on the subjects, and has pictures of classical liberal economists Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises hanging on his office wall.[21][169]

Paul's foreign policy of nonintervention[170] made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.[171][172] He advocates withdrawal from the UN and NATO for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty.[170][173] He supports free trade, rejecting membership in NAFTA and the World Trade Organization as "managed trade". He supports tighter border security and ending welfare benefits for illegal aliens,[174] and opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty; he voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. He voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks,[78] but suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists.

Paul regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes.[25] He has pledged never to raise taxes,[33][175] and states he has never voted to approve a deficit budget. Paul would abolish the individual income tax by scaling back the federal budget to its 2000 spending levels.[70][176] Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs.[177] He would eliminate most federal government agencies, calling them unnecessary bureaucracies.[178] Paul is also vocal in his opposition to inflation, arguing that the longterm erosion of the dollar's purchasing power arises from its lack of commodity (such as gold) backing, which would restrain excess "printing" of money and consequent devaluation. Paul says he "wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard,"[179] but would push to legalize gold and silver as legal tender and remove the sales tax on them, so that gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money) and digital gold currencies[180] can compete on a level playing field with fiat Federal Reserve notes, allowing individuals a choice whether to use "sound money" to protect their purchasing power or to continue using fiat money.[181] He advocates gradual elimination of the Federal Reserve central bank for many reasons, believing that economic volatility is decreased when the free market determines interest rates and money supply.[182] He favors allowing workers to opt out of Social Security to protect the system for everyone.[183]

Paul strongly supports Constitutional rights, freedom of the Internet,[184] the right to bear arms, jury nullification,[185] and habeas corpus for political detainees.[186] Civil liberties concerns have led him to oppose the Patriot Act, a national ID card, federal government use of torture, domestic surveillance, presidential autonomy, and the draft. Paul defers to states' rights in areas not addressed by the Constitution. Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life,"[187] "an unshakable foe of abortion,"[84] and believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level."[188][189] (He says his years as an obstetrician lead him to believe life begins at conception;[190] his pro-life legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade for ethical reasons and to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters.")[191][192] He also opposes federal regulation of the death penalty,[188] of education,[193] and of marriage. He has voted against federal funding of joint adoption by unmarried couples (including same-sex adoption); he also supports revising enforcement of the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy to focus on disruptive behavior and include members with heterosexual as well as homosexual behavior issues.[194][195] He defers to private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention.[196] He also opposes the federal War on Drugs, wishing to leave the decision on whether to regulate or deregulate drugs, including medical marijuana, to the states. Paul advocates for the elimination of federal involvement and management of health care, which he argues would allow prices to drop due to the fundamental dynamics of a free market.
 
Fossten, I will differ to your knowledge here, as I don't know too much about Ron Paul. From what I have heard of him, He is way off on foreign policy, which is the area where the President has most influence (as opposed to domestic). For that alone, I wouldn't vote for him in the primary, if I had a say (remember I live in Kansas, the primaries are decided long before they ever get to here). From what I understand, he is essencially a very smart libertarian (with values) in conservative clothing. I like what he's said on health care (isn't he a doctor?). Maybe he'd make a good surgeon general.
 
Fossten, I will differ to your knowledge here, as I don't know too much about Ron Paul. From what I have heard of him, He is way off on foreign policy, which is the area where the President has most influence (as opposed to domestic). For that alone, I wouldn't vote for him in the primary, if I had a say (remember I live in Kansas, the primaries are decided long before they ever get to here). From what I understand, he is essencially a very smart libertarian (with values) in conservative clothing. I like what he's said on health care (isn't he a doctor?). Maybe he'd make a good surgeon general.
See the part in bold? That's the most interesting part. You're basing your decision on Paul on what you've heard. I was the same as you, but I went ahead and checked out his foreign policy.

I've explained it as best I can in my post and left a link to the Constutition Party's foreign policy platform which explains it in detail. If you truly want to make a good decision in the primary, isn't it incumbent on you to find out everything you can for yourself, and not go by what you've heard via rumor control?

The only person on this forum who has shown evidence of taking my suggestion and done some actual research on Paul has been Deville. Thank you sir. Despite the irony, I do appreciate you exhibiting good faith. Funny how I can't get my fellow conservs to do the same.
 
Funny how I can't get my fellow conservs to do the same.

I've spent the better part of the last couple of weeks researching my dad's failing heart. Doctors couldn't come up with a prognosis and I feel I put them on the right path with my research. I spent hundreds of hours and countless time at the hospital recently. Family before anything.

That said.

I think if Ron Paul would take an incremental approach to his foreign and domestic policy he would get a lot more ears. The way YOU positioned him sounds more realistic but that is NOT the way Paul comes off.

Show me where Paul is not an all or nothing guy and I will take a look at him.
Right now you are spinning Paul to make him more acceptable. Unfortunately, that is not who is is and how he comes off.

FWIW, I do agree with him on many issues. I just don't like his approach. It is dangerous for all of us.

Digressing...
After countless tests and pacemakers, etc. he was released from the hospital yesterday with no resolution, much to my chagrin. I won't be on the site much until I am satisfied with his diagnosis and proposed treatment. Sorry.:(
 
If you truly want to make a good decision in the primary, isn't it incumbent on you to find out everything you can for yourself, and not go by what you've heard via rumor control?

That would make sense if I were on the East Coast. Remember, I live in Kansas, the party candidates are decided LONG before the primaries get here, so I have no say. Therefore I really don't pay too much attention in the primaries. If you lived around here you would see, most people here have an attitude of "who do you think will get the nomination" as opposed to "I am in candidate 'X's' corner", or "I am voting for candidate 'Y'". Even when Brownback was in the race, most of the people I talked to had an attitude of "wait and see". I know I am just making excuses for my ignorance here, but in this case it is somewhat justified. Also as a student, I am spending time researching other things at the moment.:D
 
MonsterMark, sorry to hear about your father. Hope things turn out for the better there.
 
Never mind. :rolleyes:

Shag, you say you don't have the time to research Paul, but you spend plenty of time arguing ID vs. evolution.

