Author Topic: Why Ron Paul Won the Repub Debate (Read 3402 times)

jh45gun · « **Reply #30 on:** August 06, 2007, 11:15:10 AM »

Quote from: Dee on August 06, 2007, 10:43:48 AM

. GW could take a crap on the kitchen table and Fox would justify it.

Well if it was Hillary's Table I could justify it too!

Dee · « **Reply #31 on:** August 06, 2007, 11:23:57 AM »

GW would have to do it on the side of the table, the big pile ALREADY in the middle of Hillary's is where Bill was squating.

jh45gun · « **Reply #32 on:** August 06, 2007, 04:36:28 PM »

Quote from: Dee on August 06, 2007, 11:23:57 AM

GW would have to do it on the side of the table, the big pile ALREADY in the middle of Hillary's is where Bill was squating.

Yea, but shes used to Willies crap.

nw_hunter · « **Reply #33 on:** September 07, 2007, 10:14:27 AM »

Things are not as simple as they once were! At one time, Republicans were Conservatives and Democrats were Liberal. Now the Republican party is about 50% Conservative at best. If most Demo's had a clue, they would be in love with GW. He has done more for big Government than any Demo. before him. Ron Paul is a throwback to the old Barry Goldwater Republicans....A true Conservative and Constitutionalist . If it AIN'T Constitutional, he won't vote for it.........Period. Ron Paul has about as much chance being elected as a snowball reaching Baghdad by snail mail in July, and that is sad for us, because he is the ONLY candidate that would make a tinkers damn bit of difference!! I for one as a Conservative will never again vote for the lesser of two evils, because there is NO Lesser. Evil is Evil period! Look at the voting record of a person running for office, not what they say in a TV Spot, or interview. If we want to take the time to do the research, the truth is out there on- line, not The Liberal Media, including (FAUX) FOX news!

jh45gun · « **Reply #34 on:** September 07, 2007, 04:38:09 PM »

I agree with ya about Pauls chances of being elected unless he can get a heck of a lot more popular. Thompson stands a better chance and was beating Paul before he even said he was going to run. Thompson would have larger broader base and appeal to the public than Paul can manage.

Echo4Lima · « **Reply #35 on:** September 07, 2007, 07:23:17 PM »

Like you said, go back and follow upon Ron Pauls history. I dont think you'll be quite as supportive.

Fred's about the closest thing to a REAL Conservative now in the race. Dont take my word for it, follow up on him and his history. The 1st top 3 all SUCKED!!

I think Paul only won due to Lib inundation of the polls.....

Matt · « **Reply #36 on:** September 07, 2007, 08:17:08 PM »

Quote

Like you said, go back and follow upon Ron Pauls history. I dont think you'll be quite as supportive.

Please enlighten me on what it is that you found in his history that made you think he was not worth supporting?

Matt

Echo4Lima · « **Reply #37 on:** September 09, 2007, 09:26:31 PM »

"A message from Dr. Paul and the Revolution,,,dollars welcomed to fight the establishment"..... C'mon on, whats up with that? Probably pulling in some big $$$$$'s? Think that might be just what it's all about? Not getting "fooled again" huh?

Andersen, Perot, McCain, and now Paul. All are claimed Republican "Conservatives" that have won fringe support "standing up against the party and telling the truth". How come I never hear that same line about Democrats?

Paul is the usual "I never met a law I liked" Libertarian. NO Nation can stand with out SOME laws. He holds an office as a Republican "Conservative" but is neither. Wont be fooled again, nope, just wont be.

TM7s support for Paul says it all.....BTW be prepared for the massive conspiracy by the establishment that will keep Paul from winning....

jh45gun · « **Reply #38 on:** September 10, 2007, 07:26:21 AM »

Quote

TM7s support for Paul says it all.....BTW be prepared for the massive conspiracy by the establishment that will keep Paul from winning....

I can hear that wailing and the knashing of teeth now. LOL

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #39 on:** September 10, 2007, 09:13:37 AM »

heck half the voters don't and 25% don't think it matters and the rest vote main line cause they are scared not to ! ya got to love this country ! Dr Paul is going to have problems because he wants to make the system work not work the system ! i bet the whole scene changes before feb. 08! way to much time for them not to screw up ! Dr. Paul might just live thru. it !

