a question for ron paul supporters

CH156378

should i still take ron paul serious as a canidate? it seems that a serious canidate for president doesn't introduce legislation with barney frank on legalizing pot. isn't that kind of throwing in the towel. i do appreciate his efforts. however even ron should realize after introducing this bill his chances went from never going to happen to no way in hell. thanks.

Halifax2TheMax

Ron Paul is the Ralph Nader of the right. Ain't gonna happen.

Peace.

Cosmo

Ron Paul really needs to divorce himself from the Republican Party. He should NOT be tossed into the same mix with the Sarah Palins, Michelle Bachmanns or Newt Gingrichs out there. He is more of a definition of 'Independent'. The problems he would face would be the loss of those Tea Party Members who are Republicans, not independents.

brandon10

I think he has a lot of great ideas, including legalizing pot. I'm unsure why that would make him unelectable??

gimmesometruth27

he has to stay a republican if he wants any chance at all. he needs the financial support of the koch brothers and the hype/campaign machine that is fox news. without that financing and the support of that network he has as much chance as i do of getting the nomination...

VINNY GOOMBA

CH156378 wrote:

should i still take ron paul serious as a canidate? it seems that a serious canidate for president doesn't introduce legislation with barney frank on legalizing pot. isn't that kind of throwing in the towel. i do appreciate his efforts. however even ron should realize after introducing this bill his chances went from never going to happen to no way in hell. thanks.

Considering the positive impacts this leglislation could have, yes I think this is a very serious move, and a great idea. If cannabis were made legal tomorrow, in time border violence as well as all other drug related violence would decrease dramatically. New business opportunities would present themselves from farming to a hugely wide array of products that can be made from hemp / cannabis right here on American soil, from food to clothing to fuel, etc... In a struggling economy (or any economy for that matter) government should only concern itself with enforcing contracts and making sure that no one is getting robbed, and allow for as many opportunities for non-violent consenting parties as possible. I personally do not advocate taxing this product, but that will likely be part of its legalization, which some people would view as a positive, that is additional revenue for the government while downsizing the amount of police and federal agents who were busting people for non violent crimes. Billions of dollars could be saved with a formal end to the failure known as "the war on drugs." There has always been an ongoing debate about welfare and who pays for who in this country. We could debate the merits and need for law-abiding citizens on welfare endlessly. But, I think the one thing most of us agree on is that no one wants to pay more than they have to to house, feed, and clothe prisoners, especially when many prisoners do not belong in prison for victimless crimes. Tons of money can be saved there. And lastly, this is an issue of personal freedom. If we can't decide what we can do with our own bodies, what can we really decide for ourselves? Legalization of cannabis is rarely framed in this manner but it should be, and if it were, it wouldn't be considered a "fringe" or "crackpot" idea.

Prince Of Dorkness

My guess is that he's more like Ralph Nader and Sarah Palin... unelectable but as long as they say shocking things, they stay in the press and make money selling books.

Godfather.

I think the 2012 election will suprise and piss of a bunch of the train brains but thats just a gut feeling and I could be wrong, seems to me the repub partry will sneak in there with all the confusion and back and forth BS going on.

Godfather.

Godfather.

I have a question for Mr. Paul, wtf is going to be done about out-sourcing American job's and business' ?


Godfather.

mikepegg44

CH156378 wrote:

should i still take ron paul serious as a canidate? it seems that a serious canidate for president doesn't introduce legislation with barney frank on legalizing pot. isn't that kind of throwing in the towel. i do appreciate his efforts. however even ron should realize after introducing this bill his chances went from never going to happen to no way in hell. thanks.

why? I think now more than ever a bill limiting the federal government is a great way of separating himself from the talking heads who claim small government but then support the DOMA or the patriot act. Legalizing marijuana will happen eventually.

unsung

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

My guess is that he's more like Ralph Nader and Sarah Palin... unelectable but as long as they say shocking things, they stay in the press and make money selling books.

You are making it hard to be taken seriously when you mention Dr Paul and Sarah Palin in the same sentence.

Sarah Palin promotes herself in her books, Ron Paul promotes LIBERTY, and always has.

