Guess who raised $6m bucks? [Archive]

Rictor

12-17-2007, 10:32 AM

If there's one thing that US elections, especially presidential ones, have shown, it's that money=votes. So far I've always lamented this fact, since those with the most money tend to be the most corrupt, unprincipled hacks.

But the Paul campaign can start spending huge now in order to win NH and Iowa, knowing that they will never run out of money if they can only show results.

How is Ron Paul in the polls? Is he a middle weight in the Republican nonination? I don't hear anything about the US elections, only place i get info on it is from Daily show/Colbert Report.
Hehe, I'm Canadian too but I'm following this race very closely. He's at around 8% nationally and a little but higher in New Hampshire. Middle of the pack, but others are being embroiled in all sorts of scandals and controversies whereas Ron Paul is freaking choir-boy so no one has any dirt to dig up.

Beowulf

12-17-2007, 12:24 PM

Wow.

What's also impressive is the donation size per person.

2Sheds_Jackson

12-17-2007, 12:39 PM

Yeah well y'know - crazy people and recent religious converts are always the most enthusiastic. p-) I still say you guys are nuts. Paul is just gonna take your money and use it to build his Moonbase.

dedbunniez

12-17-2007, 12:41 PM

Sign me up for the moonbase. I have read too many asimov books not to want a moonbase.

Will938

12-17-2007, 12:57 PM

Yeah well y'know - crazy people and recent religious converts are always the most enthusiastic. p-) I still say you guys are nuts. Paul is just gonna take your money and use it to build his Moonbase.

**** that sounds tight, as long as I can have living quarters and one of those snazzy henchmen outfits I consider this a worthy cause.

Thor

12-17-2007, 01:13 PM

Incredible. A candidate who raises his capital from the electoral base, and not big businesses, is truly a man of the people.

shocker1

12-17-2007, 01:41 PM

Yeah well y'know - crazy people and recent religious converts are always the most enthusiastic. p-) I still say you guys are nuts. Paul is just gonna take your money and use it to build his Moonbase.
You are as crazy as an angry Iraqi woman catching a mini-Mr T in her Berka.
http://imageigloo.com/images/3169captsgekuz8714080718354zg5.jpg

Rictor

12-17-2007, 01:45 PM

Yeah well y'know - crazy people and recent religious converts are always the most enthusiastic. p-) I still say you guys are nuts. Paul is just gonna take your money and use it to build his Moonbase.

Yes, but there will be no taxes on the moonbase! And all drugs will be legal. Have fun on Earth, suckers!

dangerclose

12-17-2007, 01:49 PM

Now, does someone want to tell me again how Dr. Ron Paul isn't a top-tier candidate.

lol

If by top-tier you mean fringe wing-nut then sure. And for the guy who's going to donate $100. You know you don't get a refund right? Send it to me - I have as much a chance to win the nomination and I too promise to bring REAL change.

dimasorokine

12-17-2007, 02:03 PM

Funny how much most politicians are able to capitalize on people's total obsession with irrational fears and BS. And crazy how when a man comes along who actually appeals to the thinking, has REAL change on the agenda and has the interest of people in mind people can't quite grasp the idea of such a politician and proceed to throw verbal feces at him...

I'd like to challenge one person who apposes Ron Paul to present a valid point as to why he is a bad choice for president (NOTE: I said valid point, not mindless insult)

-Dima

shocker1

12-17-2007, 02:09 PM

Forget it, the GOP is about values. Like what Church you go to and how much War you like.

2Sheds_Jackson

12-17-2007, 02:17 PM

I'd like to challenge one person who apposes Ron Paul to present a valid point as to why he is a bad choice for president (NOTE: I said valid point, not mindless insult)

-Dima

Um, ok. How about this from his website:

No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

The Constitution does not require that Congress declare war, it simply grants them that power. If he's willing to put that much spin on what has been US policy for at least 60 years, I can't take him very seriously. What's he gonna do if he gets into the White House - tell us that gosh he was hiding under the rock and didn't know, or that he was just lying to get elected? Either way, me no likey.

He says a lot of nice things - but he's awfully short on his plans to get us there.

Hey I don't think he's the devil or anything...it's just that I'd rather be told an unpleasant truth than fed a steady diet of fluff.

JKD

12-17-2007, 02:18 PM

Well done. This was no small feat.

I also find it very telling that his most vocal and vicious critics come from the GOP. The party has drifted very far from what it once, and still purports, to stand for.

shocker1

12-17-2007, 02:34 PM

The Constitution does not require that Congress declare war, it simply grants them that power. wootIf he's willing to put that much spin on what has been US policy for at least 60 years, I can't take him very seriously. What's he gonna do if he gets into the White House - tell us that gosh he was hiding under the rock and didn't know, or that he was just lying to get elected? Either way, me no likey.

He says a lot of nice things - but he's awfully short on his plans to get us there.

Hey I don't think he's the devil or anything...it's just that I'd rather be told an unpleasant truth than fed a steady diet of fluff.
Nice stretch. Please tell us the wonderful plans of your favorite GOP bad boy. Huckabee and his Baptist Arkansas boy conquest plan, Rudy and his 911, shifty plan or Romney and his look at me I am the Mormon with chiseled hair feel sorry for me plan? How about McCain and his I am a POW, Vet, I will try this again with newspaper endorsement plan?

If anything is Fluff 2-sheds it is the fact that Huckabee and Rudy are being forced on us as the "Picks". If McCain was out front it would be more credible.

dimasorokine

12-17-2007, 02:43 PM

2Sheds_Jackson

12-17-2007, 02:57 PM

Nice stretch. Please tell us the wonderful plans of your favorite GOP bad boy. Huckabee and his Baptist Arkansas boy conquest plan, Rudy and his 911, shifty plan or Romney and his look at me I am the Mormon with chiseled hair feel sorry for me plan? How about McCain and his I am a POW, Vet, I will try this again with newspaper endorsement plan?

If anything is Fluff 2-sheds it is the fact that Huckabee and Rudy are being forced on us as the "Picks". If McCain was out front it would be more credible.

Well I really don't see it as a stretch. When he brings the Constitution into it, he's out of the realm of his opinion and into the realm of real policy. It would be fine with me if he wanted to change our policy - and said something like "under my administration, I will require a formal act of war before I commit any US troops to battle". But again - how does he change 60 years of policy to get us to that point?

My problem isn't with his policies per se, but with the rather late-night-radio-talk show method that he tries to sell them to us. He's clearly mis-stating the currently accepted meaning of the Constitution here on a well established issue...and apparently he thinks I'm dumb enough to swallow it. I'd rather that he not take such huge shortcuts when explaining the basis for his policies.

As to who's better - well I dunno. They all have policies I don't fully support etc...but none seem to be playing quite so fast and loose with their message. Their policies may not be so great - but I have less of a problem with the logic underlying their sh*tty policies. :)

shocker1

12-17-2007, 03:04 PM

Their policies may not be so great - but I have less of a problem with the logic underlying their sh*tty policies. :)
Yep we are so doomed. You still did not make an argument that makes sense to me. Must be my late night talk show syndrome.

FelixA9

12-17-2007, 03:06 PM

IMO the biggest problem looming on the horizon is in the financial/business area and that pretty much means Romney. Huckabee? Yikes. No president can solve ALL the problems and while terrorism isn't going away anytime soon I think we need to get our own house in order as we've overextended ourselves in many ways (or trying to.) Big picture, stuff like the dollar dropping, oil going up, foreign dependance on energy needs, social security, and military equipment being run out of hours at a frantic rate with procurement trainwrecks on the horizon for the Navy and the Air Force. . .well I think these issues have been neglected too long. True, there are reasons but they need attention and it's going to take someone who's organized and knows what's what in business.

2Sheds_Jackson

12-17-2007, 03:38 PM

Yep we are so doomed. You still did not make an argument that makes sense to me. Must be my late night talk show syndrome.

Now wait - you're tellin' me that when a candidate puts something that is verifiably incorrect on their website, as a basis for their policy...that's not a problem? And it's not like it's some minor policy, seeing as how we're at war at the moment. I mean come on. The man says that in order for us to go to war, Congress must declare a war - and that's simply not true. Will he govern that way? How could he? No president has done so since 1945. It sounds great - one can say it with a fixed steely glare and a squared jaw - but it's not true. To me it's as empty as selling the old time religion that the others are going with.

Hey I'm not saying that any of these other guys are any better. They all suck to varying degrees if you ask me. I'm finding it difficult to get excited about any of 'em. :-( Maybe a moonbase wouldn't be so bad after all.

Will938

12-17-2007, 03:43 PM

lol

If by top-tier you mean fringe wing-nut then sure. And for the guy who's going to donate $100. You know you don't get a refund right? Send it to me - I have as much a chance to win the nomination and I too promise to bring REAL change.

So here's how this is going to work. You make your "fringe wing-nut" claim, I come in ask you what justifies that title. You then either: (A) Don't respond, or (B) tell me some bull**** that you heard from some guy once and is immediately disproved once again. Well either that or you consider constitutional principles crazy, in which case I don't much care about your opinion. So go ahead and lets start this again.

Zalmoxes

12-17-2007, 03:51 PM

hank

12-17-2007, 03:54 PM

I know Rep. Paul will not become president, but I hope he gets the V.P. ticket. He has my vote, unless there is a chance that a democrat will win; in that case I'll go with the highest ranked republican.

Are you paying attention? A "chance" a democrat will win? Its almost a statistical certainty.

hank

JKD

12-17-2007, 03:55 PM

I know Rep. Paul will not become president, but I hope he gets the V.P. ticket. Not a chance of any of those big governemnt hawkish Republicans picking Paul as their running mate.

