|
If Ron Paul REALLY wanted to be President he would be running a different campaign. Just like Tom Tancredo and Alan Keyes, they are in the race for something other than to become POTUS. |
|
you have misconstrued Congressman Paul's meaning. I think a more accurate construal of his meaning would be an expression of his humble aversion to fame and power- a most rare and valuable quality in human leaders.
|
|
Party is accusing others of ruining it?
Oh, please.
Notice how he said the support is "frightening?" That is because the does NOT want to be POTUS.
|
|
Anne, I've seen you bashing Ron Paul, and I'm just at a loss. Pork spending? Conspiracy theorist? Gun grabber? These accusations are, simply put, extremely far fetched. Attacking Ron Paul's integrity, honesty, and commitment to his personal philosophy of government is asking to have your argument trussed, stuffed, and handed back to you steaming. It's not very bright to attack a man's strengths.
Who do you support? What do they stand for that differs from Paul? Which of their positions do you strongly support? Do you think our economy is just dandy? Do you think we ought to continue spending as we are as if there are no consequences? How much control should the federal government have over our travel, how we raise and educate our kids, and how we spend our incomes? Do you think it's ok for your government to steal money from you and your neighbors to help out people who are less fortunate?
In short, quit ranting about everything you see as wrong with Dr. Paul's positions, and put up some personal philosophy that counters these positions.
|
|
|
I read through this thread and agree with you. Thats right, another RP supporter. Read tons of his writing and understand what the Federal reserve is and what they do, do any of the others here. How about understanding that not only are we 10 trillion in debt, but have future obligations of nearly 100 trillion dollars. Hmmm,how will your candidated address that? Wait, they don't, they pretend there is no monetary issue, they promote globalism and support the UN. Btw congress did not authorize the war, Read HJ 114, they authorized the president to enforce UN resolutions based on WMD's. and Hunter, Brownback, Tancredo and Mcain voted "yea" along with Clinton and Edwards. Trash Paul all you want, Its not a Rock concert or football game here. It's getting someone in office who will clean house and return us to the riule of law. This nation has lost its way and its the dumbed down who can't even conuct a logical debate on the issues, but rather resort to slander and name calling, so sad. |
|
As a Congressman, Ron Paul has constituents who have requests for federal money. His office just forwards ALL requests, and those accepted by Congress add up to $400m. But Ron Paul votes against all those earmarks.
He said he can't ignore his constituents requests, but he doesn't fight for any requests to be added. He said forwarding all requests to the appropriations committee. He said it's a better than what other Congressmen do, which is cherry-pick certain projects, and ignore others. |
|
I just checked the national polls..
updated Sept. 1, 2007.
Dennis Kucinich has better poll numbers than ronnie paul!
Can you believe that? As things stand now, ronniepaul couldn't beat Dennis Kucinich!!!!
And the paulists think ronniepaul could beat HELLary? LOL!!! |
|
|
... only under the proper control of a limited, defined, Congressional funding and mandate and not a black budget, drug-funded open-ended operation to do the bidding of the global corporations and one-worlders and their lackeys in the executive branch. A Blackwater operation under Cogressional control would be an apt example of a good use of M & R. As it is now, they are more like a group of agent provocateurs and thugs for a global police force than properly dispensed agents under a Constitutional mandate. |
|
|
Please explain how Romney will be for lower government spending than Ron Paul. Are you familiar with his record in Mass.? What about his Romney care, which amounts to a government mandate that you spend money on something even when you don't want it. No I doubt very seriously that Romney has been for lower government spending than Ron Paul. |
|
Like that makes ronniepaul a qualified pres. candidate???
Oh, pa-lease, NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Did I mention.....
ronniepaul...$400 MILLION in EARMARKS!
ronniepaul...$400 MILLION in EARMARKS!
ronniepaul...$400 MILLION in EARMARKS!
ronniepaul seems to be giving Murtha a run for his money.
|
|
|
|
|
Ann name one Congressman that votes for less spending than Ron Paul. How about a Republican presidential candidate that is for lower spending? |
|
Yes, I gave credit where credit was due!
