Anyone Against Ron Paul ?

So you admit he's a man on an island with no ability to govern a country with multiple viewpoints. Thanks for being honest.

 

I understand what you are trying to say, but he has never shown the ability to make his goals equate to a common cause. He has always been a loner, been proud of it, and he will be a victim of that. He does not know how to build a coalition to get something done.

 

IF he is elected president, the Ideology that most Americans want is his. He has never pandered to anyone, he is being supported by those that want his view points, no to see him change. Congress needs to follow the will of the people, and if the will is to have someone like Ron in the White House, then that is what congress needs to strive for. But if there is decenting views enough, then congress can simply over ride a veto when ever they see fit.

Ron can still do what he promised by getting rid of cabinate positions without congressional approval. He can also get rid of the unconstitutional exectutive orders without congress too. Once the American public starts seeing everything Ron can do without congress to push this nation back into what it was designed to be, then midterm elections will be quite interesting in 2014.

 

HR 1207 had 245 co sponsers.....

 

Guess Ron Paul should have dispensed with his principles and signed on with the law that makes it lawful to lock up American Citizens without trial.

 

And failed to pass.

 

These one liners are not making the case that RP can be a leader that others would like to follow in numbers that could create a coalition for the type of legislative action that we need.

 

Because Senators flip flopped at the end. Not due to Ron Paul.

 

He did not pull together a coalition that would support his bill. That is the overall history of his tenure in congress. No coalition building, no legislation passed at his urging.
He is an ineffectual leader. He can't get it done, and has the track record to prove it.

 

What compromise are you referring to? Are you referring to the illusion of compromise that is force fed to you by the media and the two-party establishment? There is almost no difference between the two. This "compromise" you're referring to is what has gotten us in the mess we are in right now. We need some serious fundamental changes to the way our government operates or else we are in for some seriously rough times ahead. I'm not just talking about economics either, I'm talking about the rapidly emerging police state that takes it upon itself to spy on, imprison, torture, and kill American citizens without any due process. You do realize that Paul is the only one who wants to stop this nonsense, don't you? Your country is turning into Nazi Germany and you're cheering it on.

 

The things he is proposing to do as POTUS he can get done without the congressional approval. And it would save a TRILLION dollars. There will be the strong call behind congress to do what POTUS Ron Paul is advocating for once the public sees what his stances and priciples turn into when actually applied.

But I guess you prefer congress passing laws that ultimately fail, versus ignoring the person that advocates for the opposite position and doesn't get traction. Why do you want to vote for people that only have failing policies that have actually been pushed through?

 

You are going on a tangent.
None of what you are talking about will happen if you can't get the legislation passed to effect those changes, and RP is not a leader that can lead people to those kinds of decisions. He has proved it repeatedly, for his entire career in fact.
You are making assumptions about what I support and "cheer on". What I don't support is an ineffectual man with no influence and no hope of suddenly getting some. Congress has shown that they have no confidence in him, and without them, you have nothing.
You can love the rants and the grand pronouncements, but he has to lead, and he can't, and we know this because he has failed to do so.
With all the co-sponsors to HR 1207, he couldn't bring that home.
He's a paper tiger.

 

This is such a tired and weak argument. Ron Paul's principles are against the corporate establishment, so of course he hasn't had overwhelming success "working" with the other side. That is like saying a Jew in Nazi Germany who was unsuccessful in convincing the SS not to throw him in the concentration camp was a failure.

The fact that he has taken a completely lost idea of liberty and set fire to 15% of the population with it, is the most favored political figure in Universities, and has brought the federal reserve into the spotlight has more value than an ability to compromise with corrupt politicians

 

If RP gets elected in spite of the entire establishment against him, that fact alone will render your whole argument moot.

 

Because legislation is how major change is effected in our country. You don't have to like it, but it is our system. He isn't going to get the chance to do his "slash and burn" policies, as he will never be POTUS.

 

Ok, the public is following Ron Paul without the medias help right? So how can he NOT be a leader if he has followers? Is it Ron's fault that he won't introduce a bill that will get other congress people money in their pockets through bribery or some insider trading information? Ron is such a horrible person for not bribing his fellow congress people. I have seen the light.

 

And how can you predict this? Watching a little bit too much O'Reilly last night? Did you put that part of his talking points on a loop and watch it till it sank in? Just saying "he wont" doesn't mean you are right, especially with no proof. Proof as in, he has lost the general election to so-n-so.

How about you vote and let everyone else vote before you make such a prediction. Reagan was never supposed to win either.

 

Because if I do it after we all vote it's not a prediction. LOL!

I am stating why I wouldn't vote for him, among other reasons. All you have done is said that what I am stating is true. You are choosing to vote for him anyway.

Enjoy! See you at the polls.

By the way, I think O'Reilly is a clown, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

There is nothing to back your prediction that he wont win. There was definatly nothing behind Bills prediction last night that 1v1, Obama would decimate Paul. He is lying because Bill was shown up by Paul. Bill hates Paul's socially libertarian views because Bill is a social authoritarian and especially a warmongerer.

You have your views of why you wouldn't vote for Ron, fine. But don't NOT vote for him cause someone says he is unelectable. That isn't a reason, that is an excuse. Everyone is electable if you vote for them.

 

Why are you pounding on about O'Reilly? I think his is the clown prince of cable television. I don't watch Billo, and didn't see what you are referring to.

I am watching the polls in the upcoming states, however, and it doesn't look very positive for RP. Iowa has not done a very good job in predicting republican nominees in the past.

I think most of the public see RP as a doddering eccentric that they would not trust anywhere near the presidency. I am one of those.

 

I also wasn't wild about the homophobia that was revealed in RP when Sasha Baron Cohen did his Bruno interview with him. He kept screaming that he was "queer", like it was some kind of disease. I took offense to that, and just to put the obvious comeback to rest, so did my girlfriend.

 

Yet you still have a flair for being overly dramatic...

"...screaming that he was "queer"..." The way I remember it, RP stated that Cohen was "queer" twice while addressing one of his associates immediately after Cohen made a sexual pass at him, he didn't "scream" anything.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7RnlPQCKBQ"]Ron Paul & Sasha Baron Cohen (Bruno) - YouTube[/ame]

Watch it again and then come back and say that "stated" is a fair characterization of the way Paul used the term. "Screaming" may be an overstatement, but he was clearly using "queer" as a pejorative term, and you will be hard pressed to deny that.
His attitude toward gays was well displayed in the clip.
Many of his followers will have no problem with this. I do.

 

Yep, like I said, he said it twice and he did not scream a single time:

"That guy is queer as the blazes, he took his clothes off, let's get going. He's queer, he's crazy, he put a hit on me, he took his clothes off."

He was definitely agitated since a man took his pants off and then tried blocking his exit, yet he still didn't raise his voice. He handled the situation much more calmly than most people would have. You're simply being a drama queen.

 

I think his attitude toward gays is quite obvious.
I said that screaming was an overstatement.
Your credibility would be enhanced if you also admitted that RP simply "stated" that Cohen was queer was an understatement.
But you won't.