some questions about Ron Paul

Ron Paul doesnt take the radical Islamic threat seriously and will get us all killed if elected. (Thank God we will not have to worry about that.) He did more backpedaling in that interview with Russert than a unicyclist on a tight wire. Only a Ron Paul supporter couldnt see Russert chew him up and spit him out. He was pathetic. That interview will cost him some much needed percentage points.

 

Look guys, this is a real dilemma for me. If you eliminate Giuliani and Romney off the bat for obvious reasons, then, as I take your posts forget Paul, and all the negative comments about Huckabee, who do you suggest we support?

 

Sure if you say so... Russert only had to bring items up from 20 years ago to "try" to make any points.

Ron Paul is the best person for the job of POTUS. If not him, who do you support Ps104_33?

Jamie

 

Has he done anything wrong? He believes in less government, but as long as it's broken the way it is, why is it wrong for him to support his constituents? Has he ever voted for an earmark?

So he is sick because he "looks" sick? That is how you will judge someone? By looks? nice.

As far as little to show for his agenda, 1. It happens that way when you want real change and everyone else wants more power and 2. Ask the people in his district if they like the job his doing. After that many terms, he must be doing something right.

Which state do you think would make drugs legal? Got anything to back this up, or are you just rambling? He wants the states to control what the states should be controlling. How is the War on Drugs working out? Has it been in place long enough to show any results? I know you're a results orientiented kind of person...

That's great news! He also wants to eliminate the aid going to Arab countries, which he stated was about 3 times as much aid as Israel gets. Would you like to continue to support Israel AND the Arab countries?

Which candidate do you mostly align with now?

Jamie

 

1) Thank God that each passing day Ron Paul is becoming more and more electable.

2) Only someone who is anti-Ron Paul would write what you wrote as your comment has no basis in reality.

 

1. I see this as no different than when I get an income tax refund from the IRS. I see no hypocrisy in what I am doing nor in what Ron Paul is doing.

This also applies to the argument among Libertarian Party members as to whether its presidential candidate should accept federal matching campaign funds. Personally, I see it as an opportunity to use the system to change the system.

2. Huh? From what I have heard Ron Paul has a very good exercise regimen and keeps himself in shape. Simply because he is not overweight like so many Americans does not mean that he is in poor health. It is the overweight folks who are in poor health.

3. Being a federalist I support this idea. Further, I want to see drugs decriminalized and the idiotic, useless, wasteful "War on Drugs" ended.

4. Since I want to see all foreign aid not related to the defense of these United States eliminated, I support the elimination of all foreign aid to Israel that does not meet this criteria.

 

Sure you know if he has done something wrong.. It's there to look up in his voting record. As far as what he is doing, he explained it very well with the example of a tax credit. He doesn't believe in the IRS, but as long as it's legal to use tax credits to get some of your money back, he is going to do it.

He has stated that he has never voted for an earmark.

No, you said this: "judging by his appearances and interviews, not in the best of health" So, you said you were judging him by how he looked.

As far as how he walks, acts and is.. Well he is 72. How will you be in 32 more years? As a doctor, I am sure his health is important to him and if he didn't think he could serve as POTUS because of his health, then I am sure he won't run.

I did label your comments as nice in a sarcastic way, because I believe it was a loaded question. Also in answering questions, sometimes the motives of the person asking the question has to be taken into account. I could be wrong, but I don't think you're asking about Dr Paul because you are interested in seeing if you could support him or not. If I am wrong about that, then I appolize in advance.

I wouldn't vote for him either, and don't like his record. However, I couldn't say that he doesn't have "little to show for his agenda". In turn, you can't say that about Ron Paul. You may or may not like what his agenda is, but you can't say he has little to show for it..

When you talk about the "war on drugs" you have to include the "hard" drugs in the mix. It's not separated in the "war". I doubt ANY state would legalize and and all drugs. Even California wouldn't do it. Any links to there polls where Cali would legalize hard drugs?

The rambling was you using an example of one state letting it ALL hang out and other states having to "clean up" their mess. Everyone know it wouldn't happen. It didn't happen before the great "war on drugs" what makes you think it would happen now? What is different between now and then?

That is where we differ.. I want to end all aid. This is an all or nothing option for me. Why should we offer aid to one country but not another? I am presuming that you want to aid Israel because of a Bibical reason? True?

I believe we should stop meddling in other countries business. We should stop all funds to all countries unless it's an emergencies like a natural disaster.

I asked only because I didn't know. I think who a person is "leaning" to is relative when someone is asking questions about a candidate. As far as Huckabee goes.. I thought I could vote for him, but his record doesn't hold up to what I would want to see. Ron Paul's record does.

One can't change history and they both have a history that can be viewed.. in my opinion, Ron Paul is what this country needs.

Jamie

 

Really?? Surely you jest.

A refund is money you didn't owe to begin with. An earmark is money you did owe being used to support unconstitutional projects.

If Ron Paul thinks this is acceptable, it reveals what many have thought all along ... that Paul is simply another unethical double-dealing politician who says one things and does another.

It is entirely different than the argument about taking federal campaign funds. You are not helping to change the system by using earmarks. You are simply getting your piece of the pie while complaining that there is a pie to begin with.

 

Even if what you say is true, it is true then of all of the Democrat and Republican candidates and, therefore, using your own reasoning cannot be used to differentiate one of these candidates from another.

However, I do not buy your reasoning and even if I did I would still support Ron Paul for president.

There is no perfect candidate.

 

I don't know what interview you were watching, but it certainly wasn't Tim Russert interviewing Ron Paul on Meet the Press.

Ron Paul made Russert look like a fool!

 

He was that before he ever heard of Ron Paul. Something is very wrong with someone's discernment on this board. Either mine is off for favoring Paul (and Huckabee) over Giluiani and Romney, or those who constantly bash Ron Paul and keep strangely silent about the two abortionists.

 

The way I see it, saturneptune, is that some Christians have a bizarro worldview that a Republican liberal/socialist is better than a Democrat liberal/socialist.

We have folks who claim they support limited government and abhor liberalism/socialism, yet they don't vote for limited government candidates and badmouth them while voting for liberal/socialist candidates and then bemoan the increase of liberalism/socialism in these United States.

It is truly bizarre behavior.

 

A lot of other liberals agree with you...

but would vote against him in the general election if he secured the nomination.

 

One step at the a time... Let's get him in the general election, and then let's get him elected.

Merry Christmas my BB debating friend! I hope you and yours have a great Christmas!!

Jamie

 

Thank you!

Merry Christmas to you and yours as well.:wavey:

 

I wholeheartedly agree with Saturn that Russert is a fool but please tell me where Paul made Russert look like a fool. I watched the whole interview on youtube and I didnt see it. It looked like Ron Paul was making things up as he went along. He stuttered and stammered on the term limits question. Wants to close down every single military base all around the world. Radical Islam should love this guy. His foreign policy will be a joke.

 

As opposed to what? George W. Bush's foreign policy that started an unnecessary war in Iraq that has led to tens of thousands of deaths, isolated these United States diplomatically, and made our nation a worldwide pariah?

No thanks. I'll take Ron Paul's foreign policy any day over that of George W. Bush and the neo-"conservatives".

 

His foreign policy would be not to have a foreign policy.

Isolationism will no longer work for the United States. It would leave much too large a vacuum for the stability of the world to handle.