Ron Paul wins 2 Straw Polls

Ah yes, the circular logic brigade is out.

 

I won´t let them spoil our fun - Ron Paul is clearly the best candidate out there.

 

Without a doubt. Go Ron Go!

 

Ron Paul is not even a serious candidate, none of the other candidates take him seriously - that's for sure.

 

Heh, is kind of funny. They'll take a victory, no matter how small or insignificant. I suppose I would too, considering RP's 0% in national polling where results can't be jerry rigged by a small army of "troofers!"

 

Mostly it's "troofers" and the looney "alex jones" crowd that like him, because RP has been pandering to them and talking about opening 9/11 investigations. If it were not for that, he probably wouldn't even have the 0% national polling he has.

 

Ron Paul received a tremendous response when he visited Google. Young people understand simple concepts like lower taxation, less government intervention, the global economy and peace over war.

The best thing about Paul is that he speaks from a pulpit of credibility. He's a doctor who delivered more than 4,000 babies. He's a veteran. He's got a tremendous voting record when it comes to the constitution and smaller government.

It's less about truthers and Alex Jones, and more about having progressive policies that respect what it is to be American. It's about valuing freedom, economically and socially, and putting power back into the hands of the individual, not the cradle-to-grace corporate bureacracy.

I can understand why his message scares some people. They probably can't imagine an America without handouts. They haven't saved and are totally invested in the credit society. They live in fear of their own shadows every day, and soak up the uncertainty and doubt propaganda we're bombarded with in the MSM.

It's honesty that people are afraid of. Honesty and accountability.

 

Actually, for some of us, it's very much about pandering to the likes of alex jones his nutty "troofer" minions. It speaks volumes. Perhaps that's why other candidates avoid AJ and the ice cream truck fruitbars?

guerilla, those are hart warming points, but they are nothing more than sound bites. What you cite is pretty much what every candidate cites. How else would they become President?

Delivering babies isn't a prerequisite for being President. Nor is being a Veteran.

What *scares* most people is his naive foreign policy, or lack there of. National security is a huge issue facing our country. As recently noted, it appears that RP's response to a terrorist attack would be to sit down at the typewriter and bang out a strong letter asking terrorists to please stop.

That's naive thinking. That scares the hell out of me. We live in a world filled with realities, not feel good after-school Disney specials. Our enemies realize this. Why doesn't Ron Paul?

 

Guerilla, do you actually read Digg? Look at the stories that get promoted to the front page. Do you honestly think that digg users are in support of a "limited government" as Paul imagines. I'd say no; given the types of stories that regular reach the front page. As a rule, Digg users are, by their own admission, (digg polls have been done in this regard) liberal and in favor of bigger government. Given that; there are only 2 reasons for Digg user support for Paul; his soft trutherism (Digg is a haven for trutherism) or that he diminishes the other republicans on stage with his presence. Which do you think it is?

Secondly, you are the OP of this thread. Do you honestly believe that the 273 votes (or whatever) placed here represents anything about the state of RP support in Alabama?

Given that RP gets 1% in statewide Alabama polling; which is more likely? That he has tremendous support, or that my original post (his supporters have no life and decided to show up and vote for him in a meaningless activity)?

 

Ron Paul's position is based on the constitution. We're fighting a guerilla war, not against a single or multiple sovereign nations, but an enemy that is dispersed. Invading and occupying isn't a solution, never has been, never will be.

Yet you laugh, and demean the concept of issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which would in fact create the incentive and authorization for corporations, private citizens and mercenaries to fight Al Queda. It would keep our military home (national defense) and Americans safe.

The Founders foresaw scenarios like this, and provided the legal framework for dealing with wars that are not wars in a conventional manner.

The beauty of American democracy, as opposed to French or English democracy is the wisdom and intelligence that the Constitution was drafted with. Life and liberty being our primary ideals. Has the last 50 years of interventionist foreign policy (counter to the words of the Founders) made us any safer or freer today than we were back then?

Ron Paul. 2008.

 

No, I do not.

Yes, I do.

I think he has tremendous support from his supporters, who take time away from school and work, travel across the country, organize themselves via MeetUp groups to promote and encourage his campaign in what you may feel is a meaningless activity, but one that earned him more exposure, press and opportunities to continue his candidacy.

Don't turn your nose up at viral marketing. Phone polling is a joke when the younger generation is more likely to vote online, or answer a call on their cell phone.

Ron Paul. 2008.

 

Lets be realistic - that probably represents maybe 5% of his following, if that. If you have ever seen any of his videos or interviews, that kind of stuff comes up once in a blue moon.

 

You are correct that they are not pre-requisites. However, delivering babies does give him credibility on abortion, and as a doctor, he has insight into the health care situation.

I've always felt, and it's been said by veterans in the past, that the bureaucrats who vote to send us to war quickly, are usually not the ones who have tasted combat on the battlefield. There is a prudence that is attached to having first hand experience in such situations.

