Author Topic: Ron Paul Has Just Guaranteed He Will NOT be Elected (Read 9887 times)

Bill T · « **on:** May 12, 2011, 12:22:51 PM »

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/12/ron-paul-ordered-bin-laden-raid/

Why does this guy keep doing dumb, stupid, $h!t like this? Bill T.

oldandslow · « **Reply #1 on:** May 12, 2011, 12:48:59 PM »

He wasn't going to be anyway.

Bill T · « **Reply #2 on:** May 12, 2011, 12:54:15 PM »

Quote from: oldandslow on May 12, 2011, 12:48:59 PM

He wasn't going to be anyway.

I agree, but he sure as hell made it for certain now! And they have the audacity to talk about Trump's silly comments. Give me a break! Bill T.

powderman · « **Reply #3 on:** May 12, 2011, 01:23:23 PM »

What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Not the first time he's said stupid stuff like that. The paper said the other day that he didn't think people should be arrested for illegal drugs. He just keeps sticking his foot in his mouth. If he wins the nomination I'll vote for him over the obamination, BUT, i hope somebody else wins. POWDERMAN.

45-70.gov · « **Reply #4 on:** May 12, 2011, 01:31:38 PM »

he is just being used to devide and conquer the republican party

the other party wins by default

because all the other parties are being used just like ron paul is being used

no matter what
the winner of the next election will be one of the 2 evils

too many people already know this for it to change
too much change too fast like PAUL wants will cause too much instability
change needs to come about slowly
but OBUMER is taking us in the wrong direction

Casull · « **Reply #5 on:** May 12, 2011, 02:00:34 PM »

Like I've said before, I agree with much of what he says, but he is not electable.

wreckhog · « **Reply #6 on:** May 12, 2011, 02:35:45 PM »

I can't believe that his own state keep electing him. Doesn't the military have a big presence in TX? I guess that Palin is a lock for the Tea Party nom.

powderman · « **Reply #7 on:** May 12, 2011, 03:39:31 PM »

Quote from: Casull on May 12, 2011, 02:00:34 PM

Like I've said before, I agree with much of what he says, but he is not electable.

CASULL. YEP. POWDERMAN.

Gary G · « **Reply #8 on:** May 12, 2011, 03:40:42 PM »

Quote

Why does this guy keep doing dumb, stupid, $h!t like this? Bill T.

Because he is honest.

I happen to agree with him. When you value liberty and constitutional values more than revenge you act in a different way. That is called integrity.

powderman · « **Reply #9 on:** May 12, 2011, 03:55:53 PM »

GARY G. Are you saying we should NOT have gone in and gotten osama?? POWDERMAN.

jimster · « **Reply #10 on:** May 12, 2011, 04:04:24 PM »

Quote

Because he is honest.

I happen to agree with him. When you value liberty and constitutional values more than revenge you act in a different way. That is called integrity.

And my hat comes off to you Gary G.

Seems that revenge cost us several trillion and a lot of American lives....we could have just blown the entire region to hell with no boots on the ground...and been done with it long ago if it was just revenge on one old man we wanted. We sure drug it out long enough...and still are...

It don't bother me none the old man is dead...good job by the special forces...but it won't end much of anything, our military ain't coming home over it. In the end, we would have to blow the whole place to hell to end it properly anyway...or it won't ever end. Boots on the ground won't ever do it.

Maybe for Ron Paul....his honesty overrides his desire to be president...ain't all bad. And nobody out there will get everyone to agree with them anyway. He still has the most sense of anyone out there, he just struck a nerve by ruining people's revenge party....my opinion...they will differ.

MGMorden · « **Reply #11 on:** May 12, 2011, 04:07:34 PM »

Quote

The paper said the other day that he didn't think people should be arrested for illegal drugs

You have to remember that Ron Paul is a former Libertarian (he ran for the Presidency in 1988 for the Libertarian Party). He only switched his party to Republican to try to get around the whole idea that "a 3rd party can't get elected".

He's still pretty much 100% Libertarian in viewpoint though, and the Libertarian stance on drugs is that it's none of the government's business what consenting adults put into their own bodies. They are pretty much for a "hands off" government on most such issues (including gun ownership, which is a big plus - they're probably more friendly to guns as a whole than even the Republican party). The drug stance isn't even as controversial as you'd think - PARTICULARLY if we're just talking about marijuana (where current polls are showing approximately 50-55% support for legalization).

Overall, IMHO he was the best option we had amongst a bunch of stinkers. It is kinda sad to see him make the comment about Osama though as it most certainly does virtually kill his candidacy before it even got off the ground.