I gave credit to someone who was actually at the Straw Poll who observed things that those of us who were not there did not have an opportunity to observe.
Pretty good obsevation though! Don't you think??
:-)
|
|
award 10yrs in a row." -vs- $400 MILLION in earmarks.
Umm? Sounds just a little... no, a LOT HYPOCRITICAL!
ronniepaul...$400 MILLION in EARMARKS!
ronniepaul...$400 MILLION in EARMARKS!
ronniepaul...$400 MILLION in EARMARKS!
I have to admit, though, I was wrong about one thing above.
The paulists don't actually just "circumvent" and "spin", they also try to tell folks WHAT they're allowed to talk about!
Oh, did I mention.....
ronniepaul...$400 MILLION in EARMARKS!
ronniepaul...$400 MILLION in EARMARKS!
ronniepaul...$400 MILLION in EARMARKS!
|
|
|
It is stupid to try to attack Ron Paul on frivolous spending grounds when he has one of, if not the best, record on spending in the Congress. If it wasn't so it should be easy for you to come up with a Congress man that votes to spend less than Ron Paul. |
|
“Truth is, much of Pauls newly found support cares not about his strict Constitutionalism, limited Government, pro gun rights, positions - but from a pack of idiotic conspiracy nuts who love to hear him call for immediate withdrawl from Iraq.”
So Ann didn't make the above comments. Only repeated them.
And folks, Ron Paul has been given the taxpayers best friend in Congress award 10yrs in a row. Stop with the earmark nonsense. |
|
|
|
And I don't think Paul will protect the US. He almost always votes against defense. He's obviously strong on the border - which is huge to me - but he did imply in the debate (I heard it myself!) that we are responsible for 9-11.
I was for the war and I don't apologize for it - most conservatives were if we remember correctly. I still am. We know Saddamm had WMD (moved to Syria) and that it was in the best interest of the US to go after him and anyone elso who poses a threat to us. I'm not a warmonger - just one who believes in standing up to the dangerous bullies in the world who want to blow us to smithereens, or cut our heads off, take your pick!
What is Paul' plan to deal with Iran? This is where it gets tough for Paul supporters to defend him. |
|
|
I am still waiting on Anne to give one Congressman that is better than Ron Paul on spending. I have often asked others, but have never received an answer. |
|
NARAL scores: 65%/07; 75%/06. His scores do fluctuate (and Paulbots say this is because of his voting record). That is true as far as it goes, but he scores higher from NARAL than ANY other Republican candidate.
Earmarks are excused by his supporters. "Washington is going to spend the money anyway, so Mr. Paul is just trying to bring money back to his district."
He also scored 29% (out of 100%) in a recent RePORK card from the Club for Growth. Paul voted against several anti-pork amendments.
He has many other issues: the war, basing oversees, his still apparent inability to seperate his campaign and message from either kookiness or straight out kooks. (A candidate who still cavorts with Alex Jones, a 9/11 Twoofer) and since I said it, yes, I know he has come out and said he doesn't believe the gov was responsible for 9/11, but cavorting with that element stil lends credence to the kookiness.
His stance on the income tax yet still filing and paying income taxes himself. Is it an illegal tax or not? If it is, why pay it? If it isn't, a pillar of his support base collapses.
He is not polling well nationally. And regardless of his internet grassroots, his many radio appearances (many as guests of Townhall radio hosts) and other national apearences on television, etc. he is not generating a "revolution" with anyone other than his own supporters.
Paulbots can't reconcile with the fact that Paul must court and win over the general Republican base for any real support; something which he hasn't done.
If you analyze Paul objectively, he is nothing more than another career politician running for President. |
|
ronniepaul or his paulists as "Conspiracy Nuts."
So much for YOUR credibility!!!
But, do you guys get your talking points from some script at Paulist Central or something? It's always the same ol' two or three talking points again and again and again..
And what's worse, they're INCORRECT, INACCURATE, BASELESS, and DEFECTIVE.
