Ron Paul For President

[joepole]

I agree with a lot of the things he says. I disagree with some of the things he says. Even if I agreed 100% with what he believes ought to be the way the country is, he is absolutely not the man that can make it happen. He would not make a very good President, which is fine because he has absolutely no chance of ever becoming President.

Extremists are worthless, and he is the worst kind of extremist: an idealist.

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by joepole

I agree with a lot of the things he says. I disagree with some of the things he says. Even if I agreed 100% with what he believes ought to be the way the country is, he is absolutely not the man that can make it happen. He would not make a very good President, which is fine because he has absolutely no chance of ever becoming President.

Extremists are worthless, and he is the worst kind of extremist: an idealist.

"Absolutely not the man that can make it happen"? You got that right...long as there are short-sighted sheeple who're afraid of progress and positive change, it'll never happen. "He would not make a very good president"? As compared to who, exactly? Clinton? Bush Sr. or Jr.? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Nixon? LBJ? JFK? You're joking, right? Define what constitutes "a very good president". Would that be somebody who'll make the needs of the country and his constituents top priority? Somebody with honor and integrity? Somebody who understands that he governs by consent of the governed? Somebody who has never abused his office or used his position to enrich himself? Somebody who says what he does and does what he says? Somebody who's voting record refects that? Somebody who's actions are governed by strict adherence to the Constitution? Somebody who believes government should be as small and transparent and unintrusive as possible? Somebody who believes that your money is yours? Somebody who believes that America is truly "The Land of The Free", and should forever remain that way? Well guess what, Ron Paul is that somebody. Check it out for yourself, you'll see that its a true. But maybe all of these qualities dont add up to your idea of a good president. Maybe you're satisfied with the status quo. Well I'm not. The status quo sucks ass, Joe, and I'm sick to death of it. Show me a better, more qualified candidate and we'll talk. Till then, I cant take anything you say seriously, because you dont have any answers. Hell, you dont even have the questions. All you've got are trite witticisms and baseless criticisms.

[vixweb]

Tell us Al, Since your his boy, why does Paul oppose the war in Iraq? Why does he want to re-investigate 911? Why does he oppose the patriot act? Does he think Bush knew about 911 and didn't stop it? Does he think Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism? He sounds like a wacko- no matter what you say.

[Isaac-Saxxon]

I would like to know what he has to say on these same questions.

[LateNight]

To know Ron Paul's answer to either of those questions, one simply needs to look to the Constitution.

[Isaac-Saxxon]

Originally Posted by LateNight

To know Ron Paul's answer to either of those questions, one simply needs to look to the Constitution.

You trust politicians that much Well now I will want to hear him debate and see his web site. All politicians lay claim to the Constitution and yet they never agree with each other.

This will place a face with the name (Ron Paul) Kind of sounds like a Pope

[LateNight]

Originally Posted by Isaac-Saxxon

You trust politicians that much Well now I will want to hear him debate and see his web site. All politicians lay claim to the Constitution and yet they never agree with each other.
Attachment 1115
This will place a face with the name (Ron Paul) Kind of sounds like a Pope

No I don't trust politicians of any sort. But Ron Paul sounds like no politician I've ever heard.

I bet you Isaac, that other than the war in Iraq, you would be hard pressed to disagree with anything else he has to say, on any issue.

In Congress, Paul adhered to small-government conservative and libertarian principles. He has never voted to raise taxes or congressional pay and refuses to participate in the congressional pension system or take government-paid junkets.[2][3]

Paul supports free trade, tighter border security, gun ownership, and a return to free market health care. He opposes foreign interventionism, the income tax, Medicare and Medicaid, universal health care, the war on drugs, He is personally pro-life and opposed to abortion, which he thinks should not be regulated by the federal government, and thus Roe v. Wade should be overturned. He also believes that the federal government should have no influence on education.

[Pocahontas]

Originally Posted by Isaac-Saxxon

You trust politicians that much Well now I will want to hear him debate and see his web site. All politicians lay claim to the Constitution and yet they never agree with each other.
Attachment 1115
This will place a face with the name (Ron Paul) Kind of sounds like a Pope

Yes or a drag queen! Meet RuPaul!

Sorry guys just thought I'd lighten the mood. I'll let y'all get back to debating!

[rhertz]

Originally Posted by vixweb

Tell us Al, Since your his boy, why does Paul oppose the war in Iraq? Why does he want to re-investigate 911? Why does he oppose the patriot act? Does he think Bush knew about 911 and didn't stop it? Does he think Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism? He sounds like a wacko- no matter what you say.

I would be all for apposing the war in Iraq IF the President had made the following stand on 9/12:

"Hit us again and we will nuke you. Now hit us again, I dare you. I double dare you. Ok, America now back to work being normal Americans. Carry on, I've got your backs."

But of course we could never nuke someone, even if they hit us like Pearl Harbor. That would not be politicly correct. I know this because we did not nuke Osama bin Ladin in Toro Boro when we had him holed up. We did not nuke Hussein when he put a hit on George Senior. And we won't nuke Iran while they build their own nukes to distroy Israel and general terrorism.

My question is this. Does Ron Paul have what it takes to nuke Iran first if they build nukes and threaten Israel, England, or America?

[Isaac-Saxxon]

Originally Posted by rhertz

I would be all for apposing the war in Iraq IF the President had made the following stand on 9/12:

"Hit us again and we will nuke you. Now hit us again, I dare you. I double dare you. Ok, America now back to work being normal Americans. Carry on, I've got your backs."

But of course we could never nuke someone, even if they hit us like Pearl Harbor. That would not be politically correct. I know this because we did not nuke Osama bin Ladin in Toro Boro when we had him holed up. We did not nuke Hussein when he put a hit on George Senior. And we won't nuke Iran while they build their own nukes to destroy Israel and general terrorism.

My question is this. Does Ron Paul have what it takes to nuke Iran first if they build nukes and threaten Israel, England, or America?

I hope you do not get any splinters on that fence rhertz