Bryan, I'm truly sorry to hear about your father. My wife lost her Dad to liver cancer a few years ago and I know how it is.

That said.

If you're not going to bother researching Paul, please don't use your DriveBy tactic of "He's a loon pshoooooom see-ya-later." I've offered to discuss Ron Paul in a rational manner. If you don't have time that's one thing, but using pejoratives isn't effective and is actually quite unfriendly. If I post something good about Paul, you can say nothing if you truly don't have time to post, or you can hurl a driveby insult. Your choice. I believe the latter indicates you are throwing stones from a position of ignorance.

Again, I'll let you guys know if Beck has Paul on his show.
 
Shag, you say you don't have the time to research Paul, but you spend plenty of time arguing ID vs. evolution.


In my defense, the ID vs. evolution thing is part of the "research for school" I have been talking about. I am a political science major...in Kansas. That stuff is talked about ad nausseum in some of my classes, as well as the whole religion and politics, establishment and free exercise clauses, etc...
In fact I have written a few papers on ID/evolution as well as the establishment and free exercise clauses.
The election (and candidates) aren't discussed too much in class as they aren't that important to what is being taught in my classes.
 
He's not crazy, that's obvious.

But he is not a leader.

He would accomplish nothing regarding domestic policy if elected.
And his isolationist foreign policy would be a disaster.

I've stated this before, he's a fine voice to have in a deliberative body like the Congress. I'm glad he's in there. And I'm glad that his ideas are being embraced across that country. I also hope that he parlays this recognition into greater awareness and debate on constitutional libertarianism.

With that said, electing a president is more than just picking the guy who agrees with you most. You're a fool if you don't also consider who can win, and who can actually accomplish the most things you hold important. For example, nominating an intellectual who has no speaking ability or charisma would be foolish.

Do you think that by nominating Paul we'll either win the White House, or, if elected, he'd be able to inspire the populace or move the Congress? I don't.

I've used the term "executive experience" to represent leadership ability. Huckabee, Rudy, Mitt, have that experience. They're also the front runners. And when they run, they don't have to explain why they voted against Senate bill x, which had a one like pork line regarding giving money to one legged orphans, the kind of nonsense that plagues all Senators who run for President. Paul does. And since he did vote on principle, when the press does set their scopes on Paul, expect the coverage of him to change, overnight, from lovable dark horse who's shaking up the Republicans, to Crazy religious hate monger who wants to see the education system destroyed and children and old people starved to death.

Hillary does not have executive experience. Barrack does not either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good point, Calabrio! Who was the last Senator or congressman to be elected? JFK, in a questionable election. Senator's are not inherently leaders, usually quite the opposite (they like to pass the buck on responsibility). Leadership comes from executive positions, weather public or private.

Here's who I am voting for!

l_ea321c862246cc0bb9d4cc87cd3f5773.jpg
 
He's not crazy, that's obvious.

But he is not a leader.

Right. That's why people follow him all over the country, and he's raised more money this quarter than the other candidates. :rolleyes: Please explain to me how Rudy McRomney's kowtowing to the lilberal left in this country shows leadership.
He would accomplish nothing regarding domestic policy if elected.
And his isolationist foreign policy would be a disaster.

Your first statement is debatable. His tax plan is reasonable and incremental, and his desire to reduce federal intrusiveness does show leadership. "Accomplishing something" isn't a prerequisite in my eyes. The less government "accomplishes" the better. One thing he would do is veto every damn bill the liberal Congress sends his way. That's a good start. He would not allow this spending spree by both sides to continue.

Your second statement is false (you've done this many times) and shows that you do not understand his foreign policy. Isolationism is the incorrect term. Nonintervention is the correct term, and there is a big difference. Please do a little research before showing your backside on this subject.
I've stated this before, he's a fine voice to have in a deliberative body like the Congress. I'm glad he's in there. And I'm glad that his ideas are being embraced across that country. I also hope that he parlays this recognition into greater awareness and debate on constitutional libertarianism.

Why? If he has no leadership, then what's the point? You say his ideas are being embraced across the country, but he's not a leader? And what good is a greater awareness and debate on constitutional libertarianism (whatever the hell that is - sounds more like you made up that -ism) when there's nobody to actually take up the banner and implement it? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here.
With that said, electing a president is more than just picking the guy who agrees with you most. You're a fool if you don't also consider who can win, and who can actually accomplish the most things you hold important. For example, nominating an intellectual who has no speaking ability or charisma would be foolish.
Is that why you're leaning toward 4th Place Fred? (Just a guess here) I like Fred too, but as you said, "you're a fool if you don't consider who can win."

Furthermore, none of the other candidates even want to accomplish the things that I hold important. Only Paul even wants to. I would think that that would be more important, because without the intention, the ability doesn't matter. Don't you agree? Or do you think that Mitt McGulabee will somehow have a change of heart after the election and start acting conservative?
Do you think that by nominating Paul we'll either win the White House, or, if elected, he'd be able to inspire the populace or move the Congress? I don't.
This from a guy who still doesn't know who to vote for. Why don't you just admit that you don't have a candidate that you are excited about, and that your pool of candidates haven't inspired you to believe that they can beat the Clinton machine?

He has a better chance of igniting the conservative base than Huck McRomniani does.
I've used the term "executive experience" to represent leadership ability. Huckabee, Rudy, Mitt, have that experience. They're also the front runners. And when they run, they don't have to explain why they voted against Senate bill x, which had a one like pork line regarding giving money to one legged orphans, the kind of nonsense that plagues all Senators who run for President. Paul does. And since he did vote on principle, when the press does set their scopes on Paul, expect the coverage of him to change, overnight, from lovable dark horse who's shaking up the Republicans, to Crazy religious hate monger who wants to see the education system destroyed and children and old people starved to death.
I've already seen Paul explain some of his votes to Wolf Blitzer, and he did a nice job, mostly because he gives a direct answer to questions asked of him, something NONE of the other candidates can boast of doing. You ought to ask yourself, which candidate is being the most honest about his positions regarding the hot issues of the day?