Echo4Lima · « **Reply #40 on:** September 12, 2007, 06:37:49 PM »

1. Maybe it's ONLY FOR the money. Just like Big Al Sharpton.
2. No difference.
3. His "interpretation"? That's reassuring.
4. This "establishment/revolution" thing is sooo 1968! I'll be eating German Chocolate cake.
5. Stood. Nothing personal, just political debate, but if you cant handle the heat....

jh45gun · « **Reply #41 on:** September 12, 2007, 07:36:09 PM »

The way it shapes up at the moment RUPAUL could get more votes than Ron Paul is going go get.

williamlayton · « **Reply #42 on:** September 13, 2007, 01:06:40 AM »

Folks, if a candidate wants votes he/she must say some things which they know in their heart they cannot perform.
In the case of Ron Paul, he actually believes all he would have too do is order it and it would be accomplished.
Now, this has happened once---IN THE BEGINNING---I don't think Ron is in this category.
Ron is an educated and well meaning man---however; as much as some of you would popularize his rhetoric, there must be an end results too this plan. Look at the plan, all he says and then--stop and think of the results--the end results.
This is about more than one gun thought or righting a foundered horse---this is about gutting the horse and replacing all the old organs and expecting the horse too get up and trot off. Highly unrealistic and pie in the sky.
These are not simple problems we have and it is not going too take a wave of the hand and unrealistic rhetoric for it too happen.
IMO, Ron is on the 180 degree opposite as the Democrats but just as unrealistic.
Folks---these are not simple days for simple rhetoric.
Blessings

jh45gun · « **Reply #43 on:** September 13, 2007, 07:48:55 AM »

Quote from: TM7 on September 13, 2007, 01:54:12 AM

Mr. Layton,,,,you seem to be overly concerned what RP would do. Perhaps more important is what he would not do. I like his concepts and vision, but we will just have to see what his mechanics are a little later.

...TM7

You sound like he is going to WIN?

?? Fat chance of that he does not have the media attention and he does not have the support to do so. Like I said RuPaul would stand a better chance. Yes I am saying that as a joke, but is probably not that far off either.

williamlayton · « **Reply #44 on:** September 14, 2007, 02:34:24 AM »

Well TM one could be a member of either of those two groups and agree with that thought---a negative, that is.
IMO
Ron would return too a more simple day, a more simple way of life, wanting to find less stress in this life.
I would be of the opinion that there was never a day that was not stressful and never a day that this nation under the House and Senate was not attempting to find a way to take away the stress---this may be a part of the problem, though, returning too an age before would not be the answer.
Imano
Blessings

Dee · « **Reply #45 on:** September 14, 2007, 03:48:50 AM »

Heaven forbid that we vote for a man who's voting record "MIRROS" what he says. Heaven forbid that we vote for a man that doesn't come across as a DEBONAIR, and SUAVE, spokesman. Heaven forbid that we vote for a man that says what he means, and means what he says, and VOTES ACCORDINGLY. Heaven forbid that we vote such a man into the presidency, as his honesty, demeanor, and sincerity might RUB OFF ON OTHERS.
Hell no! Let's vote for a damn actor, or a business as usual politician, that LOOKS like a president oughta look, and acts like all the other presidents have for the last 50 years. Let us continue to be BLINDLY REDUNDANT, and shred the only OBVIOUSLY (thru his voting record) HONEST CANDIDATE OFFERED. It's the American way.

jh45gun · « **Reply #46 on:** September 14, 2007, 04:44:31 AM »

Dee even if he is what you say he does not have the support so I doubt he will ever make it. he does have some baggage in my opinion his support for Gay Marriage and his cut and run policy I do not agree with. Even if he is what you say he does not have the backing. Remember the Jews took Barabbas over Christ too so maybe human nature to pick some one with a few flaws? I do not know I do however feel no matter how you folks feel about him he is too far back in the pack to be a front runner. Not saying that could change but with at least FOUR candidates ahead of him in the running with bigger name recognition it does not look good. Lets face it a lot of voters in this country are STUPID and vote for lots of dumb reasons. Like NAME RECOGNITION, Because some one else said to, Vote for the Party even though the other candidate may be a better choice yada yada yada. Lots vote for the right reasons too but many vote blindly but at least they vote which is more than you can say for some folks who do not exercise that right at all but then complain about the outcome. Once in a while though you may get a candidate that has name recognition and even a actor and he is a excellent choice like Reagan was.

