Ron Paul Can't Win

#251
#251
So, are you a Libertarian or a Paulist?

That's not meant to be derogatory. Just trying to figure out what position is so near and dear to you that you'd sit out the General Election and in effect help a guy who is the polar opposite of Ron Paul get re-elected.
 
#252
#252
GAVol said:
So, are you a Libertarian or a Paulist?

That's not meant to be derogatory. Just trying to figure out what position is so near and dear to you that you'd sit out the General Election and in effect help a guy who is the polar opposite of Ron Paul get re-elected.
Click to expand...

Name another of the real GOP contenders that is not the polar opposite of Dr. Paul.
 
#253
#253
RespectTradition said:
Name another of the real GOP contenders that is not the polar opposite of Dr. Paul.
Click to expand...
I think several of them agree with elements of Paul's positions.

Then there's the whole issue of what Paul idealizes and what he'd actually be able to pull off.
 
Last edited:
#254
#254
GAVol said:
I think several of them agree with elements of Paul's positions.

Then there's the whole issue of what Paul idealizes and what he'd actually be able to pull off.
Click to expand...

I can't. I can think of a couple of things that they say they agree with him on, then I look at their records and realized it is all, in the immortal words of Col. Potter: horsehockey.
 
#255
#255
GAVol said:
Just trying to figure out what position is so near and dear to you that you'd sit out the General Election and in effect help a guy who is the polar opposite of Ron Paul get re-elected.
Click to expand...

I trust him to do what he says and to defend the Constitution.

I can't say that about the majority of the others. If I go out and bite the bullet to support the lesser of two evils, then I'm still voting for evil. Also, I am not going to legitimize the current crop of candidates the the GOP is running out there for us to vote for by going out and playing their game. I would much rather vote "for" someone than vote "against" someone. I thought the GOP snickered at the Dems when they used that tactic in 2004 (Anybody but Bush)? The GOP scare tactic si for us to not vote our convictions but instead vote against Obama. I won't play that game. Give me something to vote for.
 
#256
#256
It's not a scare tactic. Elections with incumbents are always a referendum on the incumbent. Not looking to argue really. Just trying to understand the mentality.
 
#257
#257
GAVol said:
I think several of them agree with elements of Paul's positions.
Click to expand...

Agreeing on "elements" isn't good enough. There is nothing in Paul's campaign that anybody has been able to say is unconstitutional. I suppose the current crop of GOP candidates believe the Constitution is a living document... just like some of Obama's supporters do.

GAVol said:
Then there's the whole issue of what Paul idealizes and what he'd actually be able to pull off.
Click to expand...

I can live with him not being able to pull it off if the House/Senate were controled by the Dems. But it would be another thing if members of his own party didn't back him on it. Which is more likely? Plus, that is a defeatist attitude to take. It may be realistic, GA, but it is defeatist. Should we not support a candidate just because we "think" or are afraid that none of his policies would come into fruition anyway? Or should we at least give the guy a shot to try to steer us from the all to familiar course that we have been on the last 40 years?

At this point, the only difference between the Dems and the GOP is that the Dems want to drive this country over a cliff in a dragster, while the GOP wants to do it at a leisurely pace. They have no intentions of changing the direction that we are heading in... they only want to slow down the rate of destruction.
 
#258
#258
GAVol said:
It's not a scare tactic. Elections with incumbents are always a referendum on the incumbent. Not looking to argue really. Just trying to understand the mentality.
Click to expand...

The mentality is this: we are going in the wrong direction. Voting for most of the other candidates in the GOP race is only delaying the inevitable. We are still going over the cliff. Either we vote for someone that is going to take us in a different direction, or we just vote for the lesser of two evils and we still end up with the same result.

I'm not voting for the lesser of two evils or voting "against" Obama. I would rather vote FOR someone.
 
#259
#259
Rasputin_Vol said:
Name one other candidate in the field that has his voting record and campaigns on his message and I would gladly say that you have a point.

Otherwise, the majority of the clowns in the GOP race are going to be equal to or slightly to the left of GWB. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
Click to expand...

Paul Johnson.
 
#264
#264
Excerpts

Consequently, any news reporter who is too critical of the government agencies that he is reporting about risks being cut off from his information sources, the lifeblood of his career, which will then be ruined. (A glaring example of this phenomenon is how former Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich ordered all of his appointees to refuse to talk to anyone associated with the Baltimore Sun, which had been hyper-critical of him and his administration).


Thus, according to Jensen and Meckling, career self-preservation among journalists requires that they essentially become lapdogs and mouthpieces for the state. They will tolerate and occasionally report about inconsequential and marginal criticisms of the state, such as those made by some of the D.C. "libertarian" think tanks, in order to delude the public into believing that there is actually a public policy debate in Washington. But whenever someone with the views of Congressman Ron Paul appears who challenges the very propriety and existence of any statist central planning institution (such as the Fed), the media will ignore and/or demonize him and everyone associated with his views.

Having spent their entire careers spreading such absurd lies, the appearance of an educated, articulate truth teller like Congressman Ron Paul absolutely terrifies the media, for Ron Paul threatens to expose them, once and for all, as the frauds and enemies of the free society that they are. That is why it is imperative that the media do everything in its power to ignore and demonize Ron Paul and his millions of freedom-loving supporters. So far, the biggest stumbling block in the way of the old media is the new media and Web sites like LewRockwell.com, which one can only hope will someday soon cause the demise of the gang of liars, deceivers, and propagandists known as "the mainstream media."
Click to expand...

Why the Old Media Ignore Ron Paul by Thomas DiLorenzo
 
#266
#266
GAVol said:
So it's a conspiracy?
Click to expand...

No. It's people widely responding to incentives, as you'd expect them to do. As a journalist if you bash government, they're not gonna talk to you (naturally)...so you play ball. There's no conspiracy.
 
#267
#267
nbakerld said:
No. It's people widely responding to incentives, as you'd expect them to do. As a journalist if you bash government, they're not gonna talk to you (naturally)...so you play ball. There's no conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech?
 
#272
#272
NEOCON said:
His view on Iran makes me never able to vote for him.
Click to expand...

Not calling you out Neocon, but I hear this critique all the time. My take is...

If Americans, with all our wealth and military prowess, are scared of Iran then we are a m************ p******. I think we stand to lose a lot more if we instigate conflict in a "preventative" strategy.

I think we back the hell off. If their government acts against us, we can wipe them off the earth. They know it. They're not that stupid.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top