Will938

12-17-2007, 04:03 PM

Um, ok. How about this from his website:

The Constitution does not require that Congress declare war, it simply grants them that power. If he's willing to put that much spin on what has been US policy for at least 60 years, I can't take him very seriously. What's he gonna do if he gets into the White House - tell us that gosh he was hiding under the rock and didn't know, or that he was just lying to get elected? Either way, me no likey.

He says a lot of nice things - but he's awfully short on his plans to get us there.

Hey I don't think he's the devil or anything...it's just that I'd rather be told an unpleasant truth than fed a steady diet of fluff.

Well that all goes back to framer's intent. Was it their intent to allow the executive branch to go to war without the support of the rest of the country? What is war, and what did they mean when they said that congress had the power to declare war? That they had the power to sign what would amount to a meaningless piece of paper by your standard (and the president was free to do as he pleased regardless), or that the executive branch isn't supposed to go to war with other countries until congress says so? I guess we'll have to pull a Clinton and disagree over what the intended definition of "declare" is.

As opposed to every other candidate that says a lot of nice things with no intentions on getting us there. Is there a candidate who gives us any less BS than him? His position never changes and he speaks what he thinks, that alone gives him more credit for me than anyone else. I like two other candidates, well, I think they're scumbags, but they're better scumbags than the rest. None of their plans for the moonbase have rubbed me right however.

Zalmoxes

12-17-2007, 04:12 PM

Hank. Get out more. Obama, Hillary????? Are u down with the flu? Those two should be happy if they get 40% of the total vote when it matters.

dimasorokine

12-17-2007, 04:13 PM

Lt. James Anderson

12-17-2007, 04:27 PM

I know at least 25 people who support Ron Paul and only three of them have donated money to his campaign so far. Ron Pauls' support is a lot wider than the communist propaganda media wants you to believe ...

2Sheds_Jackson

12-17-2007, 04:32 PM

Well that all goes back to framer's intent. Was it their intent to allow the executive branch to go to war without the support of the rest of the country? What is war, and what did they mean when they said that congress had the power to declare war? That they had the power to sign what would amount to a meaningless piece of paper by your standard (and the president was free to do as he pleased regardless), or that the executive branch isn't supposed to go to war with other countries until congress says so? I guess we'll have to pull a Clinton and disagree over what the intended definition of "declare" is.

Well...Congress has granted the "authorization of the use of force" more than it has declared war. Jefferson - one of the framers - who'd presumably know his own intent - did it in his own imperialist intervention in Muslim lands in 1801 >sarcasm< . It was first done even before that in 1798. It's not like it's something Bush invented. It's kinda how we've always done things.

As opposed to every other candidate that says a lot of nice things with no intentions on getting us there. Is there a candidate who gives us any less BS than him? His position never changes and he speaks what he thinks, that alone gives him more credit for me than anyone else. I like two other candidates, well, I think they're scumbags, but they're better scumbags than the rest. None of their plans for the moonbase have rubbed me right however.

I'm all for straight talk, like Andy taking ol' Opie out to the front porch where Aunt Bee can't overhear them, and telling it like it is. "Son, you're a good boy and I need to tell it like it is. All women are whores. There it is son. Worthless, terrible whores who'll put you under the bus to Mt. Pilot in two seconds if they have the chance". I like a lot of Paul's positions - I just don't like how he connects the dots to get there.

Not a chance of any of those big governemnt hawkish Republicans picking Paul as their running mate.

That's probably true. Which is unfortunate - since I think he wouldn't be a half-bad VP. As Cheney has shown, having one of Satan's soul-less minions as veep is very useful.

Again guys - I'm not intending to beat up on Paul. I just don't think he has an honest chance (due to the moonbase project) - and the gauntlet was thrown down to back up opinion with something concrete -which I've tried to do. I'd heard good things about Paul and went to his website months ago to get info - and my heart sank when I started reading his positions. My first thought was "oh man he'll never be able to back up these policies if they're legally challenged".

hank

12-17-2007, 04:38 PM

Hank. Get out more. Obama, Hillary????? Are u down with the flu? Those two should be happy if they get 40% of the total vote when it matters.

Are you seriously saying that right now, based on the numbers, a Republican will win the general election? If you do I'll just have to disagree. What are you basing that on? I read the paper everyday and keep up with it and I don't see a Republican candidate that has a chance against either.

Remember also that Clinton won twice without getting 50% of the popular (I think it was 41% and 44% but you can check me on that).

A democrat will almost certainly be the next president. As a life long Republican who voted for HWx2, Dole, and Wx2 I don't like that but its almost a certainty.

hank

hank

12-17-2007, 04:39 PM

2 sheds, we've already been this route and Paul supporters won't see your point. The fact is that none of Paul's platform is implementable and a lot of it is constitutional unless the SC changes course fully (which won't happen). But that doesn't matter because Paul will magically figure out how to get Reps and Dems to come together to achieve his goals.

RIIIIIIIGHT!?!

hank

Rictor

12-17-2007, 04:40 PM

Well...Congress has granted the "authorization of the use of force" more than it has declared war. Jefferson - one of the framers - who'd presumably know his own intent - did it in his own imperialist intervention in Muslim lands in 1801 >sarcasm< . It was first done even before that in 1798. It's not like it's something Bush invented. It's kinda how we've always done things.

Let's say you're absolutely right about Congress' role in declaring war. I don't think you are, but let's say for the sake of arguement you are.

What does that prove? "We've always done it like this" is hardly an arguement. Slavery was around for a few millenia until one day someone came along as said "that's not right". Peasants were indentured to feudal landowners until one day they weren't any more. I'm not implying that Ron Paul's part is as significant as any of those, but you get the point.

hank

12-17-2007, 04:44 PM

Let's say you're absolutely right about Congress' role in declaring war. I don't think you are, but let's say for the sake of arguement you are.

What does that prove? "We've always done it like this" is hardly an arguement. Slavery was around for a few millenia until one day someone came along as said "that's not right". Peasants were indentured to feudal landowners until one day they weren't any more. I'm not implying that Ron Paul's part is as significant as any of those, but you get the point.

2 sheds' point is well made and one that I have tried to make to Paul supporters. If its constitutional now for a Pres to commit troops and SCOTUS has said just that, then there are only 2 ways you could get it declared unconstitutional. First, you could change the constitution. That requires a convention and ratification by 2/3 of the states. If Paul can't get doublt digit support among Republicans, how can he get the wide bi-partisan support to accomplis that? He can't. No matter how much you like him, or agree with him, or are convinced he is right, he just can't accomplish it. Even if you were right, its not going to happen.

Second, he could get the Court to declare it unconstitutional. That won't happen either. Roberts wouldn't even take a case on that issue. Why? Because the written constitution allows Presidents to do it. Always has an always will.

Not implementable. This is just one example of the stuff Paul wants that cannot happen just because the chief executive wants it to.

hank

ViktorNavorski

12-17-2007, 04:45 PM

Just as I thought, no one presents any valid points as to why Ron Paul is a bad candidate - so much for the challenge. And 2-Sheds, willing to ignore everything overwhelmingly positive and different Ron Paul believes and bring up a small (read:tiny and irrelevent) as a valid point to dismiss this man makes me wonder:

Is it more important to believe that everything is ok in the United States, or for it to actually be ok? I guess there are 2 different types of patriots.

-DimaYou provided: no counter-arguments because you couldn't, so you dismissed a Constitutional discussion as "tiny and irrelevant"...and then declared victory. What an intelligent debate that was. To add to what 2Sheds stated and devil's advocate, Congress's War Powers Act of 1973 vis-a-vis War Powers Clause, war powers are divided and not equal, the Executive is merely reaping what Congress sow. Iraq may be the issue of the day, but from what I gathered at his website, his main point has been nonintervention/police action, period. Far more reaching than just Iraq, good or bad.

I neither support nor not support him at this point, it's still 2007, while I find some of his objectives inspiring, I also find it to be unrealistic. On one hand he support free trade but reject the WTO, which the U.S. has utilized regularly to setter trade disputes and will continue to do so. It and Doha are two of the primary driving forces behind international free trade. Federal fundings through "non-protectionist tariffs," who are we kidding, there's no such thing as "non-protectionist" when it come to tariffs.

2Sheds_Jackson

12-17-2007, 04:49 PM

Just as I thought, no one presents any valid points as to why Ron Paul is a bad candidate - so much for the challenge. And 2-Sheds, willing to ignore everything overwhelmingly positive and different Ron Paul believes and bring up a small (read:tiny and irrelevent) as a valid point to dismiss this man makes me wonder:

Oh man. I'm sorry but you do realize you've contradicted yourself within one paragraph, right? "No one presents any valid points...except 2Sheds who I will choose to ignore". Call me crazy, but I assumed that the paramount issue of our time - the Iraq war/separation of powers might have been sufficiently important. No? Then what is? Or must every one of his positions be proven unsupportable for you to consider any one of the points "valid"? I could go on with the guy's website but why bother? You want another?

How about his claim that his claim that "we were misled" on Iraq intel? Remember that he voted "no" (which is fine by me) - but it disproves his own assertion. He was not misled - why does he claim others were? If he truly believed that the executive branch misled the nation - where is his push to impeach Bush? It would be his duty, if that's what he really believed. On one hand he accuses the administration of misleading the nation, on the other he says the administration has done nothing illegal. It's just another baseless spin job, just like everybody else.