Dee · « **Reply #47 on:** September 14, 2007, 06:34:29 AM »

What you say about folks voting blindly is true, however, I disagree with you that you are glad they vote. If blindly is how they vote, the rest of us would be better off if they QUIT voting, and took to just complaining.

jh45gun · « **Reply #48 on:** September 14, 2007, 10:22:46 AM »

True but how do you determine that look at the chad flap where seniors could not even figure out how to vote. In our area the folks on the election board slow things down because they are elderly and slower but dang it at least they try to donate their time I have to give them credit for that.

powderman · « **Reply #49 on:** September 14, 2007, 10:43:12 AM »

I would vote for Ron Paul against ANY dumcrap. I will vote for Thompson in the primary. The simple fact that tm7 likes RP is enough for me to back off, must be something there. POWDERMAN.

Dee · « **Reply #50 on:** September 14, 2007, 11:37:39 AM »

Quote from: TM7 on September 14, 2007, 11:13:39 AM

Quote from: jh45gun on September 14, 2007, 04:44:31 AM
Dee even if he is what you say he does not have the support so I doubt he will ever make it. he does have some baggage in my opinion his support for Gay Marriage and his cut and run policy I do not agree with. Even if he is what you say he does not have the backing. Remember the Jews took Barabbas over Christ too so maybe human nature to pick some one with a few flaws? I do not know I do however feel no matter how you folks feel about him he is too far back in the pack to be a front runner. Not saying that could change but with at least FOUR candidates ahead of him in the running with bigger name recognition it does not look good. Lets face it a lot of voters in this country are STUPID and vote for lots of dumb reasons. Like NAME RECOGNITION, Because some one else said to, Vote for the Party even though the other candidate may be a better choice yada yada yada. Lots vote for the right reasons too but many vote blindly but at least they vote which is more than you can say for some folks who do not exercise that right at all but then complain about the outcome. Once in a while though you may get a candidate that has name recognition and even a actor and he is a excellent choice like Reagan was.

I would like to here this source also. It seems CONTRARY to what I have heard and read about Ron Paul. Dee

jh45gun....please state where you saw RP 'supports gay marriage'. I believe you're stating something wrong and untrue for some reason. Correctly stated, RP does not believe the Fed government should intervene in gay marriage affairs which is pretty much the stance of most politicians.. But if you can find in the Constitution where it states that the Fed gov should have dominion over gay and civil marriages, unions or whatever.... please quote this part of the Constitution.
However, we can probably assume that Fred T, being of a Hollywood ilk, is probably most tolerant of gays since he had to live with and work with them from time to time. And we know that Julieannie, between cross dressing routines, lived with two gay friends for 2 years between one of his marriages.
And of course, we know RP is a political anomaly having married and lived with the same woman his whole life.

....TM7

Graybeard · « **Reply #51 on:** September 14, 2007, 12:27:54 PM »

Listen to the 65 + minute video someone gave the link to. IT was when he was being interviewed by Google I think.

He made it pretty clear he was fine with gays and gay marriage and to my ears it went beyond just thinking the government needs to stay out of personal affairs.

I care not what to consenting adults do behind closed doors. I do object to it being plastered in my face on TV, in movies and on the streets. I grossly object to pushing it as normal in school curriculums and in officially recognizing gays as married and giving them the benefits marriage entails in tax and other programs. He clearly said he was fine with all that sorta thing and so he is not fine with me.

