Another fundraising day,..

[dukkillr]

Look, I'm one of those guys who posted that Ron Paul was a joke who had no chance of getting elected.  But lets not ignore that he has done some good things in the last several days.  He did well on Leno, he made the papers with his fund raising, and he appears to have some fanatical supporters based mostly on the internet.  I personally think his ideas have some merit.  I've always liked the flat tax idea, and I worry about the cost of playing the worlds benevolent dictator. 

But lets be clear here, I still don't think he can win.  Perception is huge, and Ron Paul is still perceived as fringe.  His ideas are not mainstream enough to appeal to average America.  His candidacy is based more on tapping into disgrunttled small government conservatives (such as myself) than appealing to 51% of Americans.  His only likely contribution to US politics at this point would be a Ralph Nader like 3rd party run, which could be very painful to Republicans.  An optimist might hope that the other Republican front runners might take note of the small govt/libertarian side of the party, but I suspect they're too busy courting the Religious Right. 

Give credit where credit is due, but lets be realistic here.  Ron's shot at the nomination is non-existent but I respect the noise he's making, and I hope it makes an impact.

[ncsurveyor]

I agree Duk.

Although lack of plans for some of his ideals has got me worried, I like a return (if it ever was) to small government and more emphasis in state rights.  [That would provide some insulation, I hope from Kalifornia, and some of the New England influences on the rest of us normal people]

Considering the crisis in potential democratic leadership we may see, the best thing for everyone involved is to concentrate on keeping Hillary out, to which I say, courting that 51% is the best course of action.

If Paul - and his ideas- have momentum, then why risk catastrophe now, when a play for the next election would make a lot more sense.  By that time, he may garner the support of other politicians and other influential persons, possibly the press - all of which appear to be lacking at this time.

But what really gets me, as it does a few others here, is the constant muck raking being tossed about, in attempts to make Dr. Paul the only thing left that shines.  It doesn't serve its purpose, and quite frankly, is a little disconcerting between people who supposedly have some similar values.

[dukkillr]

But what really gets me, as it does a few others here, is the constant muck raking being tossed about, in attempts to make Dr. Paul the only thing left that shines.  It doesn't serve its purpose, and quite frankly, is a little disconcerting between people who supposedly have some similar values.

You know, I thought the same thing.  I'm less likely to support Dr. Paul because of Fazak's glee over bashing Fred Thompson every chance he gets.  Sometimes it looks like such a stretch I can't help but wonder if it's a cover for a lack of depth in Dr. Paul's own positions.  Quite honestly the idea has crossed my mind that someone here may actually be employed by Dr. Paul.  I can't come up with any other reason for the kind of mindless fanaticism we've seen.

[Heavy C]

But what really gets me, as it does a few others here, is the constant muck raking being tossed about, in attempts to make Dr. Paul the only thing left that shines.  It doesn't serve its purpose, and quite frankly, is a little disconcerting between people who supposedly have some similar values.

You know, I thought the same thing.  I'm less likely to support Dr. Paul because of Fazak's glee over bashing Fred Thompson every chance he gets.  Sometimes it looks like such a stretch I can't help but wonder if it's a cover for a lack of depth in Dr. Paul's own positions.  Quite honestly the idea has crossed my mind that someone here may actually be employed by Dr. Paul.  I can't come up with any other reason for the kind of mindless fanaticism we've seen.

+1 on the points made by both Duk and NC.  I resolve to let things ride until the primaries.  Let Fazak and TM7 promote Dr. Paul all they want, but when Dr. Paul doesn't make the ticket ensure that they along with their cohorts throw their support behind the Republican candidate.  Splitting the Republican vote, as has been stated so many times already, would be disastrous for this country on so many points it is down right scary.

[alsaqr]

Ron Paul does not stand a snowball's chance in hades of ever becoming president.  He could collect and spend a billion dollars and still never get elected.  He is mean spirited enough to run as a third party candidate in order to spoil it for the Republican candidate.  Paul  is a joke. 