Whether these two entirely valid points are important enough to warrant somebody not voting for him - I leave entirely with the eye of the beholder. It's a separate issue that each of us must wrestle with. But this idea of Paul being some kind of paragon of rectitude alone in the wilderness is simply a myth. Anybody basing their vote on that concept alone has been fooled.

dimasorokine

12-17-2007, 05:00 PM

You provided: no counter-arguments because you couldn't, so you dismissed a Constitutional discussion as "tiny and irrelevant"...and then declared victory. What an intelligent debate that was. To add to what 2Sheds stated and devil's advocate, Congress's War Powers Act of 1973 vis-a-vis War Powers Clause, war powers are divided and not equal, the Executive is merely reaping what Congress sow. Iraq may be the issue of the day, but from what I gathered at his website, his main point has been nonintervention/police action, period. Far more reaching than just Iraq, good or bad.

I neither support nor not support him at this point, it's still 2007, while I find some of his objectives inspiring, I also find it to be unrealistic. On one hand he support free trade but reject the WTO, which the U.S. has utilized regularly to setter trade disputes and will continue to do so. It and Doha are two of the primary driving forces behind international free trade. Federal fundings through "non-protectionist tariffs," who are we kidding, there's no such thing as "non-protectionist" when it come to tariffs.

1. There is no counter arguement because I trully believe it to be irrelevent. Honestly, I do. Why? Because Ron Pauls position and plans are so different than the rest of the candidates you must look at the big picture as a whole as apposed to picking through small details...Ron Paul promises to change the "big picture", therefore thats my main area of concern.

2. As for being unrealistic, I agree to an extent (all politicians make big promises) - however to me the direction Ron Paul takes the United States is more important than him being able to accomplish 100% of his goals...All politicians present a grand plan and make promises, few acomplish all their promises but generally succeed in making progress in the "right" directions.

-Dima

2Sheds_Jackson

12-17-2007, 05:00 PM

But that doesn't matter because Paul will magically figure out how to get Reps and Dems to come together to achieve his goals.

RIIIIIIIGHT!?!

hank

Hey man, don't put it past him. I just noticed that he managed to get you and me on the same side of an issue...so he might pull that one off too. :)

I think that to some extent the guy has gotten a free ride, flying under the radar so far. I think he'd pretty quickly get torpedoed if he had to undergo the same media colonoscopy as the rest of the plastic-hair bunch.

JKD

12-17-2007, 05:02 PM

That's probably true. Which is unfortunate - since I think he wouldn't be a half-bad VP. As Cheney has shown, having one of Satan's soul-less minions as veep is very useful.
Not sure Cheney's been all that usefull for the United States, it's constitution, seperation of powers, or our foreign policy, but yeah I guess Paul wouldn't make a bad VP.

Originally Posted by hank
2 sheds, we've already been this route and Paul supporters won't see your point. The fact is that none of Paul's platform is implementable and a lot of it is constitutional unless the SC changes course fully (which won't happen). But that doesn't matter because Paul will magically figure out how to get Reps and Dems to come together to achieve his goals.

RIIIIIIIGHT!?!
I don't think he'll be able to implement all his ideas. Hell, I don't even agree with every single one of his ideas. I lean libertarian but I'm not a full on libertarian like Congressman Paul. I know he has to work with the congress and established law. That said, I feel perfectly comfortable giving this guy the veto pen and the keys to the White House. I don't think he'll do any harm, as oppsed to his competition. I cringe every time Giuliani and most of the others start talking foreign policy.

I think for a lot of folks it's more about the general message he carries to the DC establishment...which is: "F*** you, *ssholes!". Sure he won't be able to impliment everything but that's no the point.

Originally Posted by Zalmoxes
Hank. Get out more. Obama, Hillary????? Are u down with the flu? Those two should be happy if they get 40% of the total vote when it matters.
I've spoken with a number of Republicans who plan on holding their nose and voting for the Democratic nominee this time around.

hank

12-17-2007, 05:08 PM

Hey man, don't put it past him. I just noticed that he managed to get you and I on the same side of an issue...so he might pull that one off too. :)

I think that to some extent the guy has gotten a free ride, flying under the radar so far. I think he'd pretty quickly get torpedoed if he had to undergo the same media colonoscopy as the rest of the plastic-hair bunch.

It is indeed an unusual position for us to be in.

With a few exceptions (Shocker being the best example) Paul appeals to younger people who think "change" is good from a perception standpoint. Most supporters say Paul can't accomplish "a lot" of his goals but that's ok because he will change the "climate" in DC. What?

I respect Shocker's position because he to a large extent acknowledges that Paul will lose and that even if he won he would face insurmountable challenges, but he supports him on principle. I can respect that.

These people who say Paul will kick ass and get **** done, though, are not paying attention. Paul simply cannot accomplish most of his platform under our current constitution. For me, that is a deal breaker. I'm not idealistic enough anymore to vote for Paul. I know I won't be happy with anyone elected (even Paul) and that whoever gets elected will do only that necessary to get reelected so I accept that.

Let's face it. Politics in the US is a series of compromises that suck, we all just need to understand that.

Now if Paul's platform called for a constitutional convention and REAL change then I might get on board. But alas, that won't happen either.

hank

Rictor

12-17-2007, 05:12 PM

2 sheds' point is well made and one that I have tried to make to Paul supporters. If its constitutional now for a Pres to commit troops and SCOTUS has said just that, then there are only 2 ways you could get it declared unconstitutional. First, you could change the constitution. That requires a convention and ratification by 2/3 of the states. If Paul can't get doublt digit support among Republicans, how can he get the wide bi-partisan support to accomplis that? He can't. No matter how much you like him, or agree with him, or are convinced he is right, he just can't accomplish it. Even if you were right, its not going to happen.

Second, he could get the Court to declare it unconstitutional. That won't happen either. Roberts wouldn't even take a case on that issue. Why? Because the written constitution allows Presidents to do it. Always has an always will.

Not implementable. This is just one example of the stuff Paul wants that cannot happen just because the chief executive wants it to.

hank

I've said it before and I'll say it again: better that he try to do something positive and fail than try to do something negative and succeed. From where I'm standing, the vast majority of candidates, both Republican and Democrat, are statists. Their positions, with a few exceptions, are 180* from what I agree with. I don't want to be able to implement anything on their agenda.

If you haven't noticed, RP and the other Republican candidates hold almost diametrically opposite positions on the proper role of state power. If you think one leads to more freedom and the other to less, as I do, than having the pro-freedom agenda not implemented in better than having the anti-freedom agenda implemented.

hank

12-17-2007, 05:13 PM

I think for a lot of folks it's more about the general message he carries to the DC establishment...which is: "F*** you, *ssholes!". Sure he won't be able to impliment everything but that's no the point.

This is going to sound disrespectful but its not. That position is naive to the point of absurdity. Do you think for one minute that Ted Kennedy gives a flying f*ck about whether Ron Paul thinks he is an asshole? Ted Kennedy and people like him would squash everything Paul tried to do just to show him what real power feels like. I have no time for that. I want the candidate with the support to get Ted Kennedy to vote for something Ted doesn't believe in. Paul doesn't have that.

That is one reason why W disappoints me so. He initially had the support to do to the dems what Clinton did to us and he wasted it on Iraq and a condescending attitude more interested in making dems feel bad than achieving his agenda. Such a huge waste of a position Republicans had worked so hard to achieve.

hank

hank

12-17-2007, 05:15 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again: better that he try to do something positive and fail than try to do something negative and succeed. From where I'm standing, the vast majority of candidates, both Republican and Democrat, are statists. Their positions, with a few exceptions, are 180* from what I agree with. I don't want to be able to implement anything on their agenda.

If you haven't noticed, RP and the other Republican candidates hold almost diametrically opposite positions on the proper role of state power. If you think one leads to more freedom and the other to less, as I do, than having the pro-freedom agenda not implemented in better than having the anti-freedom agenda implemented.

Dude, you keep saying try. How will Paul try? What will he do as a lone wolf President whom both sides hate.

How will he do anything. Every position he takes will be declared unconstitutional.

Every legislation he proposes will get squashed in committee.

Its pointless.

hank

dimasorokine

12-17-2007, 05:26 PM

Oh man. I'm sorry but you do realize you've contradicted yourself within one paragraph, right? "No one presents any valid points...except 2Sheds who I will choose to ignore". Call me crazy, but I assumed that the paramount issue of our time - the Iraq war/separation of powers might have been sufficiently important. No? Then what is? Or must every one of his positions be proven unsupportable for you to consider any one of the points "valid"? I could go on with the guy's website but why bother? You want another?

How about his claim that his claim that "we were misled" on Iraq intel? Remember that he voted "no" (which is fine by me) - but it disproves his own assertion. He was not misled - why does he claim others were? If he truly believed that the executive branch misled the nation - where is his push to impeach Bush? It would be his duty, if that's what he really believed. On one hand he accuses the administration of misleading the nation, on the other he says the administration has done nothing illegal. It's just another baseless spin job, just like everybody else.

Whether these two entirely valid points are important enough to warrant somebody not voting for him - I leave entirely with the eye of the beholder. It's a separate issue that each of us must wrestle with. But this idea of Paul being some kind of paragon of rectitude alone in the wilderness is simply a myth. Anybody basing their vote on that concept alone has been fooled.

“Oh man. I'm sorry but you do realize you've contradicted yourself within one paragraph, right? "No one presents any valid points...except 2Sheds who I will choose to ignore". Call me crazy, but I assumed that the paramount issue of our time - the Iraq war/separation of powers might have been sufficiently important. No? Then what is? Or must every one of his positions be proven unsupportable for you to consider any one of the points "valid"? I could go on with the guy's website but why bother? You want another?”