I "might" vote for him if it came down to him and Hillery or Obama since both of them are for the same stuff as well and are even worse on many other issues but I'd not vote for him until it got to such a point I don't think and I don't think he'll ever get there. I'll be surprised if he even wins any delagates at the convention.

nomosendero · « **Reply #52 on:** September 14, 2007, 12:46:47 PM »

Quote from: Graybeard on September 14, 2007, 12:27:54 PM

Listen to the 65 + minute video someone gave the link to. IT was when he was being interviewed by Google I think.

He made it pretty clear he was fine with gays and gay marriage and to my ears it went beyond just thinking the government needs to stay out of personal affairs.

I care not what to consenting adults do behind closed doors. I do object to it being plastered in my face on TV, in movies and on the streets. I grossly object to pushing it as normal in school curriculums and in officially recognizing gays as married and giving them the benefits marriage entails in tax and other programs. He clearly said he was fine with all that sorta thing and so he is not fine with me.

I "might" vote for him if it came down to him and Hillery or Obama since both of them are for the same stuff as well and are even worse on many other issues but I'd not vote for him until it got to such a point I don't think and I don't think he'll ever get there. I'll be surprised if he even wins any delagates at the convention.

Just what we need, a weak, spineless man without principle "leading" the country . His first impression
was that he is a wuss & it is becoming more evident daily.

ncsurveyor · « **Reply #53 on:** September 14, 2007, 01:48:12 PM »

ICK!

there you go. a little subjectivity on my part.

I took the liberty of visiting a few "alternative lifestyle" political forums and I believe that the balance of homosexuals are convinced that Paul's approval of gay marriage is strictly a non-intervention issue as stated by the aforementioned libertarians. They feel that he will not go out of his way to ensure gay rights or any other "needs", which may also be in his non-intervention mode. Which is like getting rid of affirmative action in my book. No big deal.

However, I encourage you to watch the video and hear it from the horses mouth to ascertain how you think he feels as a person on the topic. Pardon the unintentional sarcasm, but if you have a laptop and wi-fi, its a great way to pass 65 minutes on the porcelain throne.

p.s. Don't ask for the sources I visited. I cleared my history. And the cookies. And disinfected the monitor. Won't be going back.

jh45gun · « **Reply #54 on:** September 14, 2007, 06:10:00 PM »

Thank you Bill and NCSurveyer for tbe confirmation of where I got the info. I find it interesting that Dee and TM7 doubted what I said. I think perhaps they felt I was making false accusations yet I do not know why as this was discussed in the thread that the liink of the Video was posted on. Geez you guys are such great RP supporters and you did not watch it?

Dee · « **Reply #55 on:** September 14, 2007, 06:30:03 PM »

Quote from: jh45gun on September 14, 2007, 06:10:00 PM

Thank you Bill and NCSurveyer for tbe confirmation of where I got the info. I find it interesting that Dee and TM7 doubted what I said. I think perhaps they felt I was making false accusations yet I do not know why as this was discussed in the thread that the liink of the Video was posted on. Geez you guys are such great RP supporters and you did not watch it?

Crap jh45gun, they bailed you out. You heard it somewhere and couldn't even remember where.

jh45gun · « **Reply #56 on:** September 14, 2007, 07:15:07 PM »

Gee whiz if that is the case then how did I address the issue on a thread here when it came up a day or so ago? Pretty neat trick eh? nope the video was on thread here and I replyed about it look it up.

jh45gun · « **Reply #57 on:** September 15, 2007, 07:06:27 AM »

Yep your right I would not waste an hour of my time on him and I do not have to when others did and reported what he said. Just because I did not watch it does not mean crapola he still said it. Your supporters problem not mine.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #58 on:** September 17, 2007, 02:17:56 AM »

still say he reminds me of PRES. CARTER !

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #59 on:** September 17, 2007, 03:25:55 AM »

He seems ok but dosen't seem to have that leadership , take charge attitude , seems like he would do alot of checking ! '
I want a Reagan type , you know come on TV and say so and so did this to us I took care of it last night , its news to them and us , no media hype etc ! with Catrer we worried alot , with bush we worry alot also ! we vote them in to take care of business , not wring hands and check with everyone !