[ncsurveyor]

But what really gets me, as it does a few others here, is the constant muck raking being tossed about, in attempts to make Dr. Paul the only thing left that shines.  It doesn't serve its purpose, and quite frankly, is a little disconcerting between people who supposedly have some similar values.

You know, I thought the same thing.  I'm less likely to support Dr. Paul because of Fazak's glee over bashing Fred Thompson every chance he gets.  Sometimes it looks like such a stretch I can't help but wonder if it's a cover for a lack of depth in Dr. Paul's own positions.  Quite honestly the idea has crossed my mind that someone here may actually be employed by Dr. Paul.  I can't come up with any other reason for the kind of mindless fanaticism we've seen.

The Gray one encouraged me early on not to be diswayed by the actions of candidate supporters, and although I indicated that I would never allow it, its been an uphill fight I must admit.  But, from my own research, and some other words of wisdom from the "neocons" here, I don't think this is the right time for Dr. Paul, from both the public view, and his own.  I don't think he knows what he's in for, and may be unprepared for the ramifications of his actions.  AGAIN, another four years of momentum may put him in the box, if he spends his windfall properly, and starts looking more seriously at his plans.  And his supporters really believe.  Maybe.

While I prefer a little isolationism, I also agree with ironglow and others about the needs for global involvement for the country.  I think the answer lies somewhere between Dr. Paul's "revolution" and dubya's "NWO".

But I'm tired of the mudslinging.  I agree, either its an empoyee, or someone just trying to put frosting over the holes in the cake.

[jh45gun]

Good Points Guys!

[billy_56081]

  I would personally vote for Ron Paul if he got nominated by the Republican party. I would even prefer him getting the nod over Gulianni who I will not vote for. There are several candidates running that I would prefer to vote for over Ron Paul. If he runs as a third party candidate I will not vote for Ron (Ralph Nader) Paul if it is down to him Gulianni and a Demoncrat, I will write in my own name as a protest.

  Ron Paul does not support my views on many things but is good enough to be a lesser of 2 evils candidate. I can't see Gulianni as a lesser of 2 evils candidate.

[jh45gun]

Gulliani, Hitlery, Bloomberg, Chuck Schumer do I see a pattern here. Yea New Yorkers have a Taste for crap when it comes to politicians. 

[ironglow]

    JH45gun;

    Living in NY State, I can assure you that NYers DO have a terrible taste in politicos ! One must understand the demographics of this state in order to see the great contrast in the varianc political scene here.
  Just take a look at any map of NY State..then think;   ..Cities...liberal/Democrat   ....   Rural areas..conservative/Republican...  Suburban areas ..divided..leaning slightly toward conservative.
  That makes the land area of NY about 95% conservative...unfortunately, we don't vote by land area, but by population...so the cities outnumber the rural & suburbs by perhaps 15 to 20 percent !  ..So the "clearer thinking" (IMO) voters get out voted statewide.

   Therefore, we almost always get hopeless liberals as senators and either liberal or rhinos as governor .. Congressmen are elected more locally, so we fare much better there.
  My congressman, Randy Kuhl is a good one and a personal friend Congressman Tom Reynolds, who represents my bordering district, is outstanding.
       If the Republicans get control of the house again anytime soon, Tom is close in line for Speaker of the House. Tom would be about a 2,000,000% improvement over Nancy Pa-loser.
  Tom is very much pro 2nd amendment, individual rights, traditional values and all the things that most folks on this forum really care about..

   As a rural NYer, along with the rest we suffer somewhat from the "tyranny of the cities"..and since the state govt is heavily laced with politicians that are hopelessly lib and in the pocket of the welfare rights, gay rights, women's lib, unions, eviro-whackos,  and PETA types so much that our economy continually runs downhill despite affluent times in other places...
   Outside the cities, built up areas, NY is a hunting, outdoors dream though..