You also might want to consider the damage Rudy McHuckney will do to the Republican Party if nominated. His liberalism will fracture the party more than Paul will. In the general, Paul's antiwar status will negate Hillary Obama's antiwar status and it will come down to domestic policies. You really think the Dem can win on a statist agenda?
Hillary does not have executive experience. Barrack does not either.

And therein lies the rub. I do not believe that either of those two can win against skyrocketing negatives like they have. I'm not asking you to support Paul and I'm not saying he's going to win the nomination. What I'm asking for is an honest debate, and so far I've not been able to get honest comments from anyone except DeVille. (Wow, did I just say that?)

Since you've been so kind to pigeonhole Paul so glibly, let's do that with the others, shall we?

Rudy - liberal, anti-gun, pro-abortion, as bad as Hillary (Ann Coulter agrees with this)
Romney - Nationalized healthcare, liberal, anti-gun
McCain - Gang of 14, McCain-Feingold, waterboarding is torture, hates Christians and guns, the list goes on and on
Huckabee - Nanny stater, wants to ban smoking and give tax money to children of illegals
Fred - 4th Place, can't win
Tancredo - Last place, can't win
Hunter - Last place, can't win

According to you, you're a fool unless you vote for either Huck, Mitt, or Rudy.
"You're a fool if you don't also consider who can win, and who can actually accomplish the most things you hold important."
 
Good point, Calabrio! Who was the last Senator or congressman to be elected? JFK, in a questionable election. Senator's are not inherently leaders, usually quite the opposite (they like to pass the buck on responsibility). Leadership comes from executive positions, weather public or private.

Here's who I am voting for!

You just nixed Fred!, do you realize that? And McCain, Tancredo, and Hunter. According to your statement, Bill Richardson is a more logical choice. So now it's down to Mitt Huckniani. Are you excited about your choices?

(BTW, Adama tried to fix an election, do you remember that?)
 
You just nixed Fred!, do you realize that? And McCain, Tancredo, and Hunter. According to your statement, Bill Richardson is a more logical choice. So now it's down to Mitt Huckniani. Are you excited about your choices?

(BTW, Adama tried to fix an election, do you remember that?)

Again, you're not understanding this. Simply being a congressman doesn't disqualify you, but it's not the same as actually being in charge and running an organization of some kind.

Additionally, just because people support you, that doesn't make you a leader. This is supported by the motley assortment of people who support Ron Paul that still think he should team up with Dennis Kucinich- despite the fact they virtually nothing in common.

He's seems like a good person, with sound principles - but that doesn't mean he's the best person of the field to actually serve as the President. A person I agree with only 75% of the time can be a better President, if they can get half of what we agree on accomplished, compared to a guy who I agree with 95% of the time, who can't accomplish anything, or even get elected.

-note, I'm not even trying to suggest you don't vote for him in the primary. If anyone disagrees with my subjective statements above, by all means vote for him. I just hope after he fails to win the nomination, that none of you abandon the system and refuse to participate in the general election.
 
Calabrio said:
Again, you're not understanding this. Simply being a congressman doesn't disqualify you, but it's not the same as actually being in charge and running an organization of some kind.
Don't tell me what I don't understand, Mr. Condescension. This was Shagdrum's comment that you're trying to adopt as your own. If you don't believe a legislator is unqualified to be President, then quit using it as a reason. You can't have it both ways - trying to discredit Paul because of his legislator career also discredits Fred, Tancredo, McCain, and Hunter. Period. That is an undisputable fact. You cannot parse that.

But if you want to play this game, I will tell you that Paul's legislative record is far more consistently conservative and Constitutional than the other four COMBINED. So his record credits him more than theirs does them. And to your earlier point about executive experience, Fred, Tanc, McCain, and Hunter have to explain their legislative records as well as Paul does. Interesting that you don't admit that. Not just the least bit biased are you? :rolleyes:
I just hope after he fails to win the nomination, that none of you abandon the system and refuse to participate in the general election.
I believe this quote is the most important and telling statement you've ever made.:slam
 
If you're not going to bother researching Paul, please don't use your DriveBy tactic of "He's a loon pshoooooom see-ya-later."

I agree with 80% of the Constitution Party platform. Just not how to implement it.

Liberals win because they are willing to get their way incrementally when a big grab fails. They come back again and again, death by a thousand cuts.

The problem with Paul is his approach.

First let me say this.

Ron Paul is unelectable. He comes off as an angry old man. The way he snarls is un-Presidential. The way he barks is un-Presidential. He is his own worst enemy in those regards.

Regardless of his platform, I wouldn't support him because he is un-Presidential. Period. I don't want to spend 4 years looking and listening to him. I don't want foreign dignitaries to have to look and listen to him.

It is not the message, it is the messenger! Fair enough?

Outside of that, give me another candidate that eschews what Paul's platform is, moderate it, make it incremental and I am all for it.
 
Jeez. First he's a loon, now he just doesn't have enough style for you?

Well, I don't want to listen to Rudy's lisp and see his stooped shoulders for 4 years. I don't want to look at Mitt's slicked back hair for 4 years. He's just too polished and phony. McCain's too old and pasty, Tancredo's face is too fat, and so is Hunter's. Huck's teeth are crooked and the only way I'd go for Fred's wrinkly, bald ass is if his hot wife makes the speeches.

Now there's some hard-hitting analysis. :yuck:
 
Don't tell me what I don't understand, Mr. Condescension.
I'll make those assumptions when you make the same silly statements in response, time and time again.

This was Shagdrum's comment that you're trying to adopt as your own. If you don't believe a legislator is unqualified to be President, then quit using it as a reason.
See, you're making the silly statement. I've never said being a legislator makes you unqualified to be President. I've simply, repeatedly, said, it doesn't mean that it makes you qualified. The skill sets and strengths of a good legislator are often different than that of a good executive.

Do I need to repeat this for you again?

You can't have it both ways - trying to discredit Paul because of his legislator career also discredits Fred, Tancredo, McCain, and Hunter. Period. That is an undisputable fact. You cannot parse that.
Perhaps you should spend less energy being outraged and flame baiting. There's no double speak coming from me, just realism, without the blind rage that increasingly seems to infect all of your rants.

I have never said that there aren't individuals in the Congress with executive experience or ability. But being in the Congress does not necessarily demonstrate that.