VINNY GOOMBA

Cosmo wrote:

Ron Paul really needs to divorce himself from the Republican Party. He should NOT be tossed into the same mix with the Sarah Palins, Michelle Bachmanns or Newt Gingrichs out there. He is more of a definition of 'Independent'. The problems he would face would be the loss of those Tea Party Members who are Republicans, not independents.

As much as I'd like to see Paul as an independent, I don't think he should change his party affiliation just because the rest of his party do not see eye to eye with his O.G. Republican ideas. If anything, the rest of his party is coming his way, at least they are starting to speak his language in terms of the economy and even foreign policy to some degree. Whether the rest of these guys are at all believable in what they say, I do not think so. But proof that the party is actually headed in his direction is best shown by comparing the 2008 Republican primary debates to the 2012 debates. The fact that Gary Johnson is in the mix (when the mainstream media allows him to be) is a major sign that the Republican Party is trying to emulate Paul / their classic ideas to gain votes if nothing else.

Prince Of Dorkness

unsung wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

My guess is that he's more like Ralph Nader and Sarah Palin... unelectable but as long as they say shocking things, they stay in the press and make money selling books.

You are making it hard to be taken seriously when you mention Dr Paul and Sarah Palin in the same sentence.

Sarah Palin promotes herself in her books, Ron Paul promotes LIBERTY, and always has.

Blah blah blah.

My point is that they both have their own style which is aimed not at getting elected so much as stoking their own base.

Cosmo

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Ron Paul really needs to divorce himself from the Republican Party. He should NOT be tossed into the same mix with the Sarah Palins, Michelle Bachmanns or Newt Gingrichs out there. He is more of a definition of 'Independent'. The problems he would face would be the loss of those Tea Party Members who are Republicans, not independents.

As much as I'd like to see Paul as an independent, I don't think he should change his party affiliation just because the rest of his party do not see eye to eye with his O.G. Republican ideas. If anything, the rest of his party is coming his way, at least they are starting to speak his language in terms of the economy and even foreign policy to some degree. Whether the rest of these guys are at all believable in what they say, I do not think so. But proof that the party is actually headed in his direction is best shown by comparing the 2008 Republican primary debates to the 2012 debates. The fact that Gary Johnson is in the mix (when the mainstream media allows him to be) is a major sign that the Republican Party is trying to emulate Paul / their classic ideas to gain votes if nothing else.

...
Ron Paul is too much of a wildcard for the Republican Party. They will nominate someone like Mitt Romney and use Tea Party favorites, such as Palin, Bachmann and Paul to motivate that bloc to vote for their party candidate. The Republicans want someone who will tow the party line... not someone like Ron Paul, who thinks and votes independently.
The Republicans will field a candidate that fits the definition of the Republican Party.

brandon10

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

unsung wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

My guess is that he's more like Ralph Nader and Sarah Palin... unelectable but as long as they say shocking things, they stay in the press and make money selling books.

You are making it hard to be taken seriously when you mention Dr Paul and Sarah Palin in the same sentence.

Sarah Palin promotes herself in her books, Ron Paul promotes LIBERTY, and always has.

Blah blah blah.

My point is that they both have their own style which is aimed not at getting elected so much as stoking their own base.

I agree with a lot of things you post (prince of dorkness), but I think you are way off base here. It's almost as if you are lumping Ron Paul in with these others simply because he is republican?.

I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's ideas, but I respect any politician who says they want to end all wars and bring all the troops home from all bases around the world.

Just because the bought media drones dismiss him as crazy, it doesn't make it so.

Godfather.

this board is full of prophits .

Godfather.

butterjam

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

he has to stay a republican if he wants any chance at all. he needs the financial support of the koch brothers and the hype/campaign machine that is fox news. without that financing and the support of that network he has as much chance as i do of getting the nomination...

I hardly doubt he has any funding/support from the Koch brothers. And Fox News hardly likes him.

I don't understand why there is all this backlash against him on this board. He is an honest politician who stands by his views and is consistent. He wants to bring all of the troops home and audit the fed. Those are two things I think most people here would agree. And that's his two biggest issues.

Now you can disagree with him for a lot of his crazier ideas, but who else has the guts and honesty to say what they believe and stand by it. I'd like to hear what any other GOP candidate has to say about some of the things that Dr. Paul gets asked.