LOL Nice quotations there 2Sheds, our difference in opinion indeed comes from what we believe to be “Valid points”…

”How about his claim that his claim that "we were misled" on Iraq intel? Remember that he voted "no" (which is fine by me) - but it disproves his own assertion. He was not misled - why does he claim others were? If he truly believed that the executive branch misled the nation - where is his push to impeach Bush? It would be his duty, if that's what he really believed. On one hand he accuses the administration of misleading the nation, on the other he says the administration has done nothing illegal. It's just another baseless spin job, just like everybody else”

That is just unbelievable, this logic can be applied x10 to the other frontrunners. Talking about duty and assertions here is pointless, everything you say about Ron Paul can be applied to the other candidates…why not stick to the major issues?

”Whether these two entirely valid points are important enough to warrant somebody not voting for him - I leave entirely with the eye of the beholder. It's a separate issue that each of us must wrestle with. But this idea of Paul being some kind of paragon of rectitude alone in the wilderness is simply a myth. Anybody basing their vote on that concept alone has been fooled.”

Here’s where I stand (just so you know): I like the direction Ron Paul wants to take the United States (foreign policy, Iraq, IRS, Income Tax etc.). I like the foundation of his policy, I like that he stands for change – real change. To me, the fact that Ron Paul was against the war to begin with and wants to take US foreign policy in a less aggressive direction means A LOT more to me than a slight disagreement is his interpretation on the constitution (this interpretation is not a negative one I might add, not as negative as those made by the Bush admin).

Based on the weight I put on his fundamental ideas and policies, in my opinion your points are not as relevant to me as they are to you.

-Dima

California Joe

12-17-2007, 05:30 PM

All I know is after 2Sheds post I keep picturing Andy and Barney tag teaming Helen Crump and Thelma Lou doggystyle in a sleazy motel between Mayberry and Mt. Pilot while Floyd the Barber films it like Bob Crane, behind a 2 way mirror... Howard Sprague is trying to get Opie to take his shirt off while they look at comic books. And Ernest T. Bass is peeping Aunt Bee while she takes a bath.

hank

12-17-2007, 05:31 PM

"Nip it, nip it, nip it in the bud" has new meaning for me. Thanks a lot CJ.

hank

szr

12-17-2007, 05:33 PM

This is going to sound disrespectful but its not. That position is naive to the point of absurdity. Do you think for one minute that Ted Kennedy gives a flying f*ck about whether Ron Paul thinks he is an asshole? Ted Kennedy and people like him would squash everything Paul tried to do just to show him what real power feels like. I have no time for that. I want the candidate with the support to get Ted Kennedy to vote for something Ted doesn't believe in. Paul doesn't have that.x2. First off, I'd love to vote for someone who'd really "shake things up", whatever that means.

Ever see a President who was a lame duck from day one? Ron Paul's positions are so ridiculous that he'd be laughed out of Washington. It'd be a waste of 4 years. Ron Paul is the Dennis Kucinich of the GOP candidates. His candidacy is purposeful in that he'll bring attention to certain important but 'untouchable' issues by taking positions that other candidates are, quite frankly, too smart to take. But he isn't not a fringe candidate.

California Joe

12-17-2007, 05:36 PM

He'd turn into Jimmy Carter, a basically good man who was over his head in Washington and go down in history as a guy who couldn't get anything done.

Sad but true.

hank

12-17-2007, 05:38 PM

Jimmy is a good example. Totaly reduced to irrelevance. Even staunch Dems turn and run when he comes there way.

As an aside, I once played basketball against his grandson. He was good too. And a nice guy.

hank

JKD

12-17-2007, 05:38 PM

This is going to sound disrespectful but its not. That position is naive to the point of absurdity. Do you think for one minute that Ted Kennedy gives a flying f*ck about whether Ron Paul thinks he is an asshole?
No I don't. But, as I said, I think that's where a lot of Pauls support comes from whether you, I, or Ted Kennedy agree.

Ted Kennedy and people like him would squash everything Paul tried to do just to show him what real power feels like. I have no time for that. I want the candidate with the support to get Ted Kennedy to vote for something Ted doesn't believe in. Paul doesn't have that.
At this point I'm looking for a candidate who won't do any more harm. I look at the GOP field and don't see anyone other than Paul I can say that about. I see them as being harmfull to this nation.

I don't think he has a chance of getting the nomination but I like him. I'll end up voting for the Dems this time around I'm sure.

That is one reason why W disappoints me so. He initially had the support to do to the dems what Clinton did to us and he wasted it on Iraq and a condescending attitude more interested in making dems feel bad than achieving his agenda. Such a huge waste of a position Republicans had worked so hard to achieve.

hank
I voted for Dubya in '00. I can't think of a single thing, other than Afghanistan, he's done right or that I agree with. I cannot wait 'till he leaves office. Worst. President. Ever.

hank

12-17-2007, 05:42 PM

Bush had the keys to the castle and squandered it. Such a waste. Really got nothing done whatsoever. A real shame.

I can't make myself vote Dem although I think Obama is a magnetic personality type (a la Kennedy) who has the potential to be one who transcends politics but really does very little. I'm not sure he can win this time but he will be President I think.

Hillary needs to die, and die soon. If she gets elected it will be a rough 8 years.

hank

phoilme

12-17-2007, 05:46 PM

remember. There is a difference between pledges and collections.

California Joe

12-17-2007, 05:53 PM

The frigging Republicans this time around are a goddamned joke. It's bizarre. It's almost ike there really is a secret cabal that has determined that the daughter of Satan will rule the free world for the next 8 years so the opposition party was required to run only supremely beatable candidates.

They don't believe in evolution, they cheat on not one, but 3 wives and get taxpayers to pay for it, they have plastic hair and believe in the next to dumbest religion after Scientology,

They were war heroes that squandered their 1 shot by backing the current imbecile in chief for a promise at the nomination, they can't be arsed to get out and actually campaign cause they're busy f*cking some trophy wife they got from being on Law and Order and she is busy pretending it's Bradd Pitt instead of some old wrinkled balls hound dog looking old guy porking her.

Unbelievable.

shocker1

12-17-2007, 06:00 PM

Why does shocker support Ron Paul? Because he is all about limited Federal Government, Anti-Federal Reserve of which my position has been since my economics awarness, anti-WTO/UN/NWO/ think tanks ect.. anti-War On Drugs, Conservative spending and States Rights issues. I would debate his reasoning for some opposition to some defense bills.

That said not one person has made a valid reason for not supporting him in this thread. Lame duck my ass as most of the policies he wants to champion will strike a chord if coming from the POTUS. If our overlords in Congress want to keep a job they will have to respond. Congress has let us down over and over and over again and people like Kennedy and such sit up there like heads of a Mafia.

I am not some young ignorant punk who wants his weed at the corner market. I would like to consider myself an intelligent, rational business owner who understands what our nation is heading for. I do not like what we are doing so in that respect Dr. Paul has the medicine.

California Joe

12-17-2007, 06:06 PM

That's why hank said he respects your opinion. Duh. :)

shocker1

12-17-2007, 06:08 PM

remember. There is a difference between pledges and collections.
These are credit card receipts and paid donations. Not pledges

That's why hank said he respects your opinion. Duh. :)
That is the inner- lawyer in him saying, "the man makes a good case, no argument here your honor"

Thor

12-17-2007, 06:17 PM

When you mention Jimmy Carter as a president who accomplished little you forget someone with a similar record: Bill Clinton.

dimasorokine

12-17-2007, 06:20 PM

Shocker, I think a lot people who are Economically and Financially aware are pro Ron Paul.

-Dima

PS: I'm a business owner as well.

2Sheds_Jackson

12-17-2007, 06:21 PM

Not sure Cheney's been all that usefull for the United States, it's constitution, seperation of powers, or our foreign policy, but yeah I guess Paul wouldn't make a bad VP.

Well that may be true. But you have to look at it from the administration's POV - they want to implement what they want to implement...whether or not it's "good" for the country (since what's "good" will change based upon who you ask). They just need somebody to get it done - so yeah he could be useful in that position. God knows we could use somebody who can actually communicate for a change.

I am not some young ignorant punk who wants his weed at the corner market. I would like to consider myself an intelligent, rational business owner who understands what our nation is heading for. I do not like what we are doing so in that respect Dr. Paul has the medicine.

Yeah yeah, the medicine. But I'm gonna shamelessly steal your analogy and say that his medicine isn't FDA approved so he won't get to administer it. So what good is it? I'm fairly certain the hill would steal his lunch money and give him an atomic wedgie.

I'm not idealistic enough anymore to vote for Paul.

I guess that pretty much sums up my position. Can we call the election off and try again?

Howard Sprague is trying to get Opie to take his shirt off while they look at comic books.

I totally got that vibe from Howard. He smiles too much, and is flagrantly moody. Was there ever an episode where he dressed up like a clown? If not, there should have been.

As bad as our current crop of Republicans are, I still love and want to snuggle each and every one of them when compared to the Democrats. They should be set adrift on an ice flow as far as I'm concerned.

szr

12-17-2007, 06:26 PM

shocker1

12-17-2007, 06:28 PM

Yeah yeah, the medicine. But I'm gonna shamelessly steal your analogy and say that his medicine isn't FDA approved so he won't get to administer it. So what good is it? I'm fairly certain the hill would steal his lunch money and give him an atomic wedgie.