Yeah, that about covers it. :-)
|
|
Anne likes to call Ron Paul supporters conspiracy nuts. But the truth of the matter is, there's nothing conservative about invading nations that haven't attacked the United States. NOTHING!! Real conservatives were against this disasterous war from the very beginning. The GOP has been hijacked by NeoCons, or as Barry Goldwater's former Press Secretary and George HW Bush's Biographer, Vic Gold's book calls it, INVASION OF THE PARTY SNATCHERS
http://www.antiwar.com/bandow/?articleid=10907 |
|
they were talking about Murtha! LOL
August 6, 2007 is NOT exactly "old news."
Okay, give it your best shot... LOL
|
|
Actually, I was just about to comment that the paulists must be back at "paulist central" trying to figure out how to either circumvent or spin my post, as well as portlandmom's, and now I can add yours.
Other than insulting and accusing those who don't agree with ronniepaul of being idiots and not wanting the Constitution, etc., that's pretty much all they do..."circumvent" and "spin."
|
|
|
This is an old attack on Ron Paul. We know he forwards his constituents requests on and then votes against many of the bills. Can you name even one person in Congress that has a better record on controlling government spending than Ron Paul? I sure as heck can't. If the rest of the Republicans voted with Ron Paul we would truly have a small federal government. |
|
He wasn't talking about declaring war. He was talking about the legislative branch having CinC powers. And my Ronulan friends, just to clarify, Congress DID authorize the Iraq War.
I would also like to see Paul do three things:
1. Say definitively whether or not he is a truther, and if not, back away from all Truthers.
2. Explain how isolation/nonintervention would work in the modern world.
3. Definitively say that he would shoot himself before running third party. |
|
"Paul may be a decent man and right about many issues, but he is not presidential. I've listened to him and he comes off as a crank. He does not have the demeanor to garner necessary support."
So you are looking for style over substance. Maybe Romney is the right candidate for you.
"Take money alone - he can't raise enought to compete unless his relatively small number of supporters start donating like crazy. I don't see it happening."
His fundraising is improving. I think he will have a fairly good quarter. Plus I would guess he has more volunteers than the other candidates.
"He is not seen as someone who will defend the US. Period."
I know his opponents like to misrepresent his positions on national security. Ron Paul has said he would defend this country if we were attacked. He has also said when going to war he would fight to win with all of our countries resource put behind it. Nothing he has ever done has given me any reason to disbelieve that. He voted to go after Bin Laden and Al Queda in Afghanistan. He would also control our borders something our current President refuses to do. I would say that Ron Paul would be better at protecting the US than the current President.
|
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118636043871288806.html?mod=todays_us_opinion
"Texas Congressman Ron Paul -- libertarian gadfly and current Republican Presidential hopeful -- has made a name for himself as a critic of overspending. But it seems even he can't resist the political allure of earmarks.
"After reporters started asking questions, the Congressman disclosed his requests this year for about $400 million worth of federal earmarks... "
|
|
|
|
Paul may be a decent man and right about many issues, but he is not presidential. I've listened to him and he comes off as a crank. He does not have the demeanor to garner necessary support. It's pretty silly to think that he can get the nomination at this point. Take money alone - he can't raise enought to compete unless his relatively small number of supporters start donating like crazy. I don't see it happening. Even with money, he has some major obstacles, such as national defense. He is not seen as someone who will defend the US. Period. Like it or not, this issue is huge to a large segment of the GOP. Paul supporters opposed to Bush and the military actions he has taken should at least be willing to concede this point.
|
|
You're right! And if you're interested, you can check it out on any one of many threads in the past months. Have at it!!! :-)
Of course, I notice that you (typical of the paulists) just ignore my points about the paulists' ignorant name calling and insults. Even when I present them is easy to read form.
You might want to check out crescen7's comment on Matt Lewis' September, 01, 2007 blog. And, keep in mind, crescen7 was THERE!
“Truth is, much of Pauls newly found support cares not about his strict Constitutionalism, limited Government, pro gun rights, positions - but from a pack of idiotic conspiracy nuts who love to hear him call for immediate withdrawl from Iraq.”
