Ron Paul for president

[sudden valley gunner]

Welcome to Hell's Cadre. Lawyers are always welcome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFGrQMD6Uqc

The Devil welcoming folks to hell and Lawyers do have a special mention....:lol:

 

[Gunslinger]

I am authorized by His Infernalness to accept your offer.

I believe His terms are already well understood. Your soul, for Eternity in His service.

Please write out your proposal, signed in the customary way--your blood; no substitutes, please.

I will be by tonight at midnight to pick up the signed instrument.

Welcome to Hell's Cadre. Lawyers are always welcome.

Well, I want dinner and a movie first...

 

[Brass Magnet]

You all know by bias by now but.........

I thought this was the most lucid article in terms of winners in the debate last night

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...s-bachmann-wins-perry-heads-for-the-ok-corral

My thoughts on the debate:

Yes, generically Obomney er....Romney didn't do anything to hurt his chances but then again he didn't do anything. He spent the time attacking Obama instead of debating the differences in his policys with the rest of the field...and what little difference he has with Obama. :uhoh: He can save that for IF (and man I hope not) he wins the primary.

Newt actually did pretty well for himself I think. I enjoyed him letting Wallace have it for the same (and only) reason I liked Rumsfelds press briefings back in the day. Of course his Libya views were a full flip-flop and rated as such by politifact. He also doesn't come off as presidential, he's more of an idea man and I think that's the roll he should play....in someone elses administration. BTW, I think that Six Sigma and Lean principles are a great idea for government.

Did anyone else catch Pawlenty actually advocating U.S. government assasinations of Iranians on national television!!?? Holy crap! I think Pawlenty and Bachmann going at one anothers throats brought them both down. One of the reasons I think they went at each other is that they are basically clones: See next paragraph.

Bachmann once again exposed herself as a Tea Party co-opter by advocation the 10a out of one side of her mouth on one issue and abrogating states power out of the other. She also exposed her lack of knowledge on economics, only trumpeting the TP line without backing it up with actual policy. She seems fake to me, and most likely is.

Cain, well, I thought he came off as really likeable. Unfortunately, his lack of knowledge about almost everything aside from business really showed. He even admitted that he was learning as he went. He was also pretty unsatisfactory on repudiating his previously made ill advised comments on other religions.

Santorum exposed himself as the biggest neocon, war(chicken?)hawk, bigoted, anti-freedom candidate in the room. I did hear that he got a politifact rating of "true" for his statement that "Iran isn't Iceland Ron" though. So at least he has that going for him. He was also consistently rude to the other candidates; often breaking into their time or trying to talk over them as they answered questions or gave rebuttals.

Paul started off slow with the divided government question and could have used the opportunity to talk about saving billions regardless of congress by bringing our troops home. He also missed a big one, IMO, when asked if states were allowed to mandate individuals to buy health insurance. I think the 9th amendment may have been able to enter into the conversation there. Ron recovered from his slow start to hand Santorum's ass to him on foreign policy. He also won by having others co-opt at least part of his view on the Fed. He was able to call all of the other candidates the status quo without so much as a rebuttal from them which points to one of his biggest wins of the night: Besides Santorum, no one tried to take it to Paul. As usual, his intellectually honest answers don't lend well to time limits but he'll shine when more candidates drop out of the race and the remaining pols get more time.

Did I miss anybody? Oh yeah, Huntsman! He seemed vanilla and a little nervous. He was forgettable and I didn't really find out much about him in the debate. I do think his experience with China is a plus. He was also able to highlight that it didn't matter to him if he worked for a D or R administration as it was the country that was important to him. This will come off well, I think, after the recent boondoggle with the debt ceiling. All in all though, he didn't stand out but he didn't disqualify himself either.

Well, those are my slightly biased thoughts.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I would like to see an Obama/Biden v. Bachmann/Palin. The right doesn't have much to offer up, well, they didn't in 2008 neither. Romney seems to be the one who will have the best shot on taking down President Obama of the United States of America.

I have concluded that President Obama is not interested in political movement to the center prior to election for Independent votes, rather, He is hell-bent on losing the next election. Let's face it, his wife, and kids aren't really down for another four years in the White House, in fact, it seems they hate it, and prefer a normal life. If President Obama wins in 2012, it will not because he wanted to win, just that he happen to. The more time goes by, the more He's looking like a Republican, and it turns my freaking stomach with all the 'compromise' he pushes for in order to bring Republicans into debates. If he likes dealing with the petulant Republican, then he should pack his bags, and take his a$$ over there. Democrats, Liberal, and Independents voted him in in 2008, not the few tea party ilk = Republican establishment far right extremists. If President Obama wins, it will speak to the utter disarray the Republicans are in as a party. President Obama has isolated himself from the left, and he should pay the price. I doubt that he will though. He will win by ten million votes again this time around.

