Ron Paul forms presidential exploratory committee - Page 14

krepitch · December 24th, 2007, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pariah

In a nutshell, this is what's wrong with American politics.

Politics isn't the NFL. You shouldn't dislike a candidate simply because he's not "on your team."

JMHO

I just started reading a book called The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America. I think you might want to add that one to your list.

http://www.amazon.com/Second-Civil-W...8524666&sr=8-1

SirChaz · December 24th, 2007, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zebes

I don't understand why Libertarians don't like him. I have a couple friends who are very staunch Libertarians and they don't like him, to put it nicely. Would anyone know why?

I don't like him because I'm a die hard Democrat.

If you don't know why your friends don't like him why don't you ask them?

I don't think it is accurate that libertarians in general don't like him, many do.

Most people that don't like him support the war, the welfare state, open borders, or federally mandated and funded abortion on demand. Take your pick. He definitely pushes a lot of people out of their comfort zone.

Even to people that don't agree with him on some things he has become a protest candidate against the status quo and politics as usual. Quite literally the country is going broke and sliding into the soft fascism of corporatism. None of the other candidates are really addressing the issues of overreaching federal power and overspending.

Pariah · December 24th, 2007, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zebes

I don't like his rhetoric and I don't fall for internet hype. What's wrong with that?

That's better (but what do you mean by his "rhetoric?"), but it's not what you said. You said you didn't like him because you are a "die hard democrat."

NightHawk11and81 · December 31st, 2007, 09:03 AM

I don't like him because I don't agree with him on most issues. I want small government, not anarchy.

Donald · December 31st, 2007, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightHawk11and81

I want small government, not anarchy.

He doesn't advocate anarchy.

SirChaz · December 31st, 2007, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightHawk11and81

I don't like him because I don't agree with him on most issues. I want small government, not anarchy.

Is there anyone else running that wants small government?
Is there anyone else running that wants to change the tax and spend habit of the federal government?

Not that I can see.
It seems to me that the government is on a collision course with bankruptcy. Just search on David Walker the US government comptroller and look at the unfunded mandates we are promised to spend. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for a course change from this very possible disastrous outcome.

The President is just one branch of the government. He isn't running for dictator, just the chief executive of the federal government. Even if he did want anarchy (which he doesn't) I don't know how he could even achieve that.

If you look at his record he has a history of not doing things he doesn't believe he is authorized to do. Therefore we have some basis to trust that he will do things the right way and work with the congress to shrink the federal government responsibly.

I recommend you look into his positions a little deeper and stop relying on a strawman anarchy charge.

NightHawk11and81 · December 31st, 2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirChaz

Is there anyone else running that wants small government?
Is there anyone else running that wants to change the tax and spend habit of the federal government?

Not that I can see.
It seems to me that the government is on a collision course with bankruptcy. Just search on David Walker the US government comptroller and look at the unfunded mandates we are promised to spend. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for a course change from this very possible disastrous outcome.

The President is just one branch of the government. He isn't running for dictator, just the chief executive of the federal government. Even if he did want anarchy (which he doesn't) I don't know how he could even achieve that.

If you look at his record he has a history of not doing things he doesn't believe he is authorized to do. Therefore we have some basis to trust that he will do things the right way and work with the congress to shrink the federal government responsibly.

I recommend you look into his positions a little deeper and stop relying on a strawman anarchy charge.

I've looked at Ron Paul. I've seen his positions. I've spent a lot of time studying this. Ron Paul is my absolute last choice for the presidency. His history actually makes me trust him less because he lives in an 18th century world where we haven't outlined those powers yet. I don't think on the same wavelength as him. In my opinion, the man is a Republican in name only.

I'm supporting Mike Huckabee for president. Should he drop out, I'll find another candidate I agree with. That candidate will not be Ron Paul. I'll vote Democrat before I did that.

82CardsGrad · December 31st, 2007, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightHawk11and81

I've looked at Ron Paul. I've seen his positions. I've spent a lot of time studying this. Ron Paul is my absolute last choice for the presidency. His history actually makes me trust him less because he lives in an 18th century world where we haven't outlined those powers yet. I don't think on the same wavelength as him. In my opinion, the man is a Republican in name only.

I'm supporting Mike Huckabee for president. Should he drop out, I'll find another candidate I agree with. That candidate will not be Ron Paul. I'll vote Democrat before I did that.

Dude - where have you been hiding??

NightHawk11and81 · December 31st, 2007, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 82CardsGrad

Dude - where have you been hiding??

Hey 82, I've finally had enough on the other board and decided to check this one out. So far, I'm liking what I'm seeing.

SirChaz · December 31st, 2007, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightHawk11and81

I've looked at Ron Paul. I've seen his positions. I've spent a lot of time studying this. Ron Paul is my absolute last choice for the presidency. His history actually makes me trust him less because he lives in an 18th century world where we haven't outlined those powers yet. I don't think on the same wavelength as him. In my opinion, the man is a Republican in name only.

