GT is with Americas fake mayor Giuliani or with Romney. Boy oh boy I am going to have so much fun with GT when Hillary gets in as next US President. If only we could fast forward time by about 15 months.
Republican. Democrats are afraid of responsible national security. RP has said he'd type a letter out to terrorists that attack us. Remember, national security is my primary concern. Everyone has their priority concerns. Anyone concerned about national security could not possibly support Ron Paul. I've not made up my mind yet. It's a very important decision with plenty of time left to learn more about the candidates. I believe it's premature to rush and stand up for any one candidate when there is plenty of time left to learn more about them. Here's who I do like, in no particular order. This way, I can give you a setup to attack them: Mitt Romney - Strong position on national security Mike Huckabee - He comes across as a very honest man. He really impressed me in the last debate. Duncan Hunter - He doesn't have a chance, but in past debates when he actually had the opportunity to speak, I liked what he said. Also has a son serving in Iraq. Unfortunately, he's a bottom tier candidate. Just above Ron Paul. Doesn't have much of a chance...like Ron Paul. Guiliani - He has some issues, no doubt. But, on national security...he gets it. He *more* than gets it. He understands the threat. From the Democrat side, I actually like Obama. Yeah, I know...a democrat. He leaves the impression he'd deal with national security, but as vile and infested as the dem party is with the most hateful people in our country, there's just no way I could ever vote democrat again until they clear out their garbage.
You are mocking the Constitution again. Please tell me you are not a lorien-esque anti-American insurgent. I wait anxiously for your decision, and everytime you attack a candidate, I will ask you who you have decided upon. You're playing dirty pool attacking the candidates of others without the conviction to name your own. And WTF is up with you not being aware of the policies (barely) of only the man you would not vote for (Ron Paul). Surely enough information is now out there for you to narrow the field further than 4 candidates. Or are you just a slow learner? In which case, a lot of your misguided comments about Ron Paul and the Constitution would become understandable. I love that you are very clear about your partisan bias, ignoring the merits of the individual candidates, and instead buying into the tunnel vision of a two party democracy. For a man who understands the threat, he probably should have read the 9-11 report before attacking Ron Paul in a debate. He came off looking ill informed, and very arrogant. Exactly what this nation does NOT need when dealing with foreign interests, both friend and foe. Man, I am ACHING to find out who your REPUBLICAN candidate is. I have a feeling you're waiting to align yourself with whoever wins the nomination, not who best represents your (sic) values today.
Incorrect. You are submitting that RP is hiding behind the Constitution. This is a defensive mechanism. By asserting that RP is somehow more about the Constitution than others, RP supporters feel they can claim anyone who is against RP is against the Constitution. What a very weak and obvious tactic! Kind of like you do with GWB? Will you also question yourself every time you attack another candidate? I believe I covered this. It's an important decision. There is plenty of time to learn about the candidates. I don't need alex jones to make my mind up. I will do it on my own, for my own reasons. The government isn't run by an individual. It's run by parties. If a democrat is elected, we can be sure that that democrat will appoint many members from their party to these important positions. Thus, we move from an individual to a party in control. When democrats clean out the trash from their party (which will be a major overhaul...if ever), I'll be happy to reconsider them again. That's not partisan. A partisan would not consider ever voting for another party. Guiliani was spot on with his comments to RP. That battered wife syndrome self loathing blame America first BS doesn't roll well with real Americans. It was a defining moment for him and, as we learned, a defining moment for RP as well. I believe it was the following day his long time campaign manager resigned saying his former boss looked like a total nut case. You are entitled to this opinion. Meanwhile, I'll be watching the debates and keeping track of who I believe will represent my positions best. Some might even say that taking your time to make an informed decision is something good. I always thought it was.
As I said before you have got to support Americas fake mayor or good ol' Mitt. But I think you might be swinging towards "Insane McCain." Either way I'm going to have so much fun with you GT.
Let me explain myself further for you, if it'll help. I've shown numerous times on here that support for RP is dishonest. Every person who claims to be an RP supporter has something in common I'll let you figure that out. It's not difficult to realize. Hint: It has something to do with trutherism (LIHOP or MIHOP, take your pick). Guerilla, here in this thread and others, is supporting Paul on the basis of his small government credentials. Yet, Paul has a history of channeling federal funds for state projects through pork barrel spending. This would go against Paul's belief of limited federal government, don't you think? Paul also has a history of voting against decreasing the waiting period on gun ownership. The defender of the constitution wouldn't be reading a waiting period into the constitution, when clearly none is there, don't you agree? He also has voted for increased federal funding for public education. Again; as a state's right person, he'd believe that education is a state responsibility not a federal one. Federalism and state's rights are the hallmark of small government. All Guerilla and others, have to do here is say "Yes, those are a little hypocritical on the part of Paul and contradict his espoused views" It's not a huge admission, is it? Every candidate votes for things that their core beliefs are against. I can point out problems with every candidate in the race - humans are imperfect, but apparently not Paul. He's the lord and savior to lots of people. Flawless, to dishonest supporters. But your average RP supporter has this hero worship of the guy and cannot admit his faults on domestic issues or anything. They whitewash those beliefs and put a man on a pedestal as if he's perfect. Will not criticize him on the smallest pettiest issues, such as earmarks. I've even said that I think Paul is wonderful on domestic issues; and I think Paul is an awful presidential candidate. No charisma, no passion, no leadership qualities. Yet, somehow I'm trying to demean his political movement. Please - I have honest complaints. RP supporters are projecting their own insecurities and narcissism. Then, we could go through Paul's history in the House. He has had no major piece of legistlation, sponsored by him get through committee up to a house vote and signed by the President and put into law. Yet, somehow he's a great leader. He cannot even get house members to agree with him on something. Where's the leadership? It simply isn't there. No RP supporter is willing to acknowledge this as an issue; they'll brush it off as if its meaningless. Dishonest support, once again. And, also, I don't think I've seen an RP supporter in this forum who is even registered as a Republican (or won't say they are when asked; same thing). How is their support going to manifest itself? Surely not in the form of a vote; some supporters even say that they don't even vote. Again, dishonest support. Instead, as guerilla so deftly wandered into, it becomes an emotional name calling event. I'm a communist. I'm a fascist. His newest one, I believe, is I'm a terrorist or something. Are any of those rational retorts to legitimate issues? Of course not; thus the support of Paul is not an honest one. If you cannot see the flaws in your candidate, you cannot see who he really is. Furthermore, OP goes on to suggest that this straw poll is an accurate sampling of residents of Alabama, despite the fact that statewide polls show him at 1% or less; while the strawpoll has him at 71% or something? First off; no one gets more than 30-35% in a straw poll. Secondly, even if you believe that cell phones are the cause of this (pollsters can't call them), to honestly believe there is a 70% margin of error - but only for your candidate of course, none of the others - is silly, on its face. So, RP supporters can just keep chanting Save the Republic. Take the Red Pill. Champion of the Constitution. The Last hope. The best hope. Koolaid drinkