Favre4Ever+ 4,476 Posted May 6, 2011 Anybody tune in? I couldn't because I was at work, but Ron Paul was awesome. He got applause after every answer and the anchors asking the questions were visibly upset... lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WindyCitySports 407 Posted May 9, 2011 I used to think Paul was crazy, but I am considering voting for him in 2012. He stands up for what he believes in and doesn't just go with whatever the party says. I also love his focus on the constitution. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JetsFan4Life 542 Posted May 11, 2011 Why is he bothering running under the Republican ticket when he won't get their vote of confidence? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 442 Posted May 11, 2011 (edited) ^ Probably because anyone not running under Democrat or Republican has a very small chance of winning these days. I certainly would probably vote for Ron Paul. I don't like some of his views, but he doesn't sugar coat anything and seems to stick with his beliefs a lot more consistently than many that run for an office. For the most part I agree with the things he says. I also like the fact that although he is against things like gay marriage and abortion among other things, he sticks to the thought that it should be a law controlled by each individual state and not controlled by the federal government. In other words, even though he would be President he wouldn't want to be in control of those things, he would instead work towards allowing each state to pass the laws as they see fit, so if the majority in California wants gay marriage to be legal in their state then gay marriage damn well should be legal. The reason why I agree with this is each state is very different and the majority populace in many states have completely different beliefs than other states and I don't personally believe any federal law should force a state to have certain laws that the majority does not agree with. Edited May 11, 2011 by Shotgun Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krawnka 282 Posted May 11, 2011 he sticks to the thought that it should be a law controlled by each individual state and not controlled by the federal government. In other words, even though he would be President he wouldn't want to be in control of those things, he would instead work towards allowing each state to pass the laws as they see fit, Exactly right, it's a little thing I like to call the 10th amendment: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Which is something the Federal government seems to have purposely forgotten, and is just as important (to me) as the 2nd amendment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Favre4Ever+ 4,476 Posted May 11, 2011 Exactly right, it's a little thing I like to call the 10th amendment: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html Which is something the Federal government seems to have purposely forgotten, and is just as important (to me) as the 2nd amendment. EVERYONE conveniently forgets the 10th Amendment. Most people are just okay with the Federal Government violating our constitutional rights. We eat what they want us to eat... We watch what they want us to watch. It's disgusting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seanbrock 1,684 Posted May 11, 2011 Shit, I'd vote for Paul just to have the first honest human being in the oval office in quite some time. The guy just doesn't know how to bullshit and I really, really like that about him. He's not a politician. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Durant4MVP Posted May 11, 2011 Americans want a moderate president, not a radical one. Ron Paul and others like him have zero chance of being elected. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Favre4Ever+ 4,476 Posted May 11, 2011 Americans want a moderate president, not a radical one. Ron Paul and others like him have zero chance of being elected. I love how defending the constitution these days is seen as radical. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krawnka 282 Posted May 11, 2011 I love how defending the constitution these days is seen as radical. HAHA! If the midterm elections are any sort of window into the Presidential elections, I'd say Paul has a legitimate chance, at this point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Durant4MVP Posted May 11, 2011 I love how defending the constitution these days is seen as radical. How predictable of you to assume his radical ideas have anything to do with the constitution. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Durant4MVP Posted May 11, 2011 (edited) HAHA! If the midterm elections are any sort of window into the Presidential elections, That may have been a window had the Republicans not tried to turn Medicare into a voucher system. Republicans shot themselves in the foot. Edited May 11, 2011 by Durant4MVP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Favre4Ever+ 4,476 Posted May 11, 2011 How predictable of you to assume his radical ideas have anything to do with the constitution. How predictable of you to act like a dumb ass. Ron Paul is 120% for the Constitution. If there is something he wants to change that you see as radical, I'd be willing to bet it is something with the Constitution. And I am not saying Ron Paul will win. His biggest weakness is not that he is "radical"... It's that he is actually smart... Honest... and real. The American people like being fed bull shit and lies, and politicians win elections based on those lies. If Ron Paul says he wants to dismantle the Fed, you better believe he would dismantle the Fed as PotUS Ron Paul doesn't play games, and unlike 99.8% of politicians today, he actually reads the legislation that crosses his desk. If you watch any of the debates, Paul embarrasses his opponents because he, unlike them, knows what he is talking about. After the debate... Everyone was worshiping Herman Cain? My question is... why? Probably just because he's black, and all the white voters out there are throwing themselves a pity party for abusing blacks for the last X years. He didn't win the debate, far from it. They asked him what his stance on Iraq was... He replied by saying he didn't have a stance. Ya... definitely a guy I want running the country. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seanbrock 1,684 Posted May 11, 2011 Just because somebody is radical doesn't mean they're wrong. Our country NEEDS a radical change. I'd rather have Ron Paul than a glorified used car salesman as President which is pretty much any other option we would have. I'd consider voting for Kucinich if he ran but there is no way in hell that I will get behind another bullshit status quo politician. Fucking zero chance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Favre4Ever+ 4,476 Posted May 11, 2011 That may have been a window had the Republicans not tried to turn Medicare into a voucher system. Republicans shot themselves in the foot. The town hall meeting backlash has been huge. Uhh... Obama's health care plan is based off a Republican's plan. That weasel known as Mitt Romney. And Massachusetts HATES the plan. I LOVE OBAMA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Durant4MVP Posted May 11, 2011 How predictable of you to act like a dumb ass. Visibly upset. Ron Paul is 120% for the Constitution. If there is something he wants to change that you see as radical, I'd be willing to bet it is something with the Constitution. And I am not saying Ron Paul will win. His biggest weakness is not that he is "radical"... It's that he is actually smart... Honest... and real. The American people like being fed bull shit and lies, and politicians win elections based on those lies. If Ron Paul says he wants to dismantle the Fed, you better believe he would dismantle the Fed as PotUS Ron Paul doesn't play games, and unlike 99.8% of politicians today, he actually reads the legislation that crosses his desk. If you watch any of the debates, Paul embarrasses his opponents because he, unlike them, knows what he is talking about. After the debate... Everyone was worshiping Herman Cain? My question is... why? Probably just because he's black, and all the white voters out there are throwing themselves a pity party for abusing blacks for the last X years. He didn't win the debate, far from it. They asked him what his stance on Iraq was... He replied by saying he didn't have a stance. Ya... definitely a guy I want running the country. No, his biggest weakness is that he fails to understand the secondary effects of his policies beyond just their immediate impact on the problem that he is trying to solve. And no, he wouldn't disband the Fed either. He'll never get the support of Congress to do so, just like they wouldn't support any of his other crazy ass ideas. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Favre4Ever+ 4,476 Posted May 11, 2011 Visibly upset. No, his biggest weakness is that he fails to understand the secondary effects of his policies beyond just their immediate impact on the problem that he is trying to solve. And no, he wouldn't disband the Fed either. He'll never get the support of Congress to do so, just like they wouldn't support any of his other crazy ass ideas. You admitting he understands at all, puts him ahead of the other politicians running for office. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krawnka 282 Posted May 11, 2011 Most politicians are worse than used car salesmen. Most were lawyers in their larval state..... If you do some research on the Libertarian party, you'll discover that they are the single most Constitutionally minded political party of any significance. They're all for small government, which is the way it should be IMO, that's the way the Bill of rights was set up. They believe we waste too much money on the war on drugs, I have to agree, it's a money pit, that we're nowhere close to winning. The main thing I don't agree with the Libertarian party, is their stance that the US revert to Isolationism. Dec 7 1941 is a glaring reminder that the fight will come to you... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Durant4MVP Posted May 11, 2011 Uhh... Obama's health care plan is based off a Republican's plan. That weasel known as Mitt Romney. And Massachusetts HATES the plan. I LOVE OBAMA. Well you just proved to me how little you know about the reform legislation. But back to the point...: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Favre4Ever+ 4,476 Posted May 11, 2011 Most politicians are worse than used car salesmen. Most were lawyers in their larval state..... If you do some research on the Libertarian party, you'll discover that they are the single most Constitutionally minded political party of any significance. They're all for small government, which is the way it should be IMO, that's the way the Bill of rights was set up. They believe we waste too much money on the war on drugs, I have to agree, it's a money pit, that we're nowhere close to winning. The main thing I don't agree with the Libertarian party, is their stance that the US revert to Isolationism. Dec 7 1941 is a glaring reminder that the fight will come to you... Except for the fact that FDR wanted to be dragged into WWII. If it wasn't one thing, it was going to be another. And what most people don't understand about isolationism (not saying you fall into this category, just generally speaking). Is that Isolationism does not equal a weak national defense. our national defense would actually INCREASE if we just stopped acting like the worlds protector and just worry about our borders, our coasts, our cities, etc etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Durant4MVP Posted May 11, 2011 Except for the fact that FDR wanted to be dragged into WWII. If it wasn't one thing, it was going to be another. And what most people don't understand about isolationism (not saying you fall into this category, just generally speaking). Is that Isolationism does not equal a weak national defense. our national defense would actually INCREASE if we just stopped acting like the worlds protector and just worry about our borders, our coasts, our cities, etc etc. There's no place for isolationism in today's world. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krawnka 282 Posted May 11, 2011 (edited) Is that Isolationism does not equal a weak national defense. our national defense would actually INCREASE if we just stopped acting like the worlds protector and just worry about our borders, our coasts, our cities, etc etc. Oh I agree with that, take care of your own house before trying to clean up everyone else's. At the very least, secure our own borders and protect our citizens from civil unrest in our neighboring countries (Mexico) before trying to overthrow the leader of another country (Khadaffi), who had publicly allied against a common enemy (Al Qaeda). Edit: But you can't turn a blind eye to something as significant as WWII. There has to be a more "happy medium". Edited May 11, 2011 by Krawnka Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Favre4Ever+ 4,476 Posted May 11, 2011 There's no place for isolationism in today's world. I am not saying the US has to be 100% to ourselves, like the little red headed stepchild. But our foreign policies as they stand now are far too.... radical. We have troops in like.... 100 different countries (and that may be only a slight exaggeration). It'd be more of a happy medium, like Krawnka suggested. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 442 Posted May 11, 2011 I agree with Favre4eva about Herman Cain, I don't get what all the bullshit praise is for this guy. His answers were crap just like all the others up there. People probably praised him because he's a damn robot that just repeats what his republican party tells him to, and he's black so would be able to compete better with Obama. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maverick 791 Posted May 11, 2011 Favre4Ever nails it on the head. Well done mate. Yet again I completely disagree with Durant4MVP's political opinions... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