Gary G · « **Reply #12 on:** May 12, 2011, 04:15:06 PM »

Quote from: powderman on May 12, 2011, 03:55:53 PM

GARY G. Are you saying we should NOT have gone in and gotten osama?? POWDERMAN.

no, I am not saying that.

crustylicious · « **Reply #13 on:** May 12, 2011, 04:37:01 PM »

Time for a birth certificate check.
Daktar Rombul sounds Muzzie to me

nw_hunter · « **Reply #14 on:** May 12, 2011, 04:42:59 PM »

Quote from: Gary G on May 12, 2011, 03:40:42 PM

Quote
Why does this guy keep doing dumb, stupid, $h!t like this? Bill T.

Because he is honest.

I happen to agree with him. When you value liberty and constitutional values more than revenge you act in a different way. That is called integrity.

Yes he is, and the sad truth is.....Honesty and integrity won't carry you far in a popularity contest, or politics. The reason Paul keeps getting elected in Texas is.......His district is made up of a majority of Libertarian thinking conservatives.People who not only talk about smaller government, but truly believe in it and vote accordingly.

Casull · « **Reply #15 on:** May 12, 2011, 04:45:43 PM »

Quote

Quote from: powderman on Today at 07:55:53 PM
GARY G. Are you saying we should NOT have gone in and gotten osama?? POWDERMAN.

no

Definitely canNOT agree with that. He was responsible for the murders of 3,000 of my countrymen. He needed killing, and killing he got (if the story is true). That is justice.

Gary G · « **Reply #16 on:** May 12, 2011, 05:01:58 PM »

Quote from: Casull on May 12, 2011, 04:45:43 PM

Quote
Quote from: powderman on Today at 07:55:53 PM
GARY G. Are you saying we should NOT have gone in and gotten osama?? POWDERMAN.

no

Definitely canNOT agree with that. He was responsible for the murders of 3,000 of my countrymen. He needed killing, and killing he got (if the story is true). That is justice.

Casull, I went back and edited my post. The no was a "no, I am not saying that". I think you may have misunderstood my answer.

Casull · « **Reply #17 on:** May 12, 2011, 05:06:23 PM »

I definitely misunderstood your response (although I'm not sure how that fits with your earlier post).

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #18 on:** May 12, 2011, 05:11:38 PM »

Quote from: jimster on May 12, 2011, 04:04:24 PM

Quote
Because he is honest.

I happen to agree with him. When you value liberty and constitutional values more than revenge you act in a different way. That is called integrity.

And my hat comes off to you Gary G.

Seems that revenge cost us several trillion and a lot of American lives....we could have just blown the entire region to hell with no boots on the ground...and been done with it long ago if it was just revenge on one old man we wanted. We sure drug it out long enough...and still are...

It don't bother me none the old man is dead...good job by the special forces...but it won't end much of anything, our military ain't coming home over it. In the end, we would have to blow the whole place to hell to end it properly anyway...or it won't ever end. Boots on the ground won't ever do it.

Maybe for Ron Paul....his honesty overrides his desire to be president...ain't all bad. And nobody out there will get everyone to agree with them anyway. He still has the most sense of anyone out there, he just struck a nerve by ruining people's revenge party....my opinion...they will differ.

Well said jimster, you summed it up nicely. Ron Paul sticks to true Jeffersonian principles, something a lot of so called conservatives don't understand.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." ~Thomas Jefferson

Casull · « **Reply #19 on:** May 12, 2011, 05:18:15 PM »

Somehow I just don't think Jefferson would have approved of blowing a whole county "to hell" just to take out a small percentage bad element.

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #20 on:** May 12, 2011, 05:33:27 PM »

Quote from: Casull on May 12, 2011, 05:18:15 PM

Somehow I just don't think Jefferson would have approved of blowing a whole county "to hell" just to take out a small percentage bad element.

You are correct in your thinking. Jefferson wouldn't have gone to war in the first place and neither would Ron Paul.

Casull · « **Reply #21 on:** May 12, 2011, 05:47:28 PM »

Quote

You are correct in your thinking. Jefferson wouldn't have gone to war in the first place and neither would Ron Paul.

Are you saying that would have just ignored it (9/11)?

Gary G · « **Reply #22 on:** May 12, 2011, 05:58:40 PM »

Quote from: Casull on May 12, 2011, 05:06:23 PM

I definitely misunderstood your response (although I'm not sure how that fits with your earlier post).