And the legislative experience of ALL of those candidates is a liability. Even Dick Cheney's Senate experience was used against him when running for Vice-President when the press and Democrats would dig up obscure bills from the mid-80s that they used to paint Dick Cheney as a supporter of apartheid.

Paul does not present himself as a leader. Because people like him, that doesn't mean he's a leader. In fact, it seems like most of his supporters project their own beliefs onto Paul. An executive has to make difficult decisions in compromised situations. An executive needs to be able to influence and convince others who disagree with him. They need to project confidence. As I just stated, my assessment of Paul is that he's a good person who'd make a bad President.

Arguably, I'm sure many liberals might make that same argument regarding Jimmy Carter.

You're welcome to disagree with that. I also think his foreign policy is the product of idealism and principle, but it'd be impossible to implement and dangerous when applied. If you can rationally and calmly explain otherwise, I'd be glad to vote for him and send him money.

I like the guy. I'm glad to see so much support for him, provided that it's coming from constitutionally minded libertarians, and not just anti-war kooks.

But if you want to play this game, I will tell you that Paul's legislative record is far more consistently conservative and Constitutional than the other four COMBINED. So his record credits him more than theirs does them.
And you'd be correct in this statement. But you still are missing the point.

I'd rather a President I agree with 75% of the time who can get 50% of what I want accomplished rather than the guy I agree with 95% but who will be able to accomplish nothing (or not even be elected.)

Do I agree with, can they lead, can they win. Those are the questions.
In Pauls case: most of the time, no, and no.


And to your earlier point about executive experience, Fred, Tanc, McCain, and Hunter have to explain their legislative records as well as Paul does. Interesting that you don't admit that. Not just the least bit biased are you? :rolleyes:
Biased?? Biased against what? Ob/gyns? Texans? What "bias" have you imagined in place of actually making an argument or valid point?

I've simply arrived at the determination that Paul is a bad choice for the nomination. No mysterious "bias"- just analysis.

I believe this quote is the most important and telling statement you've ever made.:slam
I don't think so, because it's hardly a "telling statement". But, tell me, Capt. Ad Hominem, what does it say? Best I can tell, it means that after Paul loses the nomination, I hope the third party types and political naives don't take their vote and go home, or vote for an unelectable third party candidate.

Fact of the matter is, presuming Hillary is nominated, she'll have a very difficult time winning WITHOUT the support of a 3rd party conservative. Her husband never won an election with a majority and her negatives are ridiculously high. Throw a 3rd party conservative candidate into the mix, you hand the White House to Hillary... and in doing so, you also turn the courts over to the radical left. And Hillary (or Barrack's) most dangerous and damaging footprint left behind will likely be their court.
 
You just nixed Fred!, do you realize that? And McCain, Tancredo, and Hunter. According to your statement, Bill Richardson is a more logical choice. So now it's down to Mitt Huckniani. Are you excited about your choices?

Fred? not necessarily. I said "Who was the last Senator or congressman to be elected? JFK, in a questionable election. Senator's are not inherently leaders". JFK was the last person to be elected straight from the senate to the presidency. Remember LBJ and Nixon both won elections, but they didn't do it straight out of the legislature. They proved themselves in executive positions (namely VP slots) after their careers in the legislature. I ment to imply that being a senator or congressman isn't a leadership position and doesn't automatically qualify one for leadership. I was trying to comment on the nature of being a Senator vs. being a leader is some fashion (probably could've worded that better). Individual senators might have some experience in their past that qualifies them for leadership (JFK had his WW2 experience). But experience as a senator alone says nothing about leadership. Plus, it does open you up for attacks due to a huge voting record, that is pretty well guaranteed to contain inconsitencies from certian points of view. As a general rule (with some notable exceptions), senators don't get elected president (at least not straight from the senate).


(BTW, Adama tried to fix an election, do you remember that?)

We've found a Battlestar Galactica fan folks!! Best damn show on TV, IMHO.:)

Yes, he tried to fix an election, then pussed out. If he had gone through with it, they would've avoided Balter's reign (Baltar is very Kerry-esque, IMO), as well as the whole New Caprica/Cylon occupation problems. Hindsight is 20/20.
 
I'll make those assumptions when you make the same silly statements in response, time and time again.


See, you're making the silly statement. I've never said being a legislator makes you unqualified to be President. I've simply, repeatedly, said, it doesn't mean that it makes you qualified. The skill sets and strengths of a good legislator are often different than that of a good executive.

Do I need to repeat this for you again?

Do I need to repeat that my response wasn't directed at you? You are in effect co-opting someone else's response, and then correcting me as though you had spoken. That's irrational and silly in the extreme. Make your own statements and then wait for me to respond. If you butt in, that's fine, but don't plagiarize. And don't blame your condescending attitude on me. I don't have to answer TO you for things I said to SOMEONE ELSE.
I have never said that there aren't individuals in the Congress with executive experience or ability. But being in the Congress does not necessarily demonstrate that.
I didn't even make this argument. So you are arguing with something I didn't say. In intellectual parlance, we call that a straw man.
Paul does not present himself as a leader. Because people like him, that doesn't mean he's a leader.
Once again, you're trying to narrowly define what leader means. Let me help you. Being a leader doesn't necessarily mean you walk around saying, "I present myself as a leader!" It can also mean you have followers who believe in you. Note that I didn't say "likers." You're trying to avoid saying followers, so you say people "like him." But you cannot deny that people follow him. In fact, Rudy came up to Paul after the debate and said to him, "You sure have a lot of supporters." So even Rudy's envious of the number of people willing to follow Paul to an event. "Oh," you say, "just because 500 people show up at an event to support their candidate doesn't mean he's a leader." Do you seriously hear what you are saying?

lead·er (ldr)
n.
1. One that leads or guides.
2. One who is in charge or in command of others.
3.
a. One who heads a political party or organization.
b. One who has influence or power, especially of a political nature.