 

[Brass Magnet]

I would like to see an Obama/Biden v. Bachmann/Palin. The right doesn't have much to offer up, well, they didn't in 2008 neither. Romney seems to be the one who will have the best shot on taking down President Obama of the United States of America.[snip]

They had Ron Paul to offer in 2008 and once again in 2012. It's too bad that the establishment is too dumb to see it.
This thread is about Ron Paul by the way....

Bachmann/Palin?

My opinion of course. Bachmann/Palin would be like a like a Tea Party co-opting, Jesus and Neocon sandwich with a side of Judas.

If you look back in history, it's many times the candidate with the most anti-war rhetoric that wins. Believe it or not, George Bush Jr. was that candidate in his first run and talked about not wanting to police the world like Clinton. Of course he then invaded Iraq. Obama constantly called Bush out on his warmongering, and then he kept the wars going and started a couple of new ones.

The most truly anti-war candidate with the rhetoric to match is Ron Paul. He will take more than a few of the anti-war left's votes away from Obama because it's obvious that Obama lied outright and Ron's voting record speaks for itself. Obama also lied about closing Guantanamo, repealing the patriot act, and giving folks due process. These are civil liberty positions which are important to many on the left. They are important to me as well.

In short, if RP were to win the primary, normal republicans would "hold their nose" and vote for him or just do what they always do and vote straight republican regardlesss of who it is. Libertarians will vote for him. More than half of the independants will vote for him. Some of the anti-war left will vote for him as will anyone who is genuinely concerned about their civil liberties. Many young folks will vote for him as well.

I'd say he's got the best chance against Obama.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

[snip]

The most truly anti-war candidate with the rhetoric to match is Ron Paul. He will take more than a few of the anti-war left's votes away from Obama because it's obvious that Obama lied outright and Ron's voting record speaks for itself. [snip]

I disagree President Obama lied. But I do agree that Ron Paul would bring a number of Democrats, Lefties, and left-leaning Independents from the President Obama side to the Ron Paul side.

 

[Brass Magnet]

I disagree President Obama lied. But I do agree that Ron Paul would bring a number of Democrats, Lefties, and left-leaning Independents from the President Obama side to the Ron Paul side.

Here's a good article to research some lies.... http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2011/08/bush-20-100-ways-barack-obama-is-just.html
It's got handy links to cites written right in it.

 

[Tess]

Most of Ron Paul's legislative initiatives this year have ZERO co-sponsors (www.thomas.gov). So how is he going to, as a president must, convince others to work with him? The bully pulpit only works if anyone listens.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Most of Ron Paul's legislative initiatives this year have ZERO co-sponsors (www.thomas.gov). So how is he going to, as a president must, convince others to work with him? The bully pulpit only works if anyone listens.

There is one thing he can do without convincing anyone, as soon as he's sworn in. That's bring the troops home and deal with foreign policy. Knowing his views, that alone is enough for me to vote for him.

Secondly, if he gets elected others will come more and more over to his side as has been shown with many of the current presidential candidates starting to use his language and share his views. Why? Because if they see him get elected they will all mold like the clay they are to incorporate his views so they get elected too.

Even if he couldn't get anything he wanted passed, which is totally preposterous he doesn't have to do too much but use the veto pen. I'd rather have congress be totally ineffective for a while than make government bigger.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Check out this poll!

This is a large poll that actually shows who voted for who (who won the debate) and where they lived. Ron is leading by a lot. It's very interesting because you can zoom out and click on various parts of the country to check the votes.

http://www.topix.com/issue/fox/gop-debate-aug11

 

[TheQ]

My front yard....

Enough said?

 

[thebigsd]

My front yard....

Enough said?

Your walkway needs edging.....

 

[Citizen]

Most of Ron Paul's legislative initiatives this year have ZERO co-sponsors (www.thomas.gov). So how is he going to, as a president must, convince others to work with him? The bully pulpit only works if anyone listens.

(I tread very carefully when contradicting Tess. Fear of God doesn't even come close. )

My dear Mrs. Tess. Out of an abundance of respect, and a sincere desire to see you even more right than you already are, may I humbly submit for your consideration:

That the veto pen does not need the support of others?

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

[snip] The bully pulpit only works if anyone listens.