In the piece, here is what Ron Paul said:

Quote

the United States should have gone after bin Laden the same way it went after Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, by working with the Pakistan government.

There are more ways to skin a cat without violating international law. While what we did was expedient, the rest of the world thinks we are the bully of weaker nations and it is easy to see why. It probably leads to more blowback.

Gary G · « **Reply #23 on:** May 12, 2011, 06:12:35 PM »

Quote from: Casull on May 12, 2011, 05:47:28 PM

Quote
You are correct in your thinking. Jefferson wouldn't have gone to war in the first place and neither would Ron Paul.

Are you saying that would have just ignored it (9/11)?

I will say that avoiding war would have been better than bankrupting the nation to the extent of 2.3 trillion dollars and getting 5000 young americans killed. However, for a lot less money we probably could have gotten the old sick man with failing kidneys using intelligence and special forces, which happened anyway. It still has not been proven that he was responsible. I do not know, but I don't trust the government propaganda either. Without Bush's response to 911, they could not have taken away so many of our rights, could they? And we would not have to endure the surveillance state, porno scanners and groping.

powderman · « **Reply #24 on:** May 12, 2011, 06:16:02 PM »

GARY G. The paks were hiding osama, seems very plain to me. There was no working with them and I'm sure they were benefitting financially too. If not going after him after 10 years is Ron Pauls attitude I wish him luck, cause he would not get my vote in the primary. If he gets the nod against the obamination I'll vote for him. Sorry to say it but he's beginnig to sound like a spoiler. POWDERMAN.

ironglow · « **Reply #25 on:** May 13, 2011, 01:26:53 AM »

Doublebass says;
"Well said jimster, you summed it up nicely. Ron Paul sticks to true Jeffersonian principles, something a lot of so called conservatives don't understand.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." ~Thomas Jefferson"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gary quotes Ron Paul in the article, saying;
"the United States should have gone after bin Laden the same way it went after Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, by working with the Pakistan government"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I simply must point out... "Avoiding foreign entanglements"..and.. "by working with the Pakistani government" .

Am I the only one who see a dichotomy in play here ?

Sorry, I think RP has hurt himself. However, if it comes to a test between RP & Obama...naturally, I will vote for RP.
... HJe's American, acts like one, obviously born here, definitely not Muslim, upholds the Constitution and believes in free enterprise...and that's just for starters..

sidewinder319 · « **Reply #26 on:** May 13, 2011, 03:22:42 AM »

Calling yourself a Libertarian allows you to be a Liberal one day and a conservative the next. Taking a stand be it Liberal or Conservative takes real thought and control. Claiming the 2 party system is a failure and walking in the middle ground will not get anyone to the White House. Obama is hard Left it will take a hard right candidate to defeat him. A Libertarian is some one who is afraid to defend anything. These comments by Ron Paul are in keeping with this Political confusion.

powderman · « **Reply #27 on:** May 13, 2011, 03:59:10 AM »

Quote

Clinton declined and Bush Jr declined taking him perferring a bankrupting war(s).

tm. Another liberal lie. Bush was never offered obl, clinton yes, several times. POWDERMAN.

MGMorden · « **Reply #28 on:** May 13, 2011, 04:16:38 AM »

Quote from: sidewinder319 on May 13, 2011, 03:22:42 AM

Calling yourself a Libertarian allows you to be a Liberal one day and a conservative the next. Taking a stand be it Liberal or Conservative takes real thought and control. Claiming the 2 party system is a failure and walking in the middle ground will not get anyone to the White House. Obama is hard Left it will take a hard right candidate to defeat him. A Libertarian is some one who is afraid to defend anything. These comments by Ron Paul are in keeping with this Political confusion.

No, the Libertarians have a very clear, and VERY consistent political position. It's not waffling at all. Just because their position doesn't fit neatly into one of the two boxes you've chosen to accept as the only options doesn't make them unstable nor middle ground.

As a matter of fact, if you want their stance on just about anything, just consult:

http://www.lp.org/issues

ironglow · « **Reply #29 on:** May 13, 2011, 04:38:07 AM »

People should not confuse Libertarians with Conservatives. Generally speaking; real Libertarians are fiscally conservative, but morals and values play little import in their scheme of things while Conservatives worthy of the name, wish to preserve standing fiscal, moral and cultural values, until something proven to be superior comes along.
The RINOS among the Republicans are much of the fly-in-the-ointment. It is said, and I tend to agree..

"The only ones who hate real conservatives more than the Democrats do...is the RINO Republicans".