lead 1 (ld)
v. led (ld), lead·ing, leads
v.tr.
1. To show the way to by going in advance.
2. To guide or direct in a course: lead a horse by the halter.
3.
a. To serve as a route for; take: The path led them to a cemetery.
b. To be a channel or conduit for (water or electricity, for example).
4. To guide the behavior or opinion of; induce: led us to believe otherwise.
5.
a. To direct the performance or activities of: lead an orchestra.
b. To inspire the conduct of: led the nation in its crisis.
6. To play a principal or guiding role in: lead a discussion; led the antiwar movement.
7.
a. To go or be at the head of: The queen led the procession. My name led the list.
b. To be ahead of: led the runner-up by three strides.
c. To be foremost in or among: led the field in nuclear research; led her teammates in free throws.
In fact, it seems like most of his supporters project their own beliefs onto Paul. An executive has to make difficult decisions in compromised situations. An executive needs to be able to influence and convince others who disagree with him. They need to project confidence. As I just stated, my assessment of Paul is that he's a good person who'd make a bad President.
There's that ugly word "supporters" again. Yet you continue to live in the denial that you alone have created for yourself, believing that the man has NO leadership ability. Seriously, if libertarians just wanted a candidate, they could wait until the convention in May. But Ron Paul has LED by his sterling voting record, and he's LED by being outspoken. People are attracted to him and his words despite how much discomfiture this gives you. People want him to succeed. They are following. Anybody but you would call this leadership. You are confusing leadership with administrative skills, and that's unfortunate. I could name probably a dozen former Presidents who didn't show executive skills and yet were elected and did well.
Arguably, I'm sure many liberals might make that same argument regarding Jimmy Carter.
I wouldn't. You might, but then you'd be saying that a hater of the Israelis and a supporter of terrorism is a good person.
You're welcome to disagree with that. I also think his foreign policy is the product of idealism and principle, but it'd be impossible to implement and dangerous when applied. If you can rationally and calmly explain otherwise, I'd be glad to vote for him and send him money.
I'd explain if I thought you'd listen to me. But you're not interested in learning anything about his positions. I've already dedicated an earlier post in this thread to Paul's positions, and you haven't bothered to study up. I don't care if you vote for him or not. I don't think he needs your money. Or hadn't you seen his donation numbers lately? Ah, but the guy has no leadership skills at all! :rolleyes:
I like the guy. I'm glad to see so much support for him, provided that it's coming from constitutionally minded libertarians, and not just anti-war kooks.
Of course, you're not a constitutionally minded libertarian, so it makes no difference either way.
Biased?? Biased against what? Ob/gyns? Texans? What "bias" have you imagined in place of actually making an argument or valid point?
You're biased against him because you've heard his foreign policy sucks. Not that you've bothered to research him at all.
I've simply arrived at the determination that Paul is a bad choice for the nomination. No mysterious "bias"- just analysis.
What analysis have you done? Zippo. You've arrived at this determination based on what you've heard, not on what you've researched.
I don't think so, because it's hardly a "telling statement". But, tell me, Capt. Ad Hominem, what does it say? Best I can tell, it means that after Paul loses the nomination, I hope the third party types and political naives don't take their vote and go home, or vote for an unelectable third party candidate.
Are you attempting to put me in this category? If you are, that's a very misguided attitude, since I've given you no reason to think so. I simply support my candidate with more fervor than you support - er - yours (which hasn't been decided yet due to lack of inspiration, no doubt).
Fact of the matter is, presuming Hillary is nominated, she'll have a very difficult time winning WITHOUT the support of a 3rd party conservative. Her husband never won an election with a majority and her negatives are ridiculously high. Throw a 3rd party conservative candidate into the mix, you hand the White House to Hillary... and in doing so, you also turn the courts over to the radical left. And Hillary (or Barrack's) most dangerous and damaging footprint left behind will likely be their court.
Uhhh...how many (as you put it) "anti-war kooks" are there in the Republican Party? Hmm? Not that many? But you implied above that that is where Ron Paul gets most of his support. Of course, you made that statement so that you can justify not supporting him yourself. But now you're saying that Ron Paul would pull too many conservatives away from the Republican candidate in a 3rd party situation? You're making that case to generate fear that he might cost the Republicans the election. Well, you can't have that both ways either. Either Ron Paul's gonna pull lefty votes or he's gonna pull righty votes. If he pulls both, it should be a wash. Will you make up your mind? Which side is he pulling from?

By the way, if you elect Rudy, you turn the courts over to the radical left. This is based on his TRACK RECORD. Not his platitudes that Sean Hannity has accepted as gospel. If you believe what they are saying rather than what they've BEHAVED LIKE then you are a sucker.

And while I'm at it, why don't you answer another question: If Ron Paul won the nomination, would you support him and vote for him in the general?
 
Captain Ad Hominen, since you've again responded directly to me or something I've said, I'll take a moment to respond to your rant. And I do so reluctantly, experience indicates that every time you are effectively challenged, you spend the next three pages desperately weaseling around, contradicting yourself, in the futile effort to demonstrate you were right, no matter how many times "what you were right about" is to change.

First of all, I am not using a narrow definition of executive ability or leadership. To the contrary, I'm using an incredibly broad one. Unfortunately for you, Paul isn't even described in the definitions you've posted.

Furthermore, Paul doesn't have "followers," he has supporters. Paul isn't converting people, he's attracting like minded people, or single issue voters who identify with something he's said. His single digit "surges" in the polling isn't because he's changing hearts and minds, but he's appealing to others who share some of his causes.

Another stupid claim you make is that Ron Paul demonstrates leadership skills because he has raised a lot of money. Perhaps you didn't know, the large influx of money, about $3.75 million, on a single day was organized and promoted by someone OUTSIDE of his campaign! He had virtually nothing to do with it. Is that leadership or is he a figure head?

Let me again state, I like Ron Paul, I'm just not convinced he'd be a good President. And not only have failed to effectively challenge anything I've said, you've yet to make a single compelling argument as to why so many of us are wrong about this.

You seriously just said that Paul is a leader because he can get 500 people to support him at an event. So, you've now lowered the bar defining a political leader to be someone who has some popularity.

But let's look past the modest numbers, but look instead at his supporters. Again, are they passionate about Ron Paul, or are they passionate about the issues he supports? I would argue that the enthusiasm isn't because Paul is so dynamic, articulate, or inspiration; it's because Paul is the only person embrace some issues that have been ignored by the mainstream.