   

[jh45gun]

Ironglow WI is pretty much the same way Cities = Demoncrats and Rual areas Republican with more land mass Republican. Unfortunatly lots of idiots packed in them cities. 

[ironglow]

   Heh,Heh !

       That's what I tell folks when I travel..some folks equate NY State with NY City . Nothing could be farther from the true picture..so I just tell them :

    " Sure!... we have a few boneheads up on our end of the state.. it's just that here..they don't run around in such big bunches !!"

         
              I live on the opposite end of NY from NY City..places like Richmond, Va and Morgantown, WV are closer in miles, to NYC than I am !

    Folks up here in the western end of the state are more like midwesterners..especially in the rural areas.

 
           Please note: On my profile, I stated my location as 'Rural western New York State' ..that was no accident..

[nw_hunter]

  I would personally vote for Ron Paul if he got nominated by the Republican party. I would even prefer him getting the nod over Gulianni who I will not vote for. There are several candidates running that I would prefer to vote for over Ron Paul. If he runs as a third party candidate I will not vote for Ron (Ralph Nader) Paul if it is down to him Gulianni and a Demoncrat, I will write in my own name as a protest.

  Ron Paul does not support my views on many things but is good enough to be a lesser of 2 evils candidate. I can't see Gulianni as a lesser of 2 evils candidate.

Curious!.........Just what are  the many views you don't agree with Paul on. He only votes for issues that are constitutional.
Do you believe like Al (Green tooth) Gore). and others that the Constitution is just a piece of paper?
 
Google up his voting record in Congress , and compare it to the front runners!
Their records shows them to be anything but conservative.
Oh! btw, There is no such thing as lesser of two evils.......There is just EVIL, and I don't see how anyone could put Ron Paul in that mold! The Republican party is in deep do! and we need to put some real conservatives back at the helm. We darn sure won't do it with the likes of Rudy, Fred,Mitt, or John.
******************************************************************
Senate Slander

A member of the United States Senate, known for his hot temper and acid tongue, exploded one day in mid-session and began to shout, "Half of this Senate is made up of cowards and corrupt politicians!"

All the other Senators demanded that the angry member withdraw his statement, or be removed from the remainder of the session.

After a long pause, the angry member acquiesced. "OK," he said, "I withdraw what I said. Half of this Senate is NOT made up of cowards and corrupt politicians!"

[Dee]

Excellent points nw_hunter.

[Sourdough]

I had never heard of Ron Paul before a few months ago, and when he does not get the Republican nomination I think he will just fade away many millions of dollars richer.  Not just that 4.2 but all the rest he raised and did not spend.  A nice retirement package. 

Wonder how far I could get in politics?

[jh45gun]

I had never heard of Ron Paul before a few months ago, and when he does not get the Republican nomination I think he will just fade away many millions of dollars richer.  Not just that 4.2 but all the rest he raised and did not spend.  A nice retirement package. 

Wonder how far I could get in politics?

You would have a better chance  of making President I bet then he does. LOL

[Fazak]

But what really gets me, as it does a few others here, is the constant muck raking being tossed about, in attempts to make Dr. Paul the only thing left that shines.  It doesn't serve its purpose, and quite frankly, is a little disconcerting between people who supposedly have some similar values.

You know, I thought the same thing.  I'm less likely to support Dr. Paul because of Fazak's glee over bashing Fred Thompson every chance he gets.  Sometimes it looks like such a stretch I can't help but wonder if it's a cover for a lack of depth in Dr. Paul's own positions.  Quite honestly the idea has crossed my mind that someone here may actually be employed by Dr. Paul.  I can't come up with any other reason for the kind of mindless fanaticism we've seen.

lolol,...

If he offers me a job, I'll be happy to take it,.. but as for now I'm just someone who wants the country back in the hands of the people.

Very few candidates offer that. In fact, I'm 51 years old and Ron Paul is the first one in my lifetime.

[ncsurveyor]

But what really gets me, as it does a few others here, is the constant muck raking being tossed about, in attempts to make Dr. Paul the only thing left that shines.  It doesn't serve its purpose, and quite frankly, is a little disconcerting between people who supposedly have some similar values.

