Ron Paul Takes Lead in Iowa Caucus Poll

Bingo!

 

Then wouldn't you want Paul's libertarian ideas of personal freedoms aimed at 'leaving you alone'? These are aimed at less governmental intervention. Most people seem to forget about this aspect of his ideology in the fact of economic concerns.

 

Ah, no. Absolutely not. Pauls ideas are based on a utopia no founding father intended. He's an isolationist that believes that we should not be involved anywhere in any other part of the world period. To that end he does not believe in defending the Constitution, only upholding it. You cannot do one or the other.

What I want from a leader is someone who will defend, uphold and protect the Constitution of this the United States of America and leave me the fuck alone to produce, innovate and create.

Isolationism is a bad ideology in a global economy an free market society. Paul wants a pre WWII policy with regards to everything. We see what that got us. A Depression, and Near Collapse of the entire Globe.

 

So which of all the candidates on all sides do you think supports what you are looking for then? I'm just trying to gauge what you think is a great candidate that embodies what you are looking for.

 

I've not yet seen what I am looking for. At this point, I would settle for anything but the following:

Paul
Obama
Romney
Backmann
Santorum
Huntsman
Johnson
Karger
Martin
McMillan
Miller
Roemer
Snyder
Weuensche
Trump

 

You cannot tell me that Perry is not on your list. The guy who wants to teach Creationism in Biology and change the constitution. Don't even get me started on Gingrich.

 

When you ASSUME you make an ASS out of U and ME.... Don't assume. I think he's just fine where he is.

 

I never assumed anything. I read your list and Perry was clearly not on it. You had said you want someone who will leave you alone and defend the Constitution. Perry is not that guy, so I pointed out that he was not on there.

Maybe that's who you like, I don't know. That's why I asked. . . I like Paul and hate Perry. I've had to deal with him as governor for years now. That's where I stand. I was just wondering who you liked.

 

Perry's not on the list because I do not believe he will continue on.

Newt's not on that list either

 

Bullshit. Perry wants neither of those things. You are mindlessly repeating what others have said.

What do you see the difference is between "upholding" the Constitution and "defending" it?

 

Oh Corwin. I had forgotten about our fun awhile back over the Perry issue. Regardless of who you back, people are going to say negative things you don't like about the candidate you choose. People will take up for their candidate when there is an accusation made and say it either never happened or it was taken out of context. It's defend them to the death in most cases, figuratively speaking. People say Paul is crap all the time and I just ignore it. As for Perry, I'm stating these things because I've actually hated him as governor of my state for years now and I consider myself a moderate conservative, so it's not a party line thing. I just hate his policies, his stances, and his ideology so I follow when he messes up and things come out about him. The good news for me is that I was hoping the negative things about him would keep him out of the nomination, but it looks like his continuous screw ups will take care of that altogether.

Oh and I think what Mia means is that he wants to 'uphold' it by not changing it, but he doesn't want to 'defend' it by getting involved in the world through battle if necessary to 'defend' it. At least that's the closest thing I could think of. I was sort of confounded by that at first too.

Mia - I get you on that. I think Perry won't win either. I also get how you don't like most or all of the candidates as every election it feels like I'm having to pick from the lesser of all the evils because I actually like to exercise my right to vote. If my vote means that a worse candidate in my opinion doesn't make it, then that's what I do. This time around I actually like what Paul stands for. Not every single thing as that seems impossible no matter how good they are, there are going to be things you simply don't agree with. That's why I take it as a whole and for the most part I agree with his stances on most issues. If he doesn't get the nomination, I may for the first time just not vote as I don't like any of the other Republican candidates and I definitely won't back someone who wants to continue to spend us into a deep depression of bankruptcy we can't get out of.

 

I don't get my politics from people that hate. "Hate" is dehumanizing and evil.

 

Well it took me a while but I think I understand now. You want a government that will leave you personally the fuck alone - that's clear.

You also want the same government to tell the citizens in all the other countries in the world to do as they are told. If they don't you want the full force of the US military to blow them up until they conform to what the US government wants.

Just not sure that the same standards that you want applied to yourself are being applied to others. Can you help me with this?

 

You don't, nor should get your politics from others. You should get them from yourself. I never stated that I hate him as a person. That would be evil, but you can hate someone's policies. That context just means that you strongly dislike the job that they've done and what they're standing for. So if I had stated I really, really strongly and passionately dislike his policies, the job he's done as governor of Texas, and what he stands for, then that would somehow be more pleasing to you? I got you.