I'm supporting Mike Huckabee for president. Should he drop out, I'll find another candidate I agree with. That candidate will not be Ron Paul. I'll vote Democrat before I did that.

Good luck with that.

The 20th century was the deadliest century in human history.
The real enemy is war, statism, coersion, and top down (one size fits all) control structures.

Republicans used to stand for smaller government so in that respect Paul is the only Republican. Now if Republican means to you big government "compassionate" conservatism and Wilsonian "making the world safe for democracy" foreign policies then no he doesn't fit.

I don't what makes you think he lives in an 18th century world exactly but I would simply respond that those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I think the enlightenment of the 18th century holds some lessons for our future still.

Are you really aware of the financal position this country is in?
9 Trillion in debt and 40 - 60 Trillion in unfunded mandates staring my children and grandchildren in the face. Regulation, Federal control, and taxes strangling the productivity of the country and eroding the middle class.
I would like to know what Huckabee or any other candidate is going to do about that.

Pariah · December 31st, 2007, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightHawk11and81

In my opinion, the man is a Republican in name only.

... I'll vote Democrat before I did that.

Arrrgh!

Who cares? It's a label, nothing more, nothing less. I commend you for looking into his stances (though I certainly don't agree with your conclusions about them), but who cares if he's a "republican in name only?" People need to lose the label-worship, IMO.

Back to the matter at hand:

Quote:

he lives in an 18th century world where we haven't outlined those powers yet.

I don't really know what this means, but I think you're saying he's trying to apply ideas that might work only in the world 300 years ago. If so, I disagree vehemently; I think his ideas are ahead of his time and we'll see more and more Libertarian ideas from each side of the isle in the coming elections (ie 2012, 2016, etc...)

NightHawk11and81 · December 31st, 2007, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirChaz

Good luck with that.

The 20th century was the deadliest century in human history.
The real enemy is war, statism, coersion, and top down (one size fits all) control structures.

Republicans used to stand for smaller government so in that respect Paul is the only Republican. Now if Republican means to you big government "compassionate" conservatism and Wilsonian "making the world safe for democracy" foreign policies then no he doesn't fit.

I don't what makes you think he lives in an 18th century world exactly but I would simply respond that those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I think the enlightenment of the 18th century holds some lessons for our future still.

Are you really aware of the financal position this country is in?
9 Trillion in debt and 40 - 60 Trillion in unfunded mandates staring my children and grandchildren in the face. Regulation, Federal control, and taxes strangling the productivity of the country and eroding the middle class.
I would like to know what Huckabee or any other candidate is going to do about that.

And Ron Paul is going to do something about that? By abandoning allies? It's not worth it to me, even if it would work. We cannot exist in a vacuum. We already abandoned Iran. We cannot do the same to Israel or Iraq like Paul wants to.

Fortunately, he's not going to win. Duncan Hunter's open letter to Iowans explains why he thinks he should be the candidate of the GOP over others with a chance, and attacks every candidate he sees as a threat. Ron Paul is never mentioned.

SirChaz · December 31st, 2007, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightHawk11and81

And Ron Paul is going to do something about that? By abandoning allies? It's not worth it to me, even if it would work. We cannot exist in a vacuum. We already abandoned Iran. We cannot do the same to Israel or Iraq like Paul wants to.

We abandoned Iran? Abandon our allies? Like who? Military dictatorship Pakistan or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?
I don't understand how we claim to promote democracy then we send billions to non democratic governments around the world.

We are going broke with trillions in debt but you contend we need to continue to send money to other governments around the world.
How is that working out for us? I think it just generates more problems than it solves. We can be engaged diplomatically, we can promote trade, and protect our citizens all with out having 700+ military bases around the world and save ourselves a lot of money in the process.

Quote:

Fortunately, he's not going to win. Duncan Hunter's open letter to Iowans explains why he thinks he should be the candidate of the GOP over others with a chance, and attacks every candidate he sees as a threat. Ron Paul is never mentioned.

Duncan Hunter? He hasn't dropped out yet?
How is he the authority for who is a threat?

arthurracoon · December 31st, 2007, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightHawk11and81

...Duncan Hunter's open letter to Iowans explains why he thinks he should be the candidate of the GOP over others with a chance, and attacks every candidate he sees as a threat. Ron Paul is never mentioned.

maybe he just thinks that paul is perfect

KloD · December 31st, 2007, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirChaz

Duncan Hunter? He hasn't dropped out yet?
How is he the authority for who is a threat?

What makes Hunter an authority on anything? Remember this Chaz, your debating with a guy who is critical of Paul's foreign policy ideas, yet is calling Huckabee (who's the most ignorant of all candidates on foreign policy) the best qualified.