Wanted to come back on this quote again.

What I find divisive, and it is par for your posts that I have read in this forum, is an elitism or neo-elitism that democracy is about scale, and that the voice of a small group, no matter how legitimate or influential is not worthy of being heard.

I believe we went through this in the pork barrel thread, that you express a lot of views that are not democratic, or about the rights/respect for individuals. You seem to favor overseers making decisions at high levels, and then co-opting into those decisions, regardless of their morality or validity.

Paul's message, including his war stance is based on the Constitution. If you are ready to debunk the Constitution, I'd be interested to read it. If not, perhaps you should consider that arguing against Paul's policies not only puts you on the outside of the sacred oath, it may make you an anti-american insurgent.

And please do remember, that We the People, isn't Karl Rove and the executive branch. It's everyone, from school teachers, to soldiers. From truck drivers to the unemployed. Everyone. We the People.

 

LOL, I would be interested in that too.

 

Obviously. Of course he has tremendous support from his supporters. Otherwise, they wouldn't be his supporters. Would they?

That's not really the question now is it. Given that he gets 1% from alabama polls, I find it stunning that you honestly believe this represents any true reflection of his support. If anything; it shows that his supporters are too easy to part with the $20 or whatever it cost to participate in the poll.

You should go through that thread again. You were misconstruing what I was saying, I believe this is the thread you accused me of being both a fascist and a communist for disagreeing with pork projects. You were supporting the overseers - remember your support of pork barrel spending (that Paul engages) in. I was against that. I suggest you stop misconstruing peoples' words - it'll help you out quite a bit.

I'd relate back to the pork barrel thread here as well. You were defending going against the constitution while defending Paul's pork barrel projects, weren't you? I was the one supporting the constitution by saying Paul - and others - shouldn't be engaging in such projects. Or did you forget where you stood in that thread - the very thread you pretended not to be a Ron Paul supporter.

I agree. That was your stance. From school teachers to truck drivers to the unemployed. All deserve federal pork, as long as its approved by congress. Thanks for re-iterating your support for this.

Where did I claim they were not worthy of being heard. I simply think its amusing that you think 200 people voting in a meaningless poll, where the numbers go completely against reputable polls done across the state; somehow make the statement that RP has tremendous support. When clearly, he does not.

 

Great posts Guerilla! Never mind if a few people on this forum don't get it. We should spend our time trying to get the word out on RP and not waste time with a few people on this forum who have proven time and time again that the only thoughts running through their heads are the ones the government has put there for them.

Some minds are extremely susceptible to propaganda. Those are not the type of minds you should waste time debating.

That's my two cents anyway.

Ron Paul for President.

 

I disagree with the new red herring. Being a doctor does not qualify one to be an expert on national health care. Of which, wasn't a topic of discussion.

Can't argue that. However, no one was sent to war quickly. If you recall, democrats had been calling for war with Iraq for eight previous years. It was about a ten year wait.

What I take issue with, is Ron Paul will not protect our country. He is weak on national security and this is highlighted by selectively ignoring such.

That may be popular to say, but I'm pretty sure most candidates stand behind the Constitution. If a candidate has to remind others that that is his primary position, I'd say he's probably hiding behind something. If anything, RP would be shirking his Constitutional responsibilities to protect America. That is what the POTUS is supposed to do. Ron Paul says a lot of stuff. Obviously you believe every bit of it. I don't. I know sound bytes when I hear them. All candidates make them, RP is no exception.

Not part of the discussion. Another red herring. I've seen a lot of people hide behind the Constitution to justify not protecting our country.



Might send that over to RP.

 

I am happy to stun you with words. You also implied that they travelled, which shows the tenacity and conviction of their support.

I had stopped reading it and put you on ignore for several weeks after. IIRC, your belief was that Congress should not pass law to allocate taxes back to the states, for civil projects or initiatives. Basically, you were endorsing the Fed to take and not give back to the people, or for the Fed alone, without the blessing of Congress to return the taxes to the people ala Communism.

Not only is this counter to the spirit of the Constitution (federal income tax) but I believe Congress has a legal right to appropriate funds. For every earmark Paul makes on behalf of his constituents (his job), he votes against in Congress because they are Un-Constitutional. This may explain why he tables less earmarks than most if not all other Congressmen. His constituents know he will not endorse their requests for funds.

Laura, your worst fears have been realized. I am now a dyed in the wool, hardcore Ron Paul supporter. When you debated his merits, I was forced to research, and cannot find a more suitable candidate to endorse for the Presidency.

On the contrary, you never produced one Constitutional point that refuted earmarking which is a key component of the appropriations process. As told to you several times before, without earmarks, there would be no appropriations. The taxes would be taken, and never spent. Your brand of communism. The Congress website backs me up on this.