First, the pulpit must be utilized. Then the message must resonate.

 

[Jim675]

Citizen is definitely on the right track. Merely vetoing additional layers of stupid would be of tremendous benefit. Not to mention the fun that would ensue when the House brings RP their budget.

As the prez he would also wield power over all the executive agencies, just imagine the (glorious) destruction!

 

[PrayingForWar]

I would like to see an Obama/Biden v. Bachmann/Palin. The right doesn't have much to offer up, well, they didn't in 2008 neither. Romney seems to be the one who will have the best shot on taking down President Obama of the United States of America.

I have concluded that President Obama is not interested in political movement to the center prior to election for Independent votes, rather, He is hell-bent on losing the next election. Let's face it, his wife, and kids aren't really down for another four years in the White House, in fact, it seems they hate it, and prefer a normal life. If President Obama wins in 2012, it will not because he wanted to win, just that he happen to. The more time goes by, the more He's looking like a Republican, and it turns my freaking stomach with all the 'compromise' he pushes for in order to bring Republicans into debates. If he likes dealing with the petulant Republican, then he should pack his bags, and take his a$$ over there. Democrats, Liberal, and Independents voted him in in 2008, not the few tea party ilk = Republican establishment far right extremists. If President Obama wins, it will speak to the utter disarray the Republicans are in as a party. President Obama has isolated himself from the left, and he should pay the price. I doubt that he will though. He will win by ten million votes again this time around.

LMFAO!!!!!
Have you been huffing paint?

There is one thing he can do without convincing anyone, as soon as he's sworn in. That's bring the troops home and deal with foreign policy. Knowing his views, that alone is enough for me to vote for him.

Secondly, if he gets elected others will come more and more over to his side as has been shown with many of the current presidential candidates starting to use his language and share his views. Why? Because if they see him get elected they will all mold like the clay they are to incorporate his views so they get elected too.

Even if he couldn't get anything he wanted passed, which is totally preposterous he doesn't have to do too much but use the veto pen. I'd rather have congress be totally ineffective for a while than make government bigger.

Brass, I'm sorry man but RP did not impress me last night. On a couple occassions he seemed befuddled. He never could address how he could get his policies passed through a divided congress. He made GREAT POINTS about the economy, and then completely lost my interest with an anti-war rant. I'm so sick of the moonbat fringe blaming US policy for the existence of every despotic regime on earth, and the delusion that if we completely withdraw all influence from outside our borders that suddenly we won't have any enemies. I actually think RP is probably the only %100 honest candidate running. I trust that he has the best intentions for the country. That said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. He is wrong on foriegn policy, and a great economy won't make a lick of difference if there isn't stability in the world. For that matter, our economy won't be worth a damn either.

Of course I'll end up supporting ANYONE who opposes the moonbat messiah. If through some freak event Hitlary ends up the Republican nominee, I'll wear a t-shirt with her horrid face on it while I vote against him.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Brass, I'm sorry man but RP did not impress me last night. On a couple occassions he seemed befuddled. He never could address how he could get his policies passed through a divided congress. He made GREAT POINTS about the economy, and then completely lost my interest with an anti-war rant. I'm so sick of the moonbat fringe blaming US policy for the existence of every despotic regime on earth, and the delusion that if we completely withdraw all influence from outside our borders that suddenly we won't have any enemies. I actually think RP is probably the only %100 honest candidate running. I trust that he has the best intentions for the country. That said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. He is wrong on foriegn policy, and a great economy won't make a lick of difference if there isn't stability in the world. For that matter, our economy won't be worth a damn either.

Of course I'll end up supporting ANYONE who opposes the moonbat messiah. If through some freak event Hitlary ends up the Republican nominee, I'll wear a t-shirt with her horrid face on it while I vote against him.

I admit it wasn't his best showing but I also know you and I won't agree on foreign policy. I'm perfectly happy with his foreign policy and that's where he made his best showing IMHO. It'll also garner more anti-war votes from people that don't have a primary, hint hint.

 

[PrayingForWar]

I admit it wasn't his best showing but I also know you and I won't agree on foreign policy. I'm perfectly happy with his foreign policy and that's where he made his best showing IMHO. It'll also garner more anti-war votes from people that don't have a primary, hint hint.

Ahhh... Touche...