Ron Paul is principled. He is a fine person person. I have respect for the man. But he has NOT led with his voting record. His been in the back of the room objecting to the gross abuses of the Congress with his voting record. This IS NOT an attack on Paul, but it's a valid observation.

And a legislator can make those principled votes. A President, or executive, sometimes has to make compromised choices.

You also say that I've confused leadership with administrative skills. No, I haven't. But are you trying to say that it's not important that the President has strong administrative skills? I have to ask, do you have any idea what you are saying??

I do believe strong administrative skills are an asset to a President.
Paul would appear to lack those. If I'm wrong, I invite you to correct me.

Let me remind you countlessly- I LIKE HIM.
I think he is an asset to the Congress, the Country, and I hope he can use this new found national influence to improve the country.

I've attempted to avoid the quote/respond format in my response, but I do need to address this:

I'd explain if I thought you'd listen to me. But you're not interested in learning anything about his positions.
See, this demonstrates to me, and probably every one else, that you're being intellectually dishonest and lazy. I'm confident I read more than, or at least as much, as you. I'm also confident I'm better, or equally, educated on affairs of state, U.S. history, and the political sciences than you too.

It is completely dishonest and lazy to attribute you're inability to construct a compelling argument in support of Ron Paul to me, or attributing it your fictional claim that I'm unwilling to read or accept it. Your inadequacies and your lack of eloquence are entirely your own fault. Don't manufacture excuses blaming me for them.

And I'm going to quote this last bit too:

Of course, you're not a constitutionally minded libertarian, so it makes no difference either way.
You lack the insight, knowledge or honest interest to accurately characterize my political identification. But I will repeat, I am encouraged if the modest, though passionate support he is receiving is coming from consitutionalist liberatians and NOT anti-war kooks. If the kook is just poorly read anti-war leftists that are inflating his numbers, things aren't as optimistic for the future.

You're biased against him because you've heard his foreign policy sucks. Not that you've bothered to research him at all.
First of all, I have researched him. So I guess you're right, I do have a bias against Presidential candidates who promote bad or potentially dangerous applications of foreign policies.

I never said that Paul gets "most of his support from anti-war kooks." I have repeatedly stated and implied that I DO NOT KNOW how his supporters are to be divided up. I have repeatedly said, I'm OPTIMISTIC that his support is from constitutional minded Republicans and NOT being inflated by the leftists anti-war kook.

And if this small group of potential Republican voters put their support behind a third party candidate, it could easily hand over the election to Hillary, presuming she is the nominee.

Again, no contradiction here. You've tried and failed, yet again to misrepresent my consistent, thoughtful, and reasonable statements.

You repeatedly demonstrate to everyone that you're not interested in an honest exchange of ideas, or a good faith debate, but simply in making yourself feel right, regardless how grossly you need to distort, misrepresent, or mislead.


And while I'm at it, why don't you answer another question: If Ron Paul won the nomination, would you support him and vote for him in the general?

I absolutely would vote for him against any of the Democrat candidates. And if Paul's positions enabled it, and you had the ability to eloquently convince us of it, I'd eagerly vote for him in the general election if his foreign policy skills were better.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now there's some hard-hitting analysis. :yuck:


First of all I said he doesn't "look" Presidential 'enough' for me. I did not make any physical deficiency comments.

I not only demand the right principles in my candidates, I also like them to be good people. Like in the mold of Reagan. Thompson is the closest to Reagan but Hunter is by far and away THE MOST qualified of ANY of the candidates on ANY side of the aisle. But alas, he won't get elected.

The most qualified guy won't get elected. Go figure. I can't cry about it can I? Just like Paul won't get elected.

You can hope some of his ideas while he has 'some' of the nation's attention during the primary and debates will hopefully rub off on a guy like Thompson, thus making him a stronger candidate.

Say all you want but Paul shouldn't be carrying the torch. He has a much better role in politics.

He should do his best while in the running for C.I.C. to befriend whomever it it that wins the Presidency for the Republicans and maybe ask the him for a choice committee. Fossten, you can put him in charge of whatever committee you want. Let him be tough and angry and who he is in the CONGRESS taking on all the Dem Lib socialists.

Let's elect a Republican candidate that will be the most Presidential in every respect to maintain the Level of Prestige we are enjoying in the world.

What??? Prestige???? But Bush sucks and everybody hates us.

Hummm.
France
Germany
Venezuela
Iraq

Don't let the American liberal media fool you. People around the world understand what is going on and they are counting on us to stay strong and keep the peace in the World because nobody is willing to do it. People are moving closer to the U.S. ideologically, as seen in the elections in France Germany and now Venezuela. And if you think for a second that withdrawing from the world and becoming introverts is the way to go, you are sadly mistaken.

Let's keep a guy in the Oval (not oral) Office that can project the image we need to project to the world. A likable guy that is tough, not one that is mean and snarly.

IMHO, Hunter and Thompson are the most qualified to fill those shoes at this time in our nation's history.
 
Captain Ad Hominen, since you've again responded directly to me or something I've said, I'll take a moment to respond to your rant. And I do so reluctantly, experience indicates that every time you are effectively challenged, you spend the next three pages desperately weaseling around, contradicting yourself, in the futile effort to demonstrate you were right, no matter how many times "what you were right about" is to change.
Blah blah blah. If you're going to call names, at least spell "Hominem" correctly. The only person who's contradicted himself here is you. First you claim that Ron Paul doesn't have leadership, then you weasel your way into saying that the only definition of leadership is some sort of executive administrative ability. That is not a competent argument and you are not competent to debate the definition of "leadership", especially since you distort its definition.

First of all, I am not using a narrow definition of executive ability or leadership. To the contrary, I'm using an incredibly broad one. Unfortunately for you, Paul isn't even described in the definitions you've posted.