Godfather.

311jj wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

he has to stay a republican if he wants any chance at all. he needs the financial support of the koch brothers and the hype/campaign machine that is fox news. without that financing and the support of that network he has as much chance as i do of getting the nomination...

I hardly doubt he has any funding/support from the Koch brothers. And Fox News hardly likes him.

I don't understand why there is all this backlash against him on this board. He is an honest politician who stands by his views and is consistent. He wants to bring all of the troops home and audit the fed. Those are two things I think most people here would agree. And that's his two biggest issues.

Now you can disagree with him for a lot of his crazier ideas, but who else has the guts and honesty to say what they believe and stand by it. I'd like to hear what any other GOP candidate has to say about some of the things that Dr. Paul gets asked.

an honest person will never be elected, there is too much curuption and goes too deep and besides that most of the american voters have been trained by the media to avoid such honesty and crazyness.

Godfather.

VINNY GOOMBA

311jj wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

he has to stay a republican if he wants any chance at all. he needs the financial support of the koch brothers and the hype/campaign machine that is fox news. without that financing and the support of that network he has as much chance as i do of getting the nomination...

I hardly doubt he has any funding/support from the Koch brothers. And Fox News hardly likes him.

I don't understand why there is all this backlash against him on this board. He is an honest politician who stands by his views and is consistent. He wants to bring all of the troops home and audit the fed. Those are two things I think most people here would agree. And that's his two biggest issues.

Now you can disagree with him for a lot of his crazier ideas, but who else has the guts and honesty to say what they believe and stand by it. I'd like to hear what any other GOP candidate has to say about some of the things that Dr. Paul gets asked.

I don't think a lot of people can get over the [R] next to his name. The fact that he tried to run for president as an [L] and hasn't changed his stance on anything since then, combined with the fact that the media and his own party really do their absolute best to marginalize him should be enough to prove he is an actual threat to the status quo. If the people in this country actually wanted CHANGE, and I'm not claiming for better or worse, but to try a genuinely different approach, Dr. Paul should be considered.

unsung

311jj wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

he has to stay a republican if he wants any chance at all. he needs the financial support of the koch brothers and the hype/campaign machine that is fox news. without that financing and the support of that network he has as much chance as i do of getting the nomination...

I hardly doubt he has any funding/support from the Koch brothers. And Fox News hardly likes him.

I don't understand why there is all this backlash against him on this board. He is an honest politician who stands by his views and is consistent. He wants to bring all of the troops home and audit the fed. Those are two things I think most people here would agree. And that's his two biggest issues.

Now you can disagree with him for a lot of his crazier ideas, but who else has the guts and honesty to say what they believe and stand by it. I'd like to hear what any other GOP candidate has to say about some of the things that Dr. Paul gets asked.

Like Vinny said it is the (R) next to his name. Proof that most people here preach bipartisanship and voting for the best candidate, but then look away when the answer slaps them in the face.

VINNY GOOMBA

unsung wrote:

311jj wrote:

I hardly doubt he has any funding/support from the Koch brothers. And Fox News hardly likes him.

I don't understand why there is all this backlash against him on this board. He is an honest politician who stands by his views and is consistent. He wants to bring all of the troops home and audit the fed. Those are two things I think most people here would agree. And that's his two biggest issues.

Now you can disagree with him for a lot of his crazier ideas, but who else has the guts and honesty to say what they believe and stand by it. I'd like to hear what any other GOP candidate has to say about some of the things that Dr. Paul gets asked.

Like Vinny said it is the (R) next to his name. Proof that most people here preach bipartisanship and voting for the best candidate, but then look away when the answer slaps them in the face.

Liberals (classical or neo) really hold the key to this guy getting the Republican nomination. I said it in another thread, and I'll say it again-- Barack Obama has his party's nomination. Registered Democrats should switch parties for the primaries and vote for the Republican who is going to keep Obama most honest, especially in terms of foreign policy, Ron Paul. Even if liberals/Democrats cannot bring themselves to vote against their party in the national election, they owe it to themselves and everyone else to make sure that Barack isn't any lamer than any of the other lame ducks in presidential history. The best way to do that is to run Ron Paul against him.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Brandon10 is a pretty liberal guy right?