From where does the Fed get this "pork"? Again, you're showing your communist and failed-marxist views on the economy and role of government. Perhaps I was not too far off on labelling you an anti-american insurgent. You're clearly for total governmental control of taxation by the executive branch, without authorization or consultation with the duly elected representatives of the people (Congress).

You and I are arguing in what could be considered a meaningless thread, in a meaningless forum. And yet we both have a passion or in your case, supreme self interest to defend our points of view.

Paul has tremendous support, or he wouldn't be the leading candidate in small donations, or donations from the military. Unfortunately, Apparatchik State TV has not yet informed you to think about Paul, and hence, you rely on on antiquated telephone polls that are as accurate as the number of people who are home when they call, or have a land line as their primary means of communication outside the household. Paul's greatest issue is not his policies, his character or his veracity. The challenge is reaching enough people with a message that resonates with many patriotic Americans.

I believe that Paul's message about freedom, liberty, economic sovereignty, responsible foreign policy and a dedication to the founding principles of this great nation transcend our debate, ennoble the electoral process and bring us all together under the banner of hope.

I realize your tactic is to bog down threads with rhetoric, false statements and circular logic, so consider this my last response to you but just one of many future Ron Paul posts I plan to make leading up to the selection of a GOP candidate, and perhaps further if he is able to garner enough support to run as an independent should he not win the GOP candidacy.

Thank you and good night. Ron Paul. 2008.

 

See Guerilla. What did I just say about misconstruing what people said? It's not helping you out at all. What I said was that federal tax money (which comes from all of us), should not be used to benefit a few people. Thanks for re-iterating the communist/fascist/marxist comment here. I appreciate it. I'll take it as a badge of honor from you, since you clearly have no understanding of any of this.

LOL. So, let me get this straight. He makes earmarks on behalf of his constituents, but his belief that they are unconstitutionl forces him to vote against the bill in which he puts his earmarks in. Now, that's an interesting understanding of the constitution if you ask me.

If he submits -any- earmarks, he is obviously endorsing some of them, isn't he? Don't be silly, guerilla. I'm glad you still approve of the house member ruling from washington deciding who is worthy of federal funds and who is not. That is what you are advocating again.

I guess you weren't. Where did I saw that I'm for control of taxation by the executive branch? Anywhere? Please let me know. As I've said a hundred times, I'm against RP (or any citizen) redirecting federal funds back to their district. State funds are for state projects. Federal funds are for federal projects. It's not difficult, really.

Surely, a state's right, small goverment supporter like yourself, can see the wisdom here, right?

 

GTech, you however, I will debate with further. Why? Because I respect you. When you are losing an argument, you withdraw or find a new tact. Much respect.

As is your right, my sweet Don Quixote. So you are saying that being a doctor would not make Paul more qualified on Healthcare than someone who has no experience in the medical field/industry?

On the contrary, Paul is very strong on national security. Instead of stripping the country of national guardsmen to create a new Iraqi sovereign nation, he would have those Americans at home, prepared to participate in civil defense and assisting with a decaying infrastructure. In fact, I will go one step further and suggest that Paul would have less of our troops deployed abroad and more at home, specifically to strengthen the domestic defense.

Another thing Paul endorses is the Right to Bear Arms. It's his contention that if the airlines had been able to handle their own security, without governmental interference, the pilots on those 9/11 planes may have been armed, as well as private citizens and able to defend themselves. The FAA policy was to "not resist" and forbade any security while in the air, which surely was a contributing factor to the attractiveness for the terrorists to use domestic flights as weapons against us.

Another point Paul makes is that an armed citizenry need fear no invasion, because the citizens would be in a position to defend their own country. Clearly, the Constitution allowed for private citizens to arms themselves, so that Americans would not again be subjugated to foreign or corrupt domestic rule.

Are you pretty sure, or are you absolutely sure? Are you familiar with the voting records of each and every candidate, Democrat and Republican? Last I checked, Paul was the only Republican Congressman to vote against the Patriot Act, which is a document (as we have discussed before) that had unconstitutional elements within it.

What I believe is irrelevant. Attacking me is irrelevant. Discussing the issues, and showing me your "better" candidate is a topic worthy of discussion. I have found something to inspire me about Ron Paul. Which candidate inspires you? I'd love to see a thread on that, so we can debate not only the merits and deficits of Ron Paul, but also the same attributes of the person you want to lead this great nation.

If one wanted to end the terrorist threat, or at least confront it on the correct battlefields, they would be wise to further investigate Paul's proposition of passing out Letters of Marque and Reprisal. It was tremendously effective against piracy, bandits who had no particular nation or home to wage war against.

Again, knowing all that you know about Paul's foreign policy and Constitutional interpretation of defending the sovereignty of this nation, along with life and liberty, do you absolutely believe that Paul is hiding behind the Constitution? And if so, which portions of those documents is he using as a shield?

I find discourse with you both engaging and educational. I look forward with an intense longing for your passionate and informed reply.