Furthermore, Paul doesn't have "followers," he has supporters.
Right there ^ you have attempted to distort and misrepresent my words. Well, I've got just what you need:

Main Entry: supporter
Part of Speech: noun 4
Definition: person who helps another
Synonyms: adherent, advocate, ally, angel*, apologist, backbone, backer, benefactor, champion, cohort, comforter, confederate, coworker, defender, disciple, endorser, espouser, exponent, expounder, fan, follower, friend, helper, mainstay, maintainer, partisan, patron, pillar, preserver, prop, proponent, satellite*, second, sponsor, stalwart, stay, subscriber, supporter, sustainer, tower of strength*, upholder, well-wisher*

Paul isn't converting people, he's attracting like minded people, or single issue voters who identify with something he's said. His single digit "surges" in the polling isn't because he's changing hearts and minds, but he's appealing to others who share some of his causes.

So what if he's attracting like minded people? How does that disprove leadership? Show me where you have to convert people in order to be a leader. That's absolutely absurd. What you're describing is a religious cult, and you've already undercut that argument by stating that he's a good guy. And by the way, you're wrong anyway. I can personally attest that he has changed hearts and minds. You don't know what you're talking about.

Another stupid claim you make is that Ron Paul demonstrates leadership skills because he has raised a lot of money. Perhaps you didn't know, the large influx of money, about $3.75 million, on a single day was organized and promoted by someone OUTSIDE of his campaign! He had virtually nothing to do with it. Is that leadership or is he a figure head?

Figure head? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. This is a representative republic. Do you seriously think Bush is a figurehead because he gave in to the groundswell of opposition to Harriet Miers? You sound like a man who needs to be introduced to Civics 101, High School edition. Leaders ALSO listen to their followers. And leaders delegate. So other people who follow them can also follow their example and also lead. Wow. You really have made the definition of leadership very narrow and exclusionary.

Paul is showing leadership because 35,000+ people each donated on that day. And they didn't donate to this guy you're obliquely referring to as Ron Paul's master, they donated to RON PAUL. So get off that idiotic argument. I mean, really, Calabrio, you're degenerating down to 5th grade level arguing here. And by the way, perhaps YOU didn't know, it was $4.3 million. At least get your figures and facts straight before you launch another attacking, immature rant.

Let me again state, I like Ron Paul, I'm just not convinced he'd be a good President. And not only have failed to effectively challenge anything I've said, you've yet to make a single compelling argument as to why so many of us are wrong about this.
Uhh...You might want to look up at what's happened on this thread. Bryan has backed off calling Paul a loon, and you've backed off your position that he is unworthy of credit due to the fact that he's a legislator. In addition, you have yet to extol the virtues of any of the other candidates, nor have you answered any of my criticisms of them. I'd say that's pretty effective. But if you want to say "Nya nyah you can't make me!" that's your prerogative. After all, this is a 5th grade level argument on your terms, now, isn't it?

You seriously just said that Paul is a leader because he can get 500 people to support him at an event. So, you've now lowered the bar defining a political leader to be someone who has some popularity.

Show me the exact quote and I'll show you that you just dishonestly misrepresented and distorted what I said. You and I both know that it was an example of what YOU would say. In FACT, you just FULFILLED MY PREDICTION OF WHAT YOU WOULD SAY. So I'm right again.

Here, let everyone judge for themselves, I'm not afraid of my own words like you are:
In fact, Rudy came up to Paul after the debate and said to him, "You sure have a lot of supporters." So even Rudy's envious of the number of people willing to follow Paul to an event. "Oh," you say, "just because 500 people show up at an event to support their candidate doesn't mean he's a leader." Do you seriously hear what you are saying?
This is just too funny. Oh, but hey, YOU'RE the smart one. I forgot.

But let's look past the modest numbers, but look instead at his supporters. Again, are they passionate about Ron Paul, or are they passionate about the issues he supports? I would argue that the enthusiasm isn't because Paul is so dynamic, articulate, or inspiration; it's because Paul is the only person embrace some issues that have been ignored by the mainstream.

I would argue that he is the only candidate that answers EVERY question with a direct answer. You cannot make that claim for any other candidate. Period. His straight talk is what attracts people to him as well as his ideas. You could not know this because you don't do ANY research, but I've been privy to conversations where there is speculation about what will happen if he's not nominated. Will the supporters go away, or will they find another Ron Paul? You cannot separate the man from his ideas. He is the one who has lived what he preaches, and there isn't another person running who has done so. Furthermore, these are very important times we live in, and Ron's supporters believe if some things are not changed drastically, they will never be. I happen to believe this also. You can cry and whine about incrementalism all you want, but you cannot deny this: The Republicans have NEVER reversed the tide of liberalism and big governmental control in this country. They have only slowed it at times. Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican (person, for that matter) talking about actually REVERSING the tide. I would argue that ALL of the other candidates will only support the status quo. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Ron Paul is principled. He is a fine person person. I have respect for the man. But he has NOT led with his voting record. His been in the back of the room objecting to the gross abuses of the Congress with his voting record. This IS NOT an attack on Paul, but it's a valid observation.

And a legislator can make those principled votes. A President, or executive, sometimes has to make compromised choices.

That's where you are wrong. A President does not EVER have to compromise. The one President that I saw that lived that the most was Reagan. And even he didn't fight the liberals as hard as he could have. And now every Republican wishes we had him back again. Compromise never leads to victory; compromise is ALWAYS a partial loss. Liberals, as Bryan pointed out earlier, are content to kill us with a thousand cuts. So each compromise leads us closer and closer to liberal nirvana, and the death of our free republic. The fact that you do not understand what compromise truly is shows that you are no conservative.

You also say that I've confused leadership with administrative skills. No, I haven't. But are you trying to say that it's not important that the President has strong administrative skills? I have to ask, do you have any idea what you are saying??
Hahahaha. Despite your puny attempt to pigeonhole me with another straw man, you know good and well that I didn't say that. I was attacking your argument, which was silly. Do you know the answer to this question: If all A's are B's, are all B's A's?

I do believe strong administrative skills are an asset to a President.
Paul would appear to lack those. If I'm wrong, I invite you to correct me.

No, your larger argument is that unless he has strong executive/admin skills, he's not qualified. In other words, the only definition of a leader is strong exec/admin skills. There you go, you said it again.

Let me remind you countlessly- I LIKE HIM.

Who said you didn't like him? Have I said that even one time? I don't think so! Let me answer this, since I've NEVER responded to it before, and yet you KEEP PROTESTING - I don't believe you.

I think he is an asset to the Congress, the Country, and I hope he can use this new found national influence to improve the country.

How is that? According to you, if the movement keeps going, he was just a figurehead, and yet if the movement dies, his ideas were crap. No matter what, you'll claim victory and move on to your Mitt McHuckniani.

I've attempted to avoid the quote/respond format in my response, but I do need to address this:


See, this demonstrates to me, and probably every one else, that you're being intellectually dishonest and lazy. I'm confident I read more than, or at least as much, as you. I'm also confident I'm better, or equally, educated on affairs of state, U.S. history, and the political sciences than you too.

Your confidence notwithstanding, you really don't know anything about Ron Paul, and you've admitted that you don't know much about the candidates, and you've ALSO admitted that you don't plan to make a decision on them until they come and speak to you in person. And you're calling ME lazy? I'd puke, if I weren't laughing so hard.

[ignores last immature bit of ad homineM rant by Calabrio]

But I will repeat, I am encouraged if the modest, though passionate support he is receiving is coming from consitutionalist liberatians and NOT anti-war kooks. If the kook is just poorly read anti-war leftists that are inflating his numbers, things aren't as optimistic for the future.
Got "kook" on the brain, eh? Yep, use pejoratives enough, you start tripping over them.

You are misrepresenting your own words here. You are not repeating yourself. You are trying to massage the statement you said earlier, to try and make it SOUND more like what you just said. But your tone in the above comment is MUCH different than the previous one:
Originally Posted by Calabrio
I like the guy. I'm glad to see so much support for him, provided that it's coming from constitutionally minded libertarians, and not just anti-war kooks.
More on this deliberate attempt to deceive on your part as we scroll down.

First of all, I have researched him. So I guess you're right, I do have a bias against Presidential candidates who promote bad or potentially dangerous applications of foreign policies.
Please state your credentials, Mr. I-know-more-about-politics-than-you. Tell me what kind and how much research you've done. (Cue Jeopardy music)

I never said that Paul gets "most of his support from anti-war kooks." I have repeatedly stated and implied that I DO NOT KNOW how his supporters are to be divided up. I have repeatedly said, I'm OPTIMISTIC that his support is from constitutional minded Republicans and NOT being inflated by the leftists anti-war kook.
If you DO NOT KNOW how his supporters are to be divided up, then HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE THAT HE WILL PULL CONSERVATIVE VOTERS in the general?

The above quote in BOLD says you are optimistic IF. Now you're saying you're optimistic THAT. You are trying to change your own meaning within the same post. The above post does not state that you are leaning in either direction. Now you are? What a CONVENIENT CHANGE OF MIND!
Originally Posted by Calabrio
I like the guy. I'm glad to see so much support for him, provided that it's coming from constitutionally minded libertarians, and not just anti-war kooks.

And if this small group of potential Republican voters put their support behind a third party candidate, it could easily hand over the election to Hillary, presuming she is the nominee.

"Could" being the operative word. Also "IF". Ron Paul has stated repeatedly that he's not going to run 3rd party. And you still haven't identified which side you think he will pull votes from. You must choose one, otherwise it's a wash and neither party will be hurt. You do see the dilemma, and that's why you're avoiding the question, in a cowardly if shrewd way.

Again, no contradiction here. You've tried and failed, yet again to misrepresent my consistent, thoughtful, and reasonable statements.

Wow. That's awfully kind of yourself to say those things about yourself. You feeling like you need a boost? A pep talk? What a complex you must have. Do you seriously look in the mirror every day, and say to yourself, "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!"

You repeatedly demonstrate to everyone that you're not interested in an honest exchange of ideas, or a good faith debate, but simply in making yourself feel right, regardless how grossly you need to distort, misrepresent, or mislead.

And your example of this is...? There you go with your ad homineM attacks again, and yet you can't give one instance where I've done this. I have misrepresented nothing. The only misrepresentation in the last few paragraphs has been you misrepresenting YOUR OWN WORDS. I have articulated many of the positions that Ron Paul has taken, and all you've done is attack him by trying to associate him with antiwar kooks, and you've attacked me incessantly. So far, you have yet to argue about his actual foreign policy position. You demand that I restate it to you. I submit that I've already done so, to Bryan, and if you want to comment, you are free to do so. If you want to discuss his foreign policy, refer to my remarks earlier in the thread.


I absolutely would vote for him against any of the Democrat candidates. And if Paul's positions enabled it, and you had the ability to eloquently convince us of it, I'd eagerly vote for him in the general election if his foreign policy skills were better.
Now you just said two entirely different things. Now follow me here closely, because I don't want any more false accusations by you, saying that I misrepresented your words.

Statement 1: I absolutely would vote for him against any of the Democrat candidates.

I'm assuming that you mean in the general election.

Statement 2: And if Paul's positions enabled it, and you had the ability to eloquently convince us of it, I'd eagerly vote for him in the general election if his foreign policy skills were better.

I'm assuming since you said general election you also mean this statement for the general election.

Why are you making two different statements about what you would do in the general election? First you say, yeah, absolutely I'd vote for him in the general against any Dem.

Then you say, And if Paul's positions enabled it, and blah blah blah you suck etc., I'd eagerly vote for him in the general...IF his foreign policy skills were better.

In statement 2 you placed conditions on your intention to vote for him.

So which one is it? Would you absolutely vote for him in the general or would you only do it if I convinced you and if his foreign policy skills were better? Not that I mind you placing such a high value on my opinion, especially considering that according to you I know far less about politics than you do, but nevertheless, which one is it, Hillary? Which both sides of the fence are you on here?

You have failed to answer my question, and/or you have failed to properly articulate yourself in order to get your point across. Maybe it's because of the repressed blind rage that you feel towards me that's affecting the way you pound your keyboard, not permitting you to think rationally enough to even answer a simple yes or no question. Who knows? But sir, you are making a fool out of yourself by stumbling all over your own words here. So much for your
consistent, thoughtful, and reasonable statements.
:rolleyes:
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top