Indeed we won't agree on the foreign policy issue, we've agreed not to already. I was glad to see his economic policy part of the debate though. He is absolutely dead on as far as every domestic issue goes, and that's why he'll be soundly rejected by the left. There is no better means for the total destruction of the left than to take away their checkbook and roll back payments made to their core constituents amoung the parasite class. The anti-war stance of the left is a mere by product of their goal to weaken the country. The will not come out for RP based on that, since they have to understand that the parasites who depend on their handouts will eventually be forced to find employment or starve to death. The left isn't anti-war anyway. They're only against war if it is a policy those on the right can support such as combating communists or radical jihadists.

Remember how silent they were during the multiple military excursions signed off on by Clinton, and they seem to be willing to invade Libya if the moonbat messiah hacks off on the paperwork.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Ahhh... Touche...

Indeed we won't agree on the foreign policy issue, we've agreed not to already. I was glad to see his economic policy part of the debate though. He is absolutely dead on as far as every domestic issue goes, and that's why he'll be soundly rejected by the left. There is no better means for the total destruction of the left than to take away their checkbook and roll back payments made to their core constituents amoung the parasite class. The anti-war stance of the left is a mere by product of their goal to weaken the country. The will not come out for RP based on that, since they have to understand that the parasites who depend on their handouts will eventually be forced to find employment or starve to death. The left isn't anti-war anyway. They're only against war if it is a policy those on the right can support such as combating communists or radical jihadists.

Remember how silent they were during the multiple military excursions signed off on by Clinton, and they seem to be willing to invade Libya if the moonbat messiah hacks off on the paperwork.

Oh yes, the neolibs are just as much interested in war as the neocons but there still is an anti-war left.

Blue Republican

Blue Republican Facebook

And there are many more thinking about it... The two first results in the search below are the "progressives" pro's and con's for voting for Ron Paul

Dissident Voice Articles


You and I both agree on his economics, social policies and his stance on civil liberties (I think) but disagree on his foreign policy. These guys agree with his foreign policy and stance on civil liberties but disagree on his economics and social policies.

I'm not holding my breath of course but hoping, and we'll see what happens.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP I'm so sick of the moonbat fringe blaming US policy for the existence of every despotic regime on earth, and the delusion that if we completely withdraw all influence from outside our borders that suddenly we won't have any enemies.

Some steps in the sequence have been left out if that is the impression you've been left with.

Paul often uses the Shah of Iran as an example. Our CIA influenced the political scene in Iran in (1953?), essentially we replaced their senior executive with the Shah, a bit of a dictator. Consider for a moment, if your government was replaced with a dictator by another country, you'd be kinda annoyed. Across 30-40 years every time the dictator taxed or stifled you or your family, or dissenters, or...the resentment would build wouldn't it?

I remember the embassy hostages. Four hundred forty four days. I don't recall they seized and held other embassies similarly. They were pretty angry at the US.

Add into the mix a charismatic preacher (Khomeini) to stir up old resentments and promise the people a way out. Imagine the rhetoric used to set that revolution to a boil. "That man in that palace is not your rightful ruler! He was installed by the US! THEY set him upon you! THEY are responsible for your years of poverty, his largesse! THEY meddle because they want your oil on very easy terms! Get rid of the Shah! Let Islam and Sharia take its rightful place!"

No wonder the Iranian people were angry with the US government. They had some justification. And, there that resentment was, ready to be whipped up forty years later by Khomeini & Co. for their own ends. And that regime has been happy to keep the cauldron simmering ever since--they need a bogie-man to divert attention from themselves. The outside enemy.

Dr. Thomas Woods, a libertarian writer, speaking at a gathering earlier this year called attention to the the UN report that said US sanctions leveled against Saddam were responsible for the deaths of approx. 500K Iraqi children. Woods pointed out that Madeline Albright and a few other senior government officials did NOT dispute the count. Instead they said it was worth it. Imagine even 250K parents angry at the US because its "policies" killed their kids. This isn't saying the policies actually killed the kids; one can argue Saddam killed them by not diverting resources to them. But those US officials certainly responded to that UN report as though policies did--and were worth it. Imagine the anger on the street when those comments were quoted in the Middle East.

We've killed how many Iraqi and Afghan civilians as collateral damage? I cannot imagine that does not make people very, very angry. Its happening even today. How long ago was it that a bunch of non-combatant civilians were killed in Pakistan by a Hellfire?

I noticed that in the 2008 debates the other republican candidates were busy waving patriotic bunting. But there was little mention of all the corruption going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. All that dirty little laundry--that really tends to anger the poor Joe (Habib) who's just trying to feed his kids.

Paul cites the CIA itself. Blow-back they call it. Unintended consequences is the polite term. Making lots of other people mad at you would be a little more accurate.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but the general scenario described above makes more sense to me than "they hate us because of our freedom."