[POLL] IF Ron Paul looses out in the Primaries, Who would be the next best candidate?

Yeah, if you could vote in U.S. elections.

 

I'm hoping Paul makes Hagel or Sanford his running mate. I'd prefer Sanford because I'm not sure how committed Hagel is to Paul's domestic policy. Then again, Chuck would be able to handle the military and foreign policy well.

It's funny how fast you have retreated from trying to sound smart, to not sounding like you're even trying.

Paul would radically slash spending, and stop corporate welfare long before he went after the welfare state. There is a reason why the front runners have received so much money from large corporate interests. Our taxes flowing into their pockets. It's not a conspiracy, but rather fact.

Paul's record breaking fund raising is coming from every day Americans.

 

The problem with Ron Paul is that I don't agree with his social policies.
He is all for trusting the people to make the right decisions and having as little govt as possible.
The last 8 years have proven that the people (most) are stupid and can not ALWAYS be trusted to make rational decisions.
What happens if a little hillybilly white town decides to enact discriminatory laws against minorities???
I like Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policies and the fact that he is not in the pocket of the Israel lobby. Other than that, I very much disagree with his social policies.
Ron Paul is very much liked by white supremacists because they believe they will get a free hand if Paul is elected.

 

Fair enough.

Which begs the question, have the last 8 (or 100 years) proven that government is not stupid, can always be trusted, and will make rational decisions?

They can't. The government can pass all of the anti-discrimination laws it wants, but the reality is that the Constitution protects the rights of every man, woman and child, black, white or otherwise. It is pandering when the government passes laws to create equity, when the Constitution provides for equity as individuals ABSOLUTELY. The laws the government passes, are GROUP laws. Laws only for blacks, or only for gays. It has nothing to do with the rights of each individual person.

Yes and no. They probably believe he will protect their right to free speech, and they like that he will lower taxes and stop a war and foreign aid that they considered repulsive.

Many white supremacists do not like Ron Paul because they see him as protecting the rights of blacks, gays, Jews and anyone else they hate. Others who support him see him as the best candidate of a limited field.

 

What? Art Bell, Alex Jones, and Michael Moore are all unavailable???

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't have to try to sound smart.

I'm am currently bored of trying to talk sense to the undeserving.

Yeah, like the people he bought off with all of those pork barrel projects he pushed through Congress.

Votes for Paul -- bought with our tax dollars.

Those are the breaks. If you're brown, get outta town!

 

I really like Obama, whole different party, I know, but he's pretty cool and connected to the issues.

 

Straw man.

How about humble?

Ok, scratch my last comment.

LMAO. That's so ludicrous, it's hilarious.

Paul polls higher with blacks than any other member of the GOP field.

 

Nice ducking of the issue!

Oh wait, that's your forte'.

In 2007, Paul requested more than sixty earmarks from taxpayer funds for causes as diverse as rebuilding a Texas theater, funding a local trolley, and helping his state’s shrimp industry.

He also voted $231,000 for the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association’s Urban Center; $129,000 for the “perfect Christmas tree project;” $300,000 for the On Location Entertainment Industry Craft Technician Training Project in California; $150,000 for the South Carolina
Aquarium; and $500,000 for the National Mule and Packers Museum in California.

But I'm certain that all that vote buying was "authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution."

 

It was 65 earmarks. He also requested a decent amount in 2005 I believe.

Can you show me where it is not?

But that is besides the point. Paul votes against the spending bills, he is merely performing his duty as a representative by passing appropriations requests from his constituents.

And, it is THEIR money as well.

AND, if the money is not earmarked to go back to the districts, the executive gets to spend it. So the options are, return the money to the people, or allow the executive to allocate it to big government. Even if no one put in a single earmark, it would not reduce spending once bit. That notion is a canard.

 

Money not spent has an important function -- it reduces the debt which we pass on to our children.

But I can see that Paul needs votes and doesn't give a damn about the debt, the children, or the rest of the country.

 

Incorrect. You apparently do not understand the appropriations process. The money is allocated before earmarks are considered. The spending occurs regardless.

Please read this, and then get back to me.
http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/approps_proc.htm

LMAO. Please, stop making me laugh. We're talking about a man who was voted the Tax Payer's Best Friend 10 straight years.

If you're going to slander and make Ad Hominem attacks, at least make them good ones.