You know, I thought the same thing.  I'm less likely to support Dr. Paul because of Fazak's glee over bashing Fred Thompson every chance he gets.  Sometimes it looks like such a stretch I can't help but wonder if it's a cover for a lack of depth in Dr. Paul's own positions.  Quite honestly the idea has crossed my mind that someone here may actually be employed by Dr. Paul.  I can't come up with any other reason for the kind of mindless fanaticism we've seen.

lolol,...

If he offers me a job, I'll be happy to take it,.. but as for now I'm just someone who wants the country back in the hands of the people.

Very few candidates offer that. In fact, I'm 51 years old and Ron Paul is the first one in my lifetime.

All well and good, but if you really want a revolution in politics, start by exposing the (detailed) good your candidate will do, instead of espousing the deficiencies of others.

Detailed good.  Not rhetorical bs.  Pipe dreams of eliminating departments, righting the constitution, etc etc mean nothing unless there's a plan.

[jh45gun]

Good Point NCS. 

[ncsurveyor]

It just doesn't get any clearer than his writings and comments.......too bad other candidates can't be as clear. As his program for America entails some reworking of government and return to Constitutional government the details are necessary to be worked out more fully for which he will be pressed to bring forth. Not some much what he will do but what he will eliminate and return to.. Actually his concept is not unlike Graybeard's concepts as posted on another thread--except for the 'dictatorship' part. Just click and read here for clear speak. BTW, did you ever read/hear is speech to Congress just a few short weeks after 911?


http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/

.....TM7

TM,

You know there has been a lot of verbal sparring on both sides of our "republican" debates.  Semantics of calling other candidates not even republicans and other drivel.

Bits and pieces of things have come out in different threads about Dr. Paul and his plans for a return to the good ol days - if they ever really existed in the first place.

Comments about Paul's stability, and whether his goals are realistic.

Now, I am saying this.  We are where we are.  We are in a global system.  Any breaks of the US in that system is going to have serious ramifications, both internal and external.  Changes will create voids, and in some cases, big one's.  It is easy to say that we will stop doing this or that, and we will start doing this and that instead.  But as of yet, I haven't seen anyone come down to the nuts and bolts of making things work.

How will selective isolationism affect the internal economy?  How will reduction in the "baseline" of the economy be handled with the homeless, the elderly, corruption in systems, etc? Overcrowding in prisons?

How will we be able to protect our borders with a reduction in baseline economy?  How are we going to handle threats to the country?  What are we going to do about developmental growth in lieu of land preservation, weighing in the increasing population?  Dependence on oil???

Hell, without an alternative to fuel use, reduction in the use of oil will certainly change the country, don't you think.  If we start cutting global ties, and the oil producers cut their supply, we as a country are pretty well shut down.  Yes it would be nice to cut this cord, and develop some internal working system, but can Dr. Paul tell me how he can do this in four years?  Because I guarantee that people will not like the growing pains and that will be the only time he has got to handle it. If they don't impeach him first.

I keep trying to say that this little dream of yours is going to take more than 1 year of election year stumping to even have a chance of getting to the plate, and decades of work before it hits a home run.  The people will not cooperate with this dream if they are taken in unwillingly (I am talking about those who voted otherwise, as well as those that didn't vote)  Of the supporters of the revolution, how many will jump ship?  How many jumped when "W" said the war will be long and frought with peril?

Yes, I have listened to Dr. Pauls speeches.  And I get the same glassy eyed, stare in the sky feeling of Utopia, Brigadoon and Kashmir everytime he speaks.  But I've always been a romantic.  Luckily, I have a dose of realism, and all I can say is it just isn't going to happen.  Not right now.


I admire your tenacity.  But sometimes, I wish you (and Fazak) were my neighbors, so I can bring some coffee for you to wake up and smell.

[ironglow]

  TM7 ;

  There are parts of RPs program I do heartily agree with.."Free trade", if it is to succeed should also be fair trade. We should not have to compete with nations that do not feel burdened with pollution controls such as we must adhere to. Curiously, the very politicians that cry so loudly about pollution are the very ones that want us to sign the Kyoto agreement. The Kyoto agreement excuses such nations as Red China & India from having to meet such standards These are two of the biggest polluters and two of our biggest economic rivals..
   I believe that tarriffs should be in place, geared to the wages the workers are being paid !

    We are a capitalist nation and commerce is the heart of any capitalist economy. I believe that is where You and I honestly (on each side) part company.
 
  I believe that any nation like ours has not only a heart..but also a soul. I honestly and frevently believe that any nation cannot exist on economics alone, it must have a moral yardstick !
      For 200 years our nation prospered and grew in wealth and strength because it was willing to acknowledge God's hand in the affairs of state. History is replete with examples from Washington to Lincoln to Reagan..
     When the sixties generation came along, they caught the "sin sickness"..our nation has carried on since then through sheer momentum..but it appears the flywheel of this superpower is beginning to lose RPMs.

   I do not hear RP address that critical, perhaps most important part of leading a nation, although I do believe he is a moral man .
      Yes, if he were to be the conservative representative, come next November..I would vote for him, simply because I believe the Democrat candidates, although they claim a moral compass..they do not exhibit one.
   Call it "choosing the lesser of two evils" is not accurate, because I don't view RP as any kind of evil..he just seems a bit detached from the moral values. I would however, be willing to vote for someone I believe is less than ideal, to keep a probably destructive candidate out of office.

   I am a full conservative, fiscal and social, unless a person does  include both facets, I don't see how they could call themselves full "conservative".

  My conservatism leans heavily toward the social, maybe 85% social, 15% fiscal and it is natural that I would look toward someone to represent my views..nothing strange about that ! I expect nearly everyone does that; thus the candidate an individual chooses, tells us much about that individual.

   I am much chagrined for our country by the actual HATRED our president faces. Of the current crop of candidates, I HATE none of them, and unlike some after the 2000 election cycle, I don't HATE Al Gore. I don't agree with him, I don't trust him and I think he knows he's lying about the global warming thing, but I don't HATE him !

  Likewise, I don't trust ANY of the Democrats, and hold varying degrees of trust in the Republicans, but I do not understand the vicious HATRED our President is faced with every day..  It is reminiscent of the period when Abraham Lincoln was called backwoodsman, hick, ape, monkey man and several other things..and some people today, acting on historical gossip, still hate him..

  Now, after all that long dissertation, I may be wrong..but I think you and I are struggling because while on the social/fiscal scale I am about 85/15..perhaps you are more like 15/85..no wonder we don't see eye to eye.

   Unfair though it may be, I still don't think that RP has the personality & charisma that it will take to sway the pop-culture, cotton candy, silly middle ground voters that greatly sway elections these days..

[ncsurveyor]

Ironglow,

Well thought, and well said.

   Unfair though it may be, I still don't think that RP has the personality & charisma that it will take to sway the pop-culture, cotton candy, silly middle ground voters that greatly sway elections these days..

When public polls indicate that some younger voting aged people would trade their vote for a new iPod, we as a country are coming close to rock bottom.

[nw_hunter]

Call it "choosing the lesser of two evils" is not accurate, because I don't view RP as any kind of evil..he just seems a bit detached from the moral values. I would however, be willing to vote for someone I believe is less than ideal, to keep a probably destructive candidate out of office.

Again I would like to know! What is it Ron Paul says that would make him appear to be detached from the moral values?
And speaking of less than IDEAL, and detached from moral values........Who in the front runner field , would you see as less detached than RP?

We have a great tool available to us to get at the truth........The WWW, and still most of us turn on the talking heads and look to see who looks better , and has more charisma than someone who has more character and honesty.
It would appear we want someone in the White House that looks good, not someone that IS good!