You know that old saying, "You can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep?"
Well, OTHER than ronniepaul's limited and uninformed views on foreign policy, one has to question who ronniepaul really is if he attracts people such as yourself and the other paulists. And, if you don't understand that, check out my post above. :-)
Cheers!
|
|
"**** Actually I have...many, many, many times!!!!"
Maybe you have, but not in this thread. Your comments here have been uniformed opinion and nothing else. If you are capable of arguing intelligently then do so. If you want to stick to name calling and getting facts wrong then don't be surprised when people dismiss you as just a troll. |
|
"All you can do is say "Ron paul is pa-thet-ic." You can't intelligently formulate a reason why."
**** Actually I have...many, many, many times!!!!
"Once again...The people insulting Ron Paul show their ignorance."
**** The pauletts seem to think that anyone who disagrees with ronniepual is "insulting" him.
"You come off as so stupid it should be considered retarded."
**** Of course you don't recognize the IRONY in those statements, do you?
And one more thing! Somebody on Zito's column posted, "If Ron is robbed of the GOP nomination..."
Well, ronniepaul WON'T get any nomination, AND it won't be because he was robbed of ANYTHING!!!!
For someone to be "robbed" of something, one first has to own it!!! ronniepaul doesn't own the nomination, so it's impossible to rob him of it.
|
|
Anne
If Hillary wins do you want her to have unlimited power and no checks?
This is not about the person it is about the Constitution! |
|
ROFLMAO...You folks are something else!
And is anyone familiar with Lauren Caitlin Upton's illustrious genealogy?
You have throughly deconstructed poor Anne and almost without name calling. Frank in Phoenix, pull the troops into line!
However, I believe that our Anne must be the alternate universe version of "Anne of Green Gables" fame. Wikipedia describes that Anne in the following words. "Anne is bright and quick, eager to please but dissatisfied with her name, her pale countenance dotted with freckles, and ...her long braids of red hair. Being a child of imagination, however, Anne takes much joy in life, and adapts quickly, thriving in the environment of Prince Edward Island.
I think that in the alternate universe version Anne's story was told as "Anne of Green Goobers" and she resided on King George Island off the coast of Antarctica. We can cut her some slack, because there are a lot of cute, little inhabitants living there from which she, no doubt, learned all that she shares with us here.
http://www.galenfrysinger.com/king_george_island.htm |
|
... Lauren Caitlin Upton?
"I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to understand Letters of Marque and Reprisal because, uh, some, uh, people out there in our nation don’t have Constitutions, and, uh, I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq everywhere like, such as, and I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., err, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our children.
"Oh, and did I mention that ronniepaul is Pa-THET-ic?!" |
|
... it must be way past your bedtime.
You're rambling. |
|
|
It is nice to see that Ron Paul's supporters are actually educated on the issues at hand. It is pretty funny to see this Anne character's position get destroyed with facts. She then continues with name calling and actually thinks her uniformed opinion means anything. |
|
ronniepaul was embarrassing! And kudos to Hugh for being so polite (he always is) when I'm sure he was ready to lol..
Letters of Marque is a joke!
I don't mean to make fun of ronnipaul and his pauletts... yes, all 917 of the pauletts, but really, there is NO WAY anyone can take ronniepaul and the pauletts seriously.
Just no way!!! All I know is that IF you're serious (heaven forbid) I don't want to be any where near any paulett when SOME ONE ELSE gets the nomination. I'm afraid it will get ugly.
|
|
|
The people insulting Ron Paul show their ignorance. The answers to our problems are in the Constitution. We were not meant to have a King, which is what some of you seem to want. |
|
... of a constitutional provision given by the Founders for dealing with private (i.e., non-state) criminal actors like ObL.
Why mobilize entire divisions of US troops -- and invade THE WRONG COUNTRY, no less -- to deal with the leader of a handful of terrorists?
Bush is breaking our military by "nation-building" in Afghanistan and Iraq (something which, during the 2000 debates w/Algore, Bush promised he WOULD NOT use the US military for) ... and the perpetrator of 9/11 (ObL) is still on the loose 6 years later.
A Letter of M&R could have been just the trick against ObL and al Qaeda ... but no, Gennil Bush felt like playing army men, sending hundreds of thousands of innnocent Afghanis and Iraqis to their deaths ... and failing to bring those who attacked us to justice.
Talk about your bait-and-switches. |
|
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, **when called into the actual service of the United States** ... " ~ US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2.
I.e., only when we're at war, and NOT 24/7/365 for his 4-year term. |
|
of the whole thing... So ridiculous!!!!!!!
|
|
The Most Dreaded Enemy of Liberty
by James Madison, August 1793
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . .
[It should be well understood] that the powers proposed to be surrendered [by the Third Congress] to the Executive were those which the Constitution has most jealously appropriated to the Legislature. . . .
The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war . . . the power of raising armies . . . the power of creating offices. . . .
A delegation of such powers [to the President] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments.
The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.
The separation of the power of raising armies from the power of commanding them, is intended to prevent the raising of armies for the sake of commanding them.
The separation of the power of creating offices from that of filling them, is an essential guard against the temptation to create offices for the sake of gratifying favorites or multiplying dependents. |
|
Cajun writes:
"So ... Paul believes the legislative branch should have more power in the military. Where's that in the Constitution?"
Not "more power IN THE MILITARY," per se, but more power in declaring war.
The Founders intended Congress to legislate -- i.e., to declare that a state of war hereby exists between the United States and (let's say) Samovia (presumably for some just reason).
At which time the military forces of the US are called into service in that war, and the POTUS becomes -- BECOMES -- the Commander in Chief of the forces so serving.
Interesting how, constitutionally speaking, the POTUS isn't the CIC 24/7/365 for 4 years, whether we're at war or not. He's only CIC when we're at war.
But the bigger point is that, once Congress has "legislated" by declaring war against Samovia, it then becomes the POTUS's job to carry it out -- to EXECUTE it, you might say.
You know, as in the "Executive" branch?
Founding Father cite to follow ... please stand by ... |
|
... a Letter of Marque and Reprisal. Rather, he would be THE SUBJECT of said Letter. Read on:
"A Letter of Marque and Reprisal is an official warrant or commission from a national government authorizing the designated agent to search, seize, or destroy specified assets or personnel belonging to a party which has committed some offense under the laws of nations against the assets or citizens of the issuing nation, and has usually been used to authorize private parties to raid and capture merchant shipping of an enemy nation.
"The formal statement of the warrant is to authorize the agent to pass beyond the borders of the nation ("marque", meaning frontier), and there to search, seize, or destroy assets or personnel of the hostile foreign party ("reprisal"), not necessarily a nation, to a degree and in a way that was proportional to the original offense. It is considered a retaliatory measure short of a full declaration of war, and by maintaining a rough proportionality, has been intended to justify the action to other nations, who might otherwise consider it an act of war or piracy. ..."
Read the rest at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque
Gee, ain't this blog an educational endeavor?!
=8-D |
|
I hate to do that because every time I hear ronpaul I'm less impressed than I was before.
Letters of Marque! Now THAT would scare the stuffing right out of Bin laden wouldn't it? No doubt he'd sit up and take notice if he got one of those!
I can see it now... There's Bin ladin, sitting on his blanket, ripping up the Letter of Marque, and laughing hysterically, and it would be shown 10,000 time on Al Jazeera.
That would be good! LOL
Sadly, the pauletts just don't get how serious this situation in the ME really is.
|
|
|
|
Paul believes the legislative branch should have more power in the military. Where's that in the Constitution?
Guy also supports using letters of marque? That, my friends, is crazy talk.
Also, a isolationist/non-interventionist foreign policy will not work as long as there is one vehicle capable of trans-oceanic travel.
And before every Ronulan jumps on me for being a neocon, I don't support Rudy McRomney. |
|
|
|