 

That did not stop the practice of slavery in the US.
All I am saying, is that we have to be very careful with some of these libertarian ideas.
It is after all the federal govt that ended segregation in the South and forced integration.
With libertarian ideas, the South would still be segregated.

 

Until just a few years before he announced his candidacy for the Presidency.

Imagine that! He didn't start buying votes until just before he started needing votes.

 

Actually, free market economics were busily desegregating the country peacefully long before the government decided to rush the process using coercion.

If we had let the process run it's course, the long-term results would have been more peaceful.

Take a read through The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater. It's a good read and it's quite brief.

 

That was ratified with an amendment to the Constitution. No, the original constitution did not protect the rights of slaves, but the Constitution today does. It is the highest law in the land, and is very clear on many absolute rights. If anything, the federal government tries to pass more unconstitutional and anti-civil liberties legislation than I would imagine, most of the states combined.

Forced integration is not equality. If I hire you because you are black and I have to hire "X" numbers of blacks, to meet a quota, that is not equality.

Equality means equal rights, equal (relative to the individual) freedoms, equal access (not artificial access) etc.

The issues you are talking about have long ago been addressed in the Constitution.

Remember, America is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic.

 

Guerilla,

You are confusing affirmative action with integration.
Integration meant that black people were now allowed to attend schools that were reserved only to white and no area were off-limit to black.
Integration is the first step toward equality.
You may argue against affirmative action, but it is not the same as integration.

 

You mean the ultra war mongering branch of our country dont you. I hardly feel that you speak for the majority of common people in america who are slowly but surely getting the idea that the country hasnt belonged to them for a while. Like i said if Ron Paul doesnt win in 2008, him or another constitutionalist will take it in 2012 because WE(the american people) will finally get sick and tired of being used by the elite.

Im thinking way beyond 2008. We are finally starting to think beyond how good a candidate looks on camera and the empty promises our candidates make year after year. I want my future kids to have prosperity, not give it away to the fed or the elite that are currently controlling our policies.

If people like u and gtech are after the truth then why dont you have more focus on how our foreign policies in third world countries have destroyed democracy and not allowed it to flourish there. Iran in the early 50's would be a great start. Like i said before being american is not just about pride. Its about honor, freedom, truthfullness, empathy towards others. Will Spencer , i will pose a challenge to you. I would like you and gtech to gather 50 to 100 iranian students
, ask them who mossadegh was, why was he so good for democracy and iran and how he would have influenced iran away from the current extremist government to a more peaceful government. My guess is not one pro war mongering person on dp would dare except this challenge. Also ask them what they thought about the puppet shah who was installed by us and britain.

Iran isnt the only country, but its a good starter for you guys.
RON PAUL ALL THE WAY: either 2008 or 2012!!!

 

No, I am not. Blacks were bussed into white school districts in the South, which is affirmative action.

If it is a public school, those rights were already protected, they were just not being enforced.

When it comes to private schools, the issue of property rights comes into question. That is why Paul was not for the 1964 Civil Rights Bill (neither were many conservatives). It wasn't an issue about civil liberties, it took away the rights of private property owners and transferred that to the federal government. In essence, it was an anti-liberty bill.

I don't believe that. You have to define equality, and you have to respect the inalienable rights of both parties. You cannot force me to fraternize with someone I do not want to fraternize with. That may be equality but it's not freedom.

Don't get me wrong, I'm from mixed breeding so I am not some racial supremacist, but at the same time, you have to acknowledge that equality is not equal to freedom. Huge difference. The Soviet Union strove for equality, and it was far from a free society, because the rights of the INDIVIDUAL were not respected.

Unless the integration occurs naturally, they are the same. It's artificially placing people into a larger group, whether they desire membership or not.

 

Im still waiting for Will Spencer or gtech to reply. I see once we get down to the truth that they cant copy and paste from a government site they go silent. Sometimes SILENCE can tell the whole story, and in this case its the TRUTH.
GO RON PAUL!!!

 

I think you are wrong mate, the other day i went to an online gaming website for guys the age between 14-30 and in thier serious discussion side of the forums, people were talking about Ron Paul... YOu will be surprised how many people actualy getting to know him.

The rest of the candidates are all the same, they sound the same, they act the same, they are boring, and i wont vote to any other man beside Ron Paul.