I still love and want to snuggle each and every one of them when compared to the Democrats. They should be set adrift on an ice flow as far as I'm concerned.
The FDA LOL he keeps raising money like this they will chase him down for approval!!! Yes I hate all Democrats, don't worry pal I would vote for Satan first.

shocker1

12-17-2007, 06:32 PM

I admire you conviction, shocker, but I, honest to God, believe Congress would close ranks against him so fast that he'd either fall into the fold or be marginalized for his entire presidency.

Either way, he gets very little done.
I do not base my vote on what Congress will allow my POTUS to do. Rather I support a candidate based on the policies he supports and if they fall anywhere close to mine. If my people in Congress go against that then according to the system I vote them out. At least that's what voting was about in Civics class in the 90's. To bad we base it on the percentage opinion of a 1000 people with telephones at home and who might win according to Prime Time talking heads.

Thor

12-17-2007, 06:36 PM

The notion here seems to be that you have to vote for a candidate that you don't necessarily agree with, or who you don't necessarily think has the best character, since that is how the system works.

What's the point of having elections then? Why not just let the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies get together and have a vote?

I say vote according to your conscience or don't vote at all.

Beowulf

12-17-2007, 06:52 PM

I do not base my vote on what Congress will allow my POTUS to do. Rather I support a candidate based on the policies he supports and if they fall anywhere close to mine. If my people in Congress go against that then according to the system I vote them out. At least that's what voting was about in Civics class in the 90's. To bad we base it on the percentage opinion of a 1000 people with telephones at home and who might win according to Prime Time talking heads.

Shocker is doin a pretty good job of representing some of my thoughts concerning Congressman Paul.

I agree with many of the underlying principles that Mr Paul espouses, and think that his fund-raising and popularity should not go unnoticed by the Republican Party.

It should be a signal for the party to get back to its traditional positions, i.e. limited government, less taxes, less spending, states rights etc.

szr

12-17-2007, 07:02 PM

Shocker is doin a pretty good job of representing some of my thoughts concerning Congressman Paul.

I agree with many of the underlying principles that Mr Paul espouses, and think that his fund-raising and popularity should not go unnoticed by the Republican Party.

It should be a signal for the party to get back to its traditional positions, i.e. limited government, less taxes, less spending, states rights etc.
And that is where I think Rep. Paul's candidacy can affect the most change.

I think of myself as a fiscal conservative whose biggest single issue is states rights and intergovenmental relations. Decentralized, devolved government is at the center of my political beliefs. The social conservative stuff of the last 8 years never really struck a chord with me. I agree in principle with a lot of the basic sentiments underlying his positions. It's the way he's fleshed out his policy goals from those beginning sentiments that give me pause when I consider where to commit my vote.

FelixA9

12-17-2007, 08:30 PM

1234567890

angry cow

12-17-2007, 08:33 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/republican_primaries.html

/\ Republican Polls if any wants to know.

Hilbert

12-17-2007, 08:33 PM

I just hope Paul runs independent when he doesn't get the GOP nomination.

Zoomie

12-17-2007, 08:36 PM

I just hope Paul runs independent when he doesn't get the GOP nomination.
He's said numerous times that he won't.

Hilbert

12-17-2007, 08:38 PM

He's said numerous times that he won't.

... Yeah, I know, unfortunately.

D-gin

12-17-2007, 08:42 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/republican_primaries.html

/\ Republican Polls if any wants to know.

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/5609/000000000000000xk3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Those are interesting numbers to me considering that not one person I know says they will vote for Giuliani.

Maj C

12-17-2007, 08:48 PM

Spuyten_duyvil

12-17-2007, 08:54 PM

Ron Paul is absolutely not going to get elected, and caters to idiots. His entire base makes evangelicals look classy. OCD members like shocker need to CALM DOWN

Spuyten_duyvil

12-17-2007, 08:55 PM

Shocker, I think a lot people who are Economically and Financially aware are pro Ron Paul.

-Dima

PS: I'm a business owner as well.
Lmfao, WRONG. Go to Wharton school of business and try to weed out a ROn Paul supporter...probably going to be the janitor that you find.

shocker1

12-17-2007, 08:55 PM

Ron Paul is absolutely not going to get elected, and caters to idiots. His entire base makes evangelicals look classy. OCD members like shocker need to CALM DOWN
And who the hell are you? I will calm down when someone of some importance here tells me to do so. Call me and my friends idiots again.:bash:

Bye Bye

Spuyten_duyvil

12-17-2007, 08:58 PM

And who the hell are you? I will calm down when someone of some importance here tells me to do so. Call me and my friends idiots again.:bash:

Bye Bye
You should get a new hobby. Trying to represent for Ron Paul makes you looks obsessive and silly.

California Joe

12-17-2007, 09:00 PM

There was no need for that.

shocker1

12-17-2007, 09:05 PM

Look guys, if you want to argue against Ron Paul there are many valid issues to debate just as with any candidate. A few have made some good arguments so it is not impossible to do so. On the whole though, it seems most use insults, jabs and incoherent rambling to express the indignation for Ron's policies. Intelligence may not always win the argument but it does give me credibility. Some of you should try using the grey matter.

Hilbert

12-17-2007, 09:12 PM

Some of you should try using the grey matter.

Remember shocker, some people don't have the gray matter.

Danik

12-17-2007, 09:43 PM

I find a lot of left-wing folks supporting Ron Paul. The same people who protest against Bush are throwing their weight behind him. Is it just me, or did any one else notice that this man is extremely right-wing by today's standards? He is what the republican party used to represent. While I agree that some of his ideas are genuinely good and could possibly lead to an increase in the general welfare of US citizens, I don't think its possible in a span of 4-8 years to test them if he is elected.

ibstolidude

12-17-2007, 09:45 PM

Wow.

What's also impressive is the donation size per person.
Stop watching me in the shower... perv.

It is an amazing feat, however history has shown that funds do not always translate into success; legitimacy and personal connection are much more important.... wait, were we talking about Politics, COIN, or trying to get laid?

Hilbert

12-17-2007, 10:53 PM

Danik

12-17-2007, 11:29 PM

I don't know about many of the other guys, but I support Ron Paul because he actually follows the U.S. Constitution rather than stomping all over it.

OK.

What part of his plan are you with? Can you even tell me what hes planning to do once elected?

You are aware he could not have "stomped all over" the constitution simply because he has not yet had the chance?

Flagg

12-18-2007, 01:31 AM

Lmfao, WRONG. Go to Wharton school of business and try to weed out a ROn Paul supporter...probably going to be the janitor that you find.

I attended.....and I like Ron Paul.

the problem I see(besides those alread stated) is: can RP be a pipe hitter like Gary Cooper/Sheriff Will Kane in High Noon when push comes to shove?

Because long-serving members of Congress will eat him alive unless he can back up his moral high ground with a good bit of rabid junkyard dog.

I occasionally need lawyers to deal with idiots in business.

And while I am an ethical business owner and colour within the lines of life, when dealing with those who choose to play naughty(like Congress) Sheriff Andy Griffith is not the guy I want representing me.

I call a pipe hitter instead.

Maybe RP is like Jimmy Stewart/ Senator Jefferson Smith in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

A nice guy exterior that hides a serious inner pipe hitter in real life.

Even then......it's a HUGE uphill battle.

I'm a glass half full kind of guy.....but I'm thinking the next 5-10 years is going to demand exceptional leadership to guide the world through some serious sh!t....frankly...I don't see anthing but a nice guy standing alone and a pack of self interested liars.

Can I vote for Lee Kuan Yew?

Shellshock1918

12-18-2007, 01:53 AM

Paul is just gonna take your money and use it to build his Moonbase.
Eh, if I remember correctly, didn't Huckabee say we needed to explore space more? ;-)

?

You are aware he could not have "stomped all over" the constitution simply because he has not yet had the chance?
His voting record says otherwise.

budgie

12-18-2007, 04:35 AM

You are as crazy as an angry Iraqi woman catching a mini-Mr T in her Berka.
http://imageigloo.com/images/3169captsgekuz8714080718354zg5.jpg

That's an abbaya.

hank

12-18-2007, 08:48 AM

The problem with Ron Paul is that the only way he can get the vast majority of his platform accomplished is to have a constitutional convention. If he was proposing that I would support him. I agree with almost every position he takes, but the ship has sailed on most of those positions and he 1) fails to address that much of wat he decries has been found constitutional by SCOTUS (the only entity that can do so) and 2) has no meaningful plan to implement his platform in light of this inconvenient fact. That is short sided and in my view indicative of a lack of judgment on Paul's part or maybe he knows it and just wants to pander to those who don't understand this inherent problem.

I want the fed govt to close its doors for most of the bureacracy we currently have. But the fact is that the bureaucracy has been found constitutional and is being driven by forces that are beyond the control of 1 man who can't even muster double digit support among the least popular party (at the moment).

The drug war example is the perfect embodiment of the problem. The only way Paul can accomplish his platform on that issue is to 1) get new law or 2) fail to perform his duty (which is to fight the war on drugs as mandated by Congress). He can't accomplish #1 bc the majority of the American public won't support (and as a result neither will Congress) and he can't do #2 bc it would be unconstitutional and I'd personally support impeaching him if he tried it. To me, that is irresponsible on Paul's part to make the statements he makes knowing full well that a chiref executive is limited the way he is. It is pandering to (for the most part) kids and unsophosticated types who don't understand the game and that is wrong IMO. The successful candidate would look at the framework and create a platform that was substantively and procedurally achieveable.

Unfortunately, there is no such candidate. The other candidates are just as flawed as Paul, but in different ways. I personally choose to pikc a candidate that will do some of what I want knowing that no candidate will accomplich it all. The problem with Paul, and many others have pointed out, is that he will get nothing done in the current framework. That would be dangerous and counterproductive to his platform.

I agree with whoever said that Paul's largest impact may be that he is injecting this view into hte debate for the first time in a long time. That is indeed a noble goal but not enough to get a vote. I'd much rather him come out and say, the system is broken, we need to fix it, and if you elect me I'll convene a con convention to do just that. At least then he'd have a shot to do all this stuff he proposes.

DISCLAIMER - I understand that many of you here understand these limitations and choose to support Paul anyway. My comment is not directed at you. My comment is directed to those "Paul will kick ass" people here who are not situationally aware and that seems like the majority of the Paul supporters unfortunately.

hank

shocker1

12-18-2007, 08:56 AM

You are right Hank, Ron's policies are impossible or very difficult. I should vote for the most popular guy cause he wants to do things Congress and the SCOTUS approve of. As well as every think tank and minority lobby desires. Hell let Congress pick the President, that would be more efficient as they would get someone who will do exactly what Congress wants.:|

I am also starting to take offense at your labeling of Ron's supporters. Your Georgia Boy status is the only thing saving you right now.

What is even worse is I may have to vote for the person I do not want in the General. Like I said before, Satan would be better than a Democrat.

hank

12-18-2007, 09:04 AM

You are right Hank, Ron's policies are impossible or very difficult. I should vote for the most popular guy cause he wants to do things Congress and the SCOTUS approve of. As well as every think tank and minority lobby desires. Hell let Congress pick the President, that would be more efficient as they would get someone who will do exactly what Congress wants.:|

I am also starting to take offense at your labeling of Ron's supporters. Your Georgia Boy status is the only thing saving you right now.

Dude, I included a disclaimer. What else do you want?;)

You know I'm not going to vote for the most popular. I'll pick the guy whose agenda is closest to mine that I think can get elected. Phyrric victories of the Ross Perot variety do not interest me.

hank

shocker1

12-18-2007, 09:14 AM

Dude, I included a disclaimer. What else do you want?;)

You know I'm not going to vote for the most popular. I'll pick the guy whose agenda is closest to mine that I think can get elected. Phyrric victories of the Ross Perot variety do not interest me.

hank
I ignored the fine print in order to produce a knee jerk response. You like?:) Hank, Ron is no Ross Perot, he has an extensive voting record that is inline with his platform and pleases me. I fear we will not vote with our head and instead vote to keep the other guy out. In the process lose on the whole and nothing will get done anyway. 2010 will be here soon and like the last 8 years we will be stuck in pandering, wild spending mode. While our "leaders" concern themselves with advertising and avoid big decisions they would have to take responsibility for.

I would also say you are part of the few who make an intelligent argument. All that money and time for school paid off.p-)

hank

12-18-2007, 09:18 AM

I ignored the fine print in order to produce a knee jerk response. You like?:) Hank, Ron is no Ross Perot, he has an extensive voting record that is inline with his platform and pleases me. I fear we will not vote with our head and instead vote to keep the other guy out. In the process loose on the whole and nothing will get done anyway. 2010 will be here soon and like the last 8 years we will be stuck in pandering, wild spending mode. While our "leaders" concern themselves with advertising and avoid big decisions they would have to take responsibility for.

I didn't mean in that way. I meant a guy who takes some Republican vote that would otherwise go to the nominee and helps elect a Dem. I realize its a different situation since Paul is in the Rep primaries, but they are similar in the respect that they both kind of derail the Rep party at a time when we need to come together to take on a numerically superior Dem party right now.

I feel your pain on the crazy spending. Sure you don't want to go in together to get a new constitutional convention?

hank

shocker1

12-18-2007, 09:23 AM

The thing with Perot was he ran in the General. Ron will not run as Ind. if he looses the nomination. Even he knows that would put a Dem in office. It is funny to hear some lefties support him though. Just goes to show how people vote based on talking heads. If they knew his voting record they would not. I do not think there is a more Conservative candidate out there.

That's an abbaya.
I play the culturally ignorant American card in this case.

BigBaribal

12-18-2007, 09:36 AM

This guy looks like a pretty good traitor to his kind, so he has all the chances on him to be elected:

"Pretty soon, Southern white guys like me may be in the minority," Huckabee said jokingly as the crowd roared in laughter.

http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/06/30/News/323746.html

shocker1

12-18-2007, 09:40 AM

As a Baptist from the South who is half Caucasian. I would say Huckabee is lacking integrity as no true Baptist Pastor, adhering to the Baptist creed can be a President. It goes against the principles and would not do this country any good.

2Sheds_Jackson

12-18-2007, 12:53 PM

An interesting observation - and I think they said the same thing about JFK (who, as a Catholic, was going to re-create the US in the Pope's image...which is pretty damn funny, considering what JFK was really like). I think you could make the same argument of nearly any religious person in a Western democracy. Ultimately they're all supposed to make God their #1 and do their utmost to see that his will be done etc. - but our law contravenes a lot of it. I'm pretty sure that's why we make them take an oath of office - to set a clear line in the sand where their old duties end and their new ones start.

shocker1

12-18-2007, 01:13 PM

2Sheds_Jackson

12-18-2007, 02:07 PM

Well 2-sheds, if JFK had been Father JFK and a member of the Clergy then I could see your grouping of the two men as valid but it does not stand the test.

You can not claim to be a Baptist Preacher and be President at the same time. One will fail the other

Er, what test? They both take the same oath to abandon their former priorities and commit to new ones, right? That means whether they were a Catholic priest, a Baptist minister or a homicidal gay clown - they're all expected to leave that at the door and refocus. Isn't that why there's an oath everybody must take to begin with?

But I'm curious about this Baptist preacher thing - what makes that so uniquely unsuitable for the presidency? How is a baptist preacher's mandate any different from that which is expected of every other Baptist? Aren't they just people who are (hopefully) following through more on what every Baptist is supposed to do? So wouldn't that make every Baptist equally as unsuitable?

shocker1

12-18-2007, 02:21 PM

I did some reading and it seems Huck is a former pastor. In all the spin I thought he actually had a Congregation. Baptist pastors and protestant Ministers in general should not hold a political office and lead a church. Baptists like me believe the local Church should be free of outside interference. Pastoring a church and running for office will conflict with this position. Most baptists in this area would agree with this and I imagine it is the same elsewhere. Except the Mega Churches which goes without saying.

Back on topic Huck is getting more play than he deserves as it is. Ron Paul FTW

2Sheds_Jackson

12-18-2007, 03:06 PM

Thor

12-18-2007, 04:51 PM

the problem I see(besides those alread stated) is: can RP be a pipe hitter like Gary Cooper/Sheriff Will Kane in High Noon when push comes to shove?
I see him as a righteous man, serving a righteous purpose, and I have no doubt that he would take the appropriate measures for any righteous cause.

2Sheds_Jackson

12-18-2007, 04:57 PM

Well back OT with Pauls' sweet sweet SMB fund (that's Secret Moon Base)...I guess we'll see now if he's serious about the race or not. He's got some money to work with - and even CNN.com has got him on the front page. Time to spend that money. I was looking at CNN's election tracker and some candidates are spending nearly all their $ while others are building up a pretty big war chest. And I think (I've gotta go look it up) - they get to walk away with it if they don't spend it.

dimasorokine

12-18-2007, 05:04 PM

Don't some of them donate their money to other candidates if they don't get a nomination? (there's no way they could keep donations as their own personal money)

-Dima

Big Bad Bob

12-18-2007, 05:08 PM

There is a serious cult following for Ron Paul, seriously the man has an F-ing blimp

2Sheds_Jackson

12-18-2007, 05:20 PM

Don't some of them donate their money to other candidates if they don't get a nomination? (there's no way they could keep donations as their own personal money)

-Dima

From what I've found so far - there's a mixed bag of things they can do. They have to "zero out" their account, so they've effectively got to find something "official looking" to do with the money. Hillary, for example, has taken a bunch of money that New Yorkers gave her to run to represent them as a Senator - and is using it to abandon them and get into the White House instead.

Some can give it away to individual candidates (in small amounts), or they can give it back to their national party...or they can keep it and use it to pay debts. Now there's the interesting part - I doubt you'll find people with more creative finances than politicians. If they can make it look like a legitimate expense - endless "fact finding" trips to Aruba, or the Moon for example, for a moonbase, they can spend it on that.

dimasorokine

12-18-2007, 05:23 PM

I see, kinda like a weathy business owner with a good tax lawyer writing everything off as a business expence. thanks.

-Dima

Will938

12-18-2007, 06:36 PM

How will he do anything. Every position he takes will be declared unconstitutional.

hank

which positions are unconstitutional?

2Sheds_Jackson

12-18-2007, 09:35 PM

I see, kinda like a weathy business owner with a good tax lawyer writing everything off as a business expence. thanks.

-Dima

Well, no. But that's a good try though. p-) A business owner has earned their own money, and is preventing the government from confiscating it. A candidate would be taking donations - other peoples' money freely given but for a specific purpose intended to help them - and re-purposing it to help the candidate build his moonbase.

In other news, Paul just invoked Sinclair Lewis - and said "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - in reference to Huckabee's Christmas ad. Paul has just moved solidly into Kook territory on the 2Sheds kookometer. We've got jihadists attacking our business and military infrastructure, Iran and Korea working on nuclear weapons, Pakistan with nukes - and Paul is concerned about a bookshelf that looks kinda like a cross....in a Christmas ad. The mind boggles.

