some questions about Ron Paul

Ron Paul believes in diplomacy and trading with the world. He is not an isolationist regardless of many times those who advocate foreign adventurism use that term regarding him.

These United States will not leave a vacuum in the world. Even still today when our economy sneezes the rest of the world's economy catches a cold. These United States will remain the leader of the free world for the foreseeable future.

What Ron Paul and folks such as myself are advocating is the same foreign policy that George W. Bush advocated when he ran for president in 1999-2000.

 

It is true, and it does show that in some areas there is no differentiation. But there is a difference in other areas.

You should.

Which shows that for you certain principles are negotiable.

This is what I have said all along. No matter the vote, we are all voting for the lesser or two or three evils. To condemn those who choose one evil over another is hardly consistent. You have chosen hypocrite who wants his hand in the cookie jar while denouncing those who vote for more cookies. Let's at least acknowledge that on this issue, Ron Paul is a hypocrite. Requesting some cookies that you know will get passed out, while voting against them, is hypocritical. Ron Paul should request those earmarks to pay down the debt and send tax refunds to the taxpayers.

 

1) Yes, there are.

2) This is true.

3) Yes, I have.

4) Yes, he is.

 

If Ron Pauls constituents helped to pay for the ingredients to make the pie........and as long as the pie is going to be made...........what do you see as wrong with taking some of the pie home,and giving what you can to those that helped bake it?

 

If I were Ron Paul, complaining about not following the constitution, my main problem would be that they are unconstitutional. It is not the federal government's responsibility to pay for these things, as you can tell by reading the constitution.

It is baffling as to why Paul can claim to want a return to the Constitution while not even following it himself.

 

In 1992 a Texan with the initials R.P. entered the presidential race as a third party candidate and handed the presidency over to Clinton. It looks very much like that is going to happen again.

 

It is baffling. This and his foreign policy are what scary me about Ron Paul.

 

Kinda scary, ain't it?

 

Have you noticed that supporters of GOP candidates other than Ron Paul tend to like maybe one or two other candidates besides the one they are supporting? But Ron Paul supporters only like Ron Paul? How many lifelong Republicans do you know reject outright all of the GOP candidates. Why is that? Ron Paul used the GOP for his own political gain because as a Libertarian he would still be practicing medicine somewhere.

This from the Club for Growth:

"While we give Ron Paul credit for his philosophical ideals, politicians have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul votes against making progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect," Mr. Toomey continued. "In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation. Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth limited-government policies, but his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too."

 

You really need to retract that.. All you have to do is look at my posts or other members to see this isn't true.

Yes, I am a supporter of Ron Paul, but he isn't the end all be all.. I am giving him my full support until he is no longer running, and then I will move to my next choice.

Why should anyone support two or more candidates at the same time, after they have decided which one they want to back? I can understand this when the race is just starting, but after a while, you really should, in my opinion, pick a candidate and support them.

What I find funnier than your findings is the number of people with an "opinion" about Paul or another other canidate and yet they won't commit to any one choice. Some people like keeping their options open I guess so they can say their candidate never lost..

BTW, which candidate do you fully support now?

Jamie

 

The real difference is the amount of his own money that Ron Paul has put up vers how much Perot put up. Paul has supporters, giving to his campaign and Perot just had a lot of money... I read somewhere that Perot ended up paying, or giving of his own money about .83 on the dollar for his campaign.

Jamie

 

Why is that funny? Perhaps many of us recognize that there are no perfect candidates.

 

We all recogine that. No one is perfect, period. However, it's funny that people will not pick a candidate but they will comment on them.

As I said before, in the beginning of a race, I can understand.. One wants to see who will run, what they are for/against and then choose. An example, some people didn't want to pick a candidate because they were waiting to see if Thompson was going to get in the race.

By now, everyone that is going to run is in, so why not pick a candidate? What would hold someone up now?

Which candidate do you support Pastor Larry?

Merry Christmas to you and yours!!


Jamie

 

I am not sure we all do.

Again, why is that funny?

Not knowing enough.

I don't support any candidate. I don't even know who I will vote for, but I stay away from supporting candidates and rather keep my focus on the gospel ministry.

Same to you.

 

You broad brush is misapplied. If you have noticed I have said nice things about possibly voting for Fred Thompson is he wins the GOP nomination. Also, I will most likely like whomever the Libertarian Party nominates.

 

1. Ross Perot did not hand the presidency to Bill Clinton as the analysis that I posted in another thread a couple of weekends ago showed.

2. Ron Paul has ruled out running as a minor party or independent candidate, much to my chagrin.

 

You analysis did not prove that. It was one person's opinion of the numbers. I posted evidence to show that it was very possible, if not probable, Perot did give the election to Clinton.

Thank goodness, I hope he keeps his word on this.

 

Actually, Paul has stated he is 99.9% certain he won't run, he stated that on Meet The Press.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/18/ron-paul-doesnt-rule-out-third-party-run/

We can hope, that if he doesn't win the nomination, than that .1% will come to play!

Go Ron Paul!!

Jamie

 

Yeah just what we need is for Paul to run in a 3rd party, and take likely Republican votes and gift wrap the White House for Hillary, Obama, etc.

 

You can stop that from happening... Vote for him and help him get the GOP nomination so he can win the election!! :thumbs:

With that, I am headed to bed... Santa will be here soon!

Merry Christmas Pastor! I wish you and your a wonderful day tomorrow/today.


Jamie