Ron Paul - Common Sense Candidate?

WindNoSail wrote:

He is a doctor by profession, OBGYN, and was a surgeon in the Air Force. Serves in Congress. He seems like a real outsider type of candidate, writing essays on the concept of power in politics, FDA regulation, the Federal Reserve, and war propoganda. Voted against the Patriot Act and has never voted to raise Congressional Pay.

I am intrgued, anyone else?


http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

A lot of us are intrigued.
But the system won't let it happen.
:(

watch the first debate where Giuliani tries to murder him with the "Having lived through 9\11, I find that comment dispicable. I urge the congressman to withdraw his remark and say he didn't really mean it." bullshit...

they will chew him up and spit him out.
and if he DOES win the vote ... they will outright assassinate him.
:(

They are already picking out the rifles, and shining up the bullets for Ron Paul.

motorcade anyone?

godpt3 wrote:

ron paul is a nitwit... and his followers are blind.

If a candidate can't answer, "what comes next," he has no place in the white house.

So, I put to you, the fanboys, "If Ron Pauls wins the presidency, WHAT COMES NEXT?"

Iran...

godpt3 wrote:

If you want to see what a Ron Paul presidency would be like, just look to the governorship of Jesse Ventura. It ended up being a complete joke and a disaster, because the candidate was in over his head.

Nitwit, indeed. Comparing a Doctor and US Congressman to a professional wrestler? Please.

godpt3 wrote:

ron paul is a nitwit... and his followers are blind.

If a candidate can't answer, "what comes next," he has no place in the white house.

So, I put to you, the fanboys, "If Ron Pauls wins the presidency, WHAT COMES NEXT?"

"what comes next" after what?

100 day agendas are campaign tools... name one politician or party that actually succeeded in accomplishing half of the things they set out to do in their first 100 days, or their entire terms?


That being said, right now we have 2 branches of gov't that love to spend money... absolutely LOVE to spend money... I think Ron Paul's views are a bit far, but congress' actions will help bring him to a sensible point (like his policies will help reign in congress).

He would cut the transportation budget, but hopefully that will come at the expense of pet projects and pork instead of on infrastructure.

And lets be honest... our federal taxes would decrease, but I'm sure the state taxes would rise (especially if they aren't getting the fiscal help from washington). We would probably end up paying as much taxes as we do now, but the state level would have to provide services that the federal gov't currently does. At least we have more input to our state governements.

blackredyellow wrote:

He would cut the transportation budget, but hopefully that will come at the expense of pet projects and pork instead of on infrastructure.

Of course that will NEVER happen. The pet projects and pork are what gain congresscritters brownie points in their home districts. Asking them to give that up is like asking one of us to give up breathing. And, since congress controls the purse strings and the president only gets to vote or veto, you'll have President Paul vetoing everything that touches his desk (and you'll have congress overriding damn near every single veto). At which point you'll realize that the Ron Paul presidency will go down in history as even more pointless than the 8 years of Bush II. You'll have four years of gridlock in a place and age where action is needed.

Ron Paul will not make an effective leader. Period.

godpt3 wrote:

Of course that will NEVER happen. The pet projects and pork are what gain congresscritters brownie points in their home districts. Asking them to give that up is like asking one of us to give up breathing. And, since congress controls the purse strings and the president only gets to vote or veto, you'll have President Paul vetoing everything that touches his desk (and you'll have congress overriding damn near every single veto). At which point you'll realize that the Ron Paul presidency will go down in history as even more pointless than the 8 years of Bush II. You'll have four years of gridlock in a place and age where action is needed.

Ron Paul will not make an effective leader. Period.

You know what WOULD BE EFFECTIVE though?

As president, Ron Paul would have amazing access to the MEDIA.

NEWS would be FORCED to pay attention to what he says, and his prime time addresses could be used to instill a new form of American patriotism in it's people ...

If RP could get on the bullhorn and rally people around the flag in an attempt to arm restle the government BACK IN TO IT'S PLACE as servant TO THE PEOPLE ... then his presidency WOULD be of consequence ...

what you fail to understand is that our democracy has been spiraling down the wrong track for decades ... at least since the end of WWII, the rise of the new american Suburban dream, and the start of the CIA ...

YOU DO NOT CHANGE THAT OVERNIGHT, or in 100 days ...

...to insist that Ron Paul's presidency would be invalid or wasted, simply because he fails to overcome every ounce of inertia set in place in one of the LARGEST bureaucracies in the world for the course of decades, is to me the most disingenuine and cynical retorts to be made.

America is suffering from SEVERE MENTAL DISORDER, and DOCTOR RON PAUL may be it's only chance at, if nothing else, at LEAST a SENSIBLE DIAGNOSIS ...

jesus.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

If RP could get on the bullhorn and rally people around the flag in an attempt to arm restle the government BACK IN TO IT'S PLACE as servant TO THE PEOPLE ... then his presidency WOULD be of consequence ....

Some guy named Hitler told the German people pretty much the same thing. Let me know how that turned out, would ya?


Rhetoric is cheap.

godpt3 wrote:

Some guy named Hitler told the German people pretty much the same thing. Let me know how that turned out, would ya?


Rhetoric is cheap.

Did Hitler, or did hitler not GET A LOT ACCOMPLISHED?
(all you PC fools, i am NOT condoning the man, this is a point of argument only) ...

Answer me that, before you site the fellow, and follow it with "Rhetoric is cheap" ... did Hitler or did Hitler not take action on nearly EVERYTHING he stated in speech ...

and did his empassioned rhetoric or did it not engage the people themselves to take action and follow, near blindly, his every wish and command?

How can you draw that reference and not see the glaring irony?


Lets be clear about this.
PEOPLE NEED A VISION ... THEY NEED A GREAT ORATOR ...
I view that as one of the major plagues of our Nation right now. We have NO ONE to give voice to our deepest human dreams and desires (namely, peace, sustinance, and justice) ...

what little "vision" we do get is clouded by the minds of warped Warmongers who use great words like Peace and Trade and Justice to put forward only AGENDAS OF WAR AND OCCUPATION and of CORPORATE RULE ...

this vision comes down from the top ... the President ... it is echoed daily in the news briefings from the White House and adminstration interviews, and it is reinforced ad infinitum by THE GLOBAL MEDIA and it's dire need to keep a stranglehold on the imagination, spirit and free will of the people.

All you serve to do with your "pragmatism" is enforce and condone this ill directed ideological monopoly.
:(