This amateur political observer thinks Paul just destroyed whatever chance he had within the party. Fun while it lasted though. :|

Rictor

12-18-2007, 09:46 PM

We've got jihadists attacking our business and military infrastructure, Iran and Korea working on nuclear weapons, Pakistan with nukes - and Paul is concerned about a bookshelf that looks kinda like a cross....in a Christmas ad. The mind boggles.

No, yes, so what and so what, respectively.

Give me a shout when a foreign terrorist wields as much over American society, economy and law as even a single Congressman. Then I'll start caring more about the threat out there than the threat over here (here being used figuratively, since I'm residing north of the border).

As for your prediction of Ron Paul's political doom....well, don't bet your savings on it.

shocker1

12-18-2007, 09:53 PM

I love it and I agree with Ron. Nobody just accidentally fashions a cross in a proclaimed baptist Presidential ad perfectly framed over his right shoulder come on. That is what Huck is all about selling his righteousness. Oh and Fox and Friends has to be the most ignorant bunch on the morning tube.

Your kook meter is broke 2-sheds. The kooks spend millions setting up road blocks round town checking my ability to wear a seat belt. At the request of insurance lobbies. Corporation and government humm
http://www.youtube.com/v/1CHb8CWw-Q4&rel=1

2Sheds_Jackson

12-18-2007, 10:26 PM

No, yes, so what and so what, respectively.

Who drove those planes into our trade center and military HQ? Was it the Baptists? As to "so what" - you may want to ask our folks in uniform if they fancy another extended stay in the mideast. Myself, I'm kind of tired of the whole thing and would like to see focus put where it belongs.

I love it and I agree with Ron. Nobody just accidentally fashions a cross in a proclaimed baptist Presidential ad perfectly framed over his right shoulder come on. That is what Huck is all about selling his righteousness. Oh and Fox and Friends has to be the most ignorant bunch on the morning tube.

I won't disagree with you there I guess, but it was Paul that said it, not the talking heads.

Even if it is a cross- so what? It's a Christmas ad. The entire set is decorated to commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ. Christmas is a national holiday - federal workers get to stay home and get paid 'cause of Jesus - hundreds of millions of us celebrate it - every TV network has Christmas specials - and that's apparently all just fine. But it's Huckabee's cross, in a Christmas message no less - that amounts to fascism descending on our nation.

I hope he hasn't completely torpedoed his chances - I think we need his input in the race. But he seems to be too clever by half. I think the party is going to use this to completely marginalize the guy.

shocker1

12-18-2007, 10:58 PM

Well in the video the way Mr slim Fox friend asked that question from the start with a comment on how some have negative opinions. The way i took it is Ron applying logic to why that is. The "Patriot Act" is a prime example of over bearing federal powers wrapped in a flag.

To those with great vocabularys and logic, we can understand what Ron is getting at. I would agree however he is giving too much credit to the thought process of the average Joe. Particularly the Fox and Friends viewers. Then we were presented with some really assholish methods of interviewing.

2Sheds_Jackson

12-18-2007, 11:13 PM

This kinda goes to my original point waaay back in the thread. Playing outside the system has a lot of appeal - but you have to play inside the system to get anything done. I'm pretty sure that the system (i.e. the Republican party who are his current political masters) will seize upon this, and destroy his wider appeal. He has no chance with just his core supporters he's got now - he needs numbers like mainline candidates have in order to be a contender. No matter what he thinks about that sinister cross, it was a politically foolish thing to say. He does want to win, right? No! It's about the moonbase! He's alreadly got your money! p-)

shocker1

12-18-2007, 11:25 PM

He does want to win, right? No! It's about the moonbase! He's alreadly got your money! p-)
Well, his voting record and indignation towards big ticket pocket liners kinda mutes that accusation. I want a moon base anyway and the 50 billion dollar manned mission to Mars.

Will938

12-18-2007, 11:46 PM

Even if it is a cross- so what? It's a Christmas ad. The entire set is decorated to commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ. Christmas is a national holiday - federal workers get to stay home and get paid 'cause of Jesus - hundreds of millions of us celebrate it - every TV network has Christmas specials - and that's apparently all just fine. But it's Huckabee's cross, in a Christmas message no less - that amounts to fascism descending on our nation.

I hope he hasn't completely torpedoed his chances - I think we need his input in the race. But he seems to be too clever by half. I think the party is going to use this to completely marginalize the guy.

I think he was on a rant and was referring more to who we should pay attention to instead of fighting one enemy while we turn our back on another. I agree that it could be construed that he was talking directly about Huckabee.

But don't worry, it won't put a dent in his chances.

Will938

12-18-2007, 11:51 PM

This kinda goes to my original point waaay back in the thread. Playing outside the system has a lot of appeal - but you have to play inside the system to get anything done.

I've given this a lot of thought. The American people really hate the political process. I would rather be the one term representative from Texas that pissed off every member of congress through exposure of their methods and drove approval through the floor (and maybe made a ding in incumbency rates). This would be appealing to me instead of being a 10 term representative from Texas that passed a ****ty law because my party told me to, or because the other guy scratched my back, or because some interest group was gonna give me a lot of money for my reelection campaign.

dimasorokine

12-19-2007, 08:38 AM

Well, no. But that's a good try though. p-) A business owner has earned their own money, and is preventing the government from confiscating it. A candidate would be taking donations - other peoples' money freely given but for a specific purpose intended to help them - and re-purposing it to help the candidate build his moonbase.

In other news, Paul just invoked Sinclair Lewis - and said "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - in reference to Huckabee's Christmas ad. Paul has just moved solidly into Kook territory on the 2Sheds kookometer. We've got jihadists attacking our business and military infrastructure, Iran and Korea working on nuclear weapons, Pakistan with nukes - and Paul is concerned about a bookshelf that looks kinda like a cross....in a Christmas ad. The mind boggles.

This amateur political observer thinks Paul just destroyed whatever chance he had within the party. Fun while it lasted though. :|

Actually, he knows how to play to his supporters. People like you will simply call him crazy, and people like me will say he's pointed out the obvious. Its the same thing as when Bush and co repeatedly use the words "Terrorism", "9/11", "Torture rooms" etc. Most politicians play to the mindless patriotism in all of us, Paul plays to the thinkers in us - that’s the basic strategy for his campaign.

Furthermore, I think religion is...well, lets just say it lacks logic and requires people to submit to something that can't be proven, blindly - it requires people to believe in magic. And I think you know where I'm going with this from the other thread.

As for "We've got jihadists attacking our business and military infrastructure, Iran and Korea working on nuclear weapons, Pakistan with nukes"

As someone already pointed out: so what!? A lot of that has to do with US foreign policy. C'mon, are you really going to play dumb on this and take the "they hate us for our freedom" sh*t?

The truth and you'd be crazy IMO to argue this is that terrorists are less of a threat to you than automobiles, cigarettes, alcohol and random stray bullets. The only reason it can be be marketed as such a huge threat is because "they" did it to "us" - exploiting our natural fear of anything and anyone different than us. Anyone that buys into terrorism as being a major world problem is crazy, there are a million (I mean that literally) problems in this world bigger than terrorism that deserve attention...

As I said before: mass media, religeon, debt, consumerism, taxes, alcohol etc. are all tools of oppression and control by choice - you can add irrational fear to that list.

-Dima

Snoshi

12-19-2007, 08:53 AM

As someone already pointed out: so what!? A lot of that has to do with US foreign policy. C'mon, are you really going to play dumb on this and take the "they hate us for our freedom" sh*t?

Foreign policies have almost nothing to do with it.. USA is the great Satan and its not going to change even if USA withdraws from the Middle East, there will be plenty other reasons to hate USA for..

Just read little bit on to Wahhabism. For them USA represents all of the evil that is happening to the Muslim world. If USA withdraws from lets say Iraq and cuts support to many governments do you think that terrorists will just stop fighting USA? They will just considers the withdrawal as victory and will get more recruts and funding.

- Dima(same name as you ;) )

dimasorokine

12-19-2007, 09:00 AM

Foreign policies have almost nothing to do with it.. USA is the great Satan and its not going to change even if USA withdraws from the Middle East, there will be plenty other reasons to hate USA for..

Just read little bit on to Wahhabism. For them USA represents all of the evil that is happening to the Muslim world. If USA withdraws from lets say Iraq and cuts support to many governments do you think that terrorists will just stop fighting USA? They will just considers the withdrawal as victory and will get more recruts and funding.

- Dima(same name as you ;) )

PM sent.
-Dima

Rictor

12-19-2007, 09:05 AM

Foreign policies have almost nothing to do with it.. USA is the great Satan and its not going to change even if USA withdraws from the Middle East, there will be plenty other reasons to hate USA for..

That's absolutely true for a small, small minority. They will never stop hating the US or trying to attack it. But widespread anti-Americanism among ordinary people is not due to the US being free or rich but due to specific policies and specific grievances. Most Iraqi insurgent groups, Hezbollah, the Iranian government - hell, even the Taliban - have, as far as I can figure, no fundamental problem with America doing whatever the hell it like in its own country as long as it stays out of theirs.

Just like there are a handful of neo-Nazis who will always believe in ethnic purity and National Socialism. Some of them will try to use violence to achieve those ends. But since 99% of the population doesn't care, or actively opposes them, they are powerless. The same is true of Islamic terrorism.