[ironglow]

  NWhunter;
     Perhaps it is more what he doesn't say ! He doesn't come out forcefully on some issues that are dear to conservative hearts, such as NO abortions. When asked about what he could do to prevent the further decay of the moral values in this country..he simply replied, "set a good example"..that is a good and proper start..but national leadership can play a larger role in divesting our sodiety of some of the stinky things..through tax credits, enforcement of "truth in the media" etc .

   I took the liberty to look his record up in  <  www.vote-smart.org  >..I like that website because you can cuit right through the BS and go right to their voting record..
  I have to admit having checked his record, Ron Paul has come up several notches in my estimation..yet there are a few things that still disturb me.

  On affirmative action, welfare, gun issues and immigration, poverty & homelessness ..his voting record was outstanding. His votes involving trade, I would grade at about 75%. And i do like his idea of slashing the thousands of useless social engineering, pork barrel programs.

  If that were accomplished, we could reduce spending take the funds saved and still keep a #1 military..

  Where I get a bit disturbed are in the following areas;

  Illegal drugs: I may misunderstand, but it appears that he wants to "cut & run" from the war on illegal drugs..
   If he wants to allow illegal drugs carte blanche, then he must be ready to pass legislation saying that such addicts will not be helped on the public dole..they will just have to allow their addiction to destroy them.

   Defense: of the nine categories of defense he voted on, he turned down all but two..pay & training. I would vote to make sure R&D goes on, that we have a good intelligence gathering system, plus all the advanced weapons systems to remain the most powerful nation on earth.
  While we are fighting terrorists, we could be attacked by several powers..China, Russsia, N Korea , Venezuela, Syria, Iran and Lord knows how many possible others.
  Even if we soon win the war on terror soon, which is doubtful ( the Prez said "generations")..those nations could then attack us either singly or as a coalition..

  We must maintain a super-power military as long as we can..

  His statement; "The US should use military force only when the border or territories are attacked or American citizens are in danger. "

     Excuse me ! Seems like the embassies in Kenya going up in an explosion, put Americans in danger  as did the first attack against the WTC
 and the attack upon the USS Cole.

  As far as waiting here and waiting until they attack us here..that's what we did on 9/11 and Pearl harbor..not good ! Couple that with his desire to gut the military down to being a "home defense" ccontingent..may as well do away with the military and leave our security to the National Guard..that is just what tyhe military would be under his plan..

  And to think he would eliminate our intelligence capability while waiting for the enemy to attack us on home soil ..! suicidal !

  Surviving nationally in this wicked world is a continual battle, and for anyone to intentionally drop his guard during a fight is foolish.

  All in all, he moved up a bit in my estimation, but still doesn't make top tier.

[jh45gun]

Thanks for that Ironglow I had said before that I thought Paul had some nutty ideas afte seeing him on TV after the commentator listed a bunch of stuff Paul was against TM7 asked me specifics and I did not tape the show so I could not go back to it and did not remember all he said except he did say Paul was anti Medicare. Now if Paul had a better plan fine but he did not say so and with all the seniors and disabled relying on Medicare you cannot just cut it.

[Echo4Lima]

I'm still wondering whom Fazak and TM7 will support if Paul doesn't win the nomination....

[billy_56081]

Good question Echo.

[ironglow]

  I would suppose that depending upon who gets the nod after primaries, as hunters/shooters we will KNOW we can't support
any Demo gun grabbers. That alone should be enough to decide upon..

[nw_hunter]

  I would suppose that depending upon who gets the nod after primaries, as hunters/shooters we will KNOW we can't support
any Demo gun grabbers. That alone should be enough to decide upon..

I agree ! Almost all Democraps are gun grabbers, But just what has GW and the Neo-Reps done for the gun owner  lately?
Wait! I can answer that...............Not a Dam thing!

Again fellows! Look at how they vote on the issues, not what they say. Talk is cheap!

[Swampman]

Wouldn't it be better to raise money for someone who has a chance?