I actually make the distinction between hating people and hating what they do. Hating a person is bad, hating what people have done is different. I think that you dislike the fact that I've said anything negative, what you think is untrue, about Perry so you're finding a way to make my words sound derogatory and negative. I'm just stating what I believe. I am further jumping off this ship with you on Perry and Paul. This can only continue on its current path and it's apparent we don't share views. I'm going to leave it at that.

 

First, who is Eric Dondero?

* Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997 – 2003
* Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
* National Organizer, Draft Ron Paul for President, 1991/92
* Travel Aide/Personal Asst. Ron Paul, Libertarian for President1987/88

Second, Mr. Dondero's statement/press release:

Looks like Paul's strong polling going into Iowa have caused his opponents to switch from trying to ignore him, to opening up the same can of whoop ass they would dish on any other candidate. I imagine a whole variety of press releases like this one, from people close to Paul are waiting in the wings. Paul always tries to nuance his position on these foreign affairs matters as "non-interventionist", rather than "isolationist", and his forthrightness about bold positions on a variety of issues such as doing away with the minimum wage us enough to lull quite a few people into believing that nothing coming from Dr. Paul's mouth has been spun, varnished or politicized.

The scary realty may be that Paul's "shocking" positions on these issues may actually be toned way down so he can get into office, with the real Paul being even more extreme than advertised. I think most voters are looking for someone who can genuinely bend the curve in Washington, not a revolution.

 

A second description of Eric Dondero could be:......a whacked out extremist who is angry and resentful of the whacked out extremist for whom he used to work.

Ah....whom would have thunk it 20,30,40 years ago....the GOP....party of the whacked out extremists!!!

 

Are you the same guy who complained about our involvement in other countries...Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria/etc.? Funny how those were bad ideas till Ron Paul said, yeah, let's get out of that mess and let them solve their own problems.

There's a difference between isolationism and not poking your nose into everything. Paul is NOT an isolationist.

Yeah. And things have been just great the last few years, haven't they?

 

The thing with hate, as with silence, is that it is an absolute.

However, I suspect that we have different definitions of "hate" (I hope so). I see "hate" as intense, very intense and dehumanizing - cold and absent of empathy. You may use the word "hate" as "extreme disapproval"?

On one of the Sunday news shows, there was a discussion that the reason why so many GOP candidates fall so quickly after they rise is that the entire Republican establishment has backed Romney and is actually behind the attacks on other GOP candidates. This is exactly the same as 2008 when the entire Democratic establishment was behind Obama and was was actively behind the attacks on Hillary. Neither Obama nor Romney want change - they will stick with the present corrupt system.

Gingrich and Paul threaten the Washington gravy train. They threaten the corrupt system. They are unusal candidates, and in unusual times people reach for an unusual candidate.

The Dems are mostly lawyers and use the lawyer trick of repetition. If you repeat something long enough, over and over, people will believe it, even if they know it's a lie.

 

Nope, you've got the wrong guy. My only complaint about that part of the world is that we did not plant a flag there and start pumping the oil back here.

Paul IS an isolationist. The US rarely pokes its nose where it does not belong. Many times we're invited. Most of the time we are dragged there.

Do I think we should send money to Palestine to help pay for text books that teach kids how to kill Jews? No.
Do I think we should have a military presence there to insure they do not act on those teachings? Yes.

 

Corwin: That is absolutely absurd. In 2008 Obama was the "new candidate" with very thin national backing. He was a Senator with relatively thin experience. If any candidate was the party candidate it was Hillary Clinton, wife of an 8 year president, instrumental in some of the policy efforts of that former president, Senator from NY, with enormous backing and money. Clearly she was the "establishment" candidate at the beginning of the race.

It wasn't even close.

Newt Gingrich is nothing if he is not a member of the Washington establishment. He was a member of Congress for 20 years. 20 YEARS. He was Speaker of the House. While Speaker he was 2nd in line to be President after the VP. From the time he left Congress in 1999 to the current period he has lived in the Washington DC region, run Washington DC think tanks, institutions and has served as an extremely highly paid lobbyist on behalf of Freddie Mac, making about $1.6 million from Freddie Mac.

During the decade of the 2000's he increased his net worth by millions of dollars, all while operating in the DC area and creating DC oriented political institutions.

There is nobody running in the GOP primaries who is more Washington DC oriented than Newt Gingrich.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a radical nutjob. Had he been President during the 1940's Hitler would have conquered Europe and the Japanese would have raped and pillaged throughout Asia. A pleasant thought indeed for those who cherish freedom.