Thor

12-19-2007, 10:03 AM

Foreign policies have almost nothing to do with it.. USA is the great Satan and its not going to change even if USA withdraws from the Middle East, there will be plenty other reasons to hate USA for..
Which all are based on America's foreign politics.... Had it gone down a different path during the 20th century, not supported Israel, not been "Team America: World Police", not supported corrupt regimes during the cold war etc. things would have been all different and the attitudes would not have been any different from those toward a random European country.

Though that is beside the point. You can't be loved by everyone, in fact many times being hated by some people is a compliment. In the end you either make your own independent decisions or you can move the seat of your government to Riyadh or Teheran.

Thor

12-19-2007, 10:19 AM

Just like there are a handful of neo-Nazis...
I wonder, did you delibaretly bring in this subject in a thread regarding the presidential candidate Ron Paul, or did you just do it by accident...?

Spuyten_duyvil

12-19-2007, 04:34 PM

Most vocal ron paul supporters remind me of typical cult members.
These ones actually think they are smart, even though they lack credible solutions to any of the problems they mention.
Ron Paul is clearly, and beyond a doubt a kook whose support base is kook-dominated.

hank

12-19-2007, 04:36 PM

which positions are unconstitutional?

I've already pointed out some. Go back and read my Paul posts here and elsewhere. The drug war is a good example. He can't accomplish that goal constitutionally unless Congress and the Supreme Court change their positions. Based on the support numbers Paul has now, that will not happen.

hank

2Sheds_Jackson

12-19-2007, 06:02 PM

Paul plays to the thinkers in us - that’s the basic strategy for his campaign.

Oh yeah, Paul plays to the thinkers out there >sarcasm<.

Here's another "smart" thing he's just done.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist, and the Texas congressman doesn't plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday.
Don Black, of West Palm Beach, recently made the donation, according to campaign filings. He runs a Web site called Stormfront with the motto, "White Pride World Wide." The site welcomes postings to the "Stormfront White Nationalist Community."

"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."

"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.

Black said he supports Paul's stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing U.S. borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants.
"We know that he's not a white nationalist. He says he isn't and we believe him, but on the issues, there's only one choice," Black said Wednesday.

"We like his stand on tight borders and opposition to a police state," Black told The Palm Beach Post earlier.

On his Web site, Black says he has been involved in "the White patriot movement for 30 years."

This guy is rapidly losing any chance of being associated with the party. And without that, he turns into meaningless Ross Perot #2.

JKD

12-19-2007, 06:29 PM

This guy is rapidly losing any chance of being associated with the party.
Well, when an anti-gun liberal like Giuliani is considered the party's frontrunner it's probably just as well.

"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."

"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.
Why do people keep trying to tie Paul to what every single person who supports him thinks? Like Benton says, all that happened here is some jackass is out $500.

Thor

12-19-2007, 06:30 PM

Here's another "smart" thing he's just done.
Same question goes out to you then...

Sad to see people run out of arguments.

dimasorokine

12-19-2007, 06:32 PM

2sheds man! Stop with the out of context quotes damn it! The point is the "masses", as in those not up to date on politics or even into politics are forced to think by what Ron Paul says, their forced to question - the other candidates just play to our "values" and say what exactly what people expect them to say.

Just because you don't agree with Paul, doesn't mean you're right. Paul does in fact play to the "thinkers" in us, while the rest play to the patriots and faithful - this isn't an opinion, it’s a marketing strategy.

And BTW: that example you gave of Paul being "smart" doesn't prove anything.

-Dima

2Sheds_Jackson

12-19-2007, 06:43 PM

Spuyten_duyvil

12-19-2007, 06:43 PM

Theres a clear and undeniable link between Ron Pauls support for legalization of drugs and his fanboys. THey are smoking some nice sh*t.

dimasorokine

12-19-2007, 06:51 PM

The facts as I see them gents - and I'm not happy about it mind you - is that Paul, with his several good ideas/plans/agendas is going to self-destruct like a Patriot missile fired in error.

You can sit there all day with your fists in the air, proudly proclaiming a moral victory - but what counts is an actual victory. Y'know - accomplishing something - results - winning - etc. Paul, by virtue of his unsustainable positions and rather curious antics of late, is revealing himself to be not ready for prime time. Yeah, prime time means makeup, platitudes and plastic hair - but if it takes a little of that to actually win - then shouldn't we be dealing with that reality? Yeah, it sucks but so does everything. Why should we be wasting our time chasing rainbows?

That I can agree with, most likely Paul won't get a nomination - he's not quite playing by the rules of this game. But then again, he has broken a few records and raised his money almost entirely from a grass roots level - which is a lot more impressive than raising it from corporate and big business donations.

So, I'll remain optamistic about his chances and you can keep being a playa hate yo! :)

-Dima

ViktorNavorski

12-19-2007, 06:54 PM

2sheds man! Stop with the out of context quotes damn it! The point is the "masses", as in those not up to date on politics or even into politics are forced to think by what Ron Paul says, their forced to question - the other candidates just play to our "values" and say what exactly what people expect them to say.That being the key words, as hank and others pointed out much more elegantly. That's the only obvious benefit so far, so he's forcing the issues, but at the end of the day, those same people will also have no idea what Ron say will not happen within the current confine of the Constitution, Supreme Court, Congress, etc. He can spend the time trying to a super majority in Congress and States' Legislatures, but by the time he is done, it would have been four years of no net gain and reelection coming up.

JKD

12-19-2007, 06:56 PM

Theres a clear and undeniable link between Ron Pauls support for legalization of drugs and his fanboys. THey are smoking some nice sh*t.

You really didn't learn a thing from your last suspension did you?

No drugs for me. I just like, fiscal responsiblitly, limited federal government, pesky inconvinient things like search warrants, and the United States Constitution.

And the fact that his most vocal opponents get so bent out of shape and seem to have nothing going for them but ad hominems just makes it that much better.

Like I've said I doubt he'll get it. But it's fun to watch and I think he's raising points that we need to be debating and thinking about.

dimasorokine

12-19-2007, 07:01 PM

Mr.Flint

12-19-2007, 07:40 PM

Apparently the concept of Pyrrhic Victory is not something that Ron Paul's supporters are aware of...

Thor

12-19-2007, 08:13 PM

Apparently the concept of Pyrrhic Victory is not something that Ron Paul's supporters are aware of...
I'll stick to vote according to your conscience or don't vote at all.

I wouldn't spend any time or effort in casting a symbolic vote on either of two mainstream candidates who were both funded by the same elite. If you don't vote according to your beliefs democracy doesn't work.

You could of course consider a two-round voting system like they have in France and other countries, which gives voters the opportunity to vote for the most favourable candidate in the first run and the least bad candidate in the second round.

dimasorokine

12-19-2007, 08:28 PM

Thor, don't bring up French and their evil ways! That is unless you are prepared to stop eating freedom fries.

-Dima

Spuyten_duyvil

12-19-2007, 08:42 PM

You really didn't learn a thing from your last suspension did you?

No drugs for me. I just like, fiscal responsiblitly, limited federal government, pesky inconvinient things like search warrants, and the United States Constitution.

And the fact that his most vocal opponents get so bent out of shape and seem to have nothing going for them but ad hominems just makes it that much better.

Like I've said I doubt he'll get it. But it's fun to watch and I think he's raising points that we need to be debating and thinking about.

Fiscal responsibility? How will you ACCOMPLISH that? Raise taxes twofold, cut spending by cutting out a lot of programs (with the side effects that go along with that)? I dont think you are qualified to know how to best handle the economy, or even which issues should be a priority. No one is really ABUSING the Patriot act provisions so whats the big deal? COnstitution is being followed, no you cant buy an AK-47 get over it.

Thor

12-19-2007, 08:49 PM

Thor, don't bring up French and their evil ways! That is unless you are prepared to stop eating freedom fries.

-Dima
I don't think the french got primaries, so let's say things are even..

ViktorNavorski

12-19-2007, 09:07 PM

Politics are all about the masses not up to date on politics or even interested in whats happening.

For supporters of Ron Paul that follow politics, their support comes from what the man stands for. It may seem naive, and maybe unrealistic but a lot of people simply don't see the point in voting for the same guy over and over again with no promise of real change - so they throw their money, or vote Paul's way hoping that this type of thinking catches on or hell, maybe they belive in a bit og magic (no different than Religeon actually)...I know, I know it's a crazy though for those that have given up on life - OUCH! ;)

-DimaRight point, but wrong branch of the government. The Executive is a paltry shadow of itself ever since Nixon, asked those some questions with regard to Congress. No terms limit, allowing folks like Ted and company the ability to accumulate political capitals and influences to, like stated earlier by others, hamper any grand reforms any presidential hopeful may have. They controlled the purse, they approved who sit on the Supreme Court, they approved who run the gigantic bureaucracy. Checks and Balances is all well and good, but I doubt the Forefathers had the idea of the same elite politicos sitting on committee for decades deciding on it. Smaller federal government also mean a more competent state government. Just from observing how some states handle natural disasters, that area is severely lacking. Take for example the Kyoto Protocol, never ratified by the federal government, but there was nothing wrong with states deciding by itself to abide by it. Eventually, with the majority of the states taking it up, it now forced the hand of the federal government. That and the electorate need to stop looking to the federal government to solve every single problems in their lives, well, without looking to the State first, at least. Congressional and State elections are much more entertaining and "productive" now a day.

Thor, don't bring up French and their evil ways! That is unless you are prepared to stop eating freedom fries.

-DimaWe called that "Pri...ma...ries..." Not quite the same thing, but same different.

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money," Alexis de Tocqueville. The poli sci folks are all crazy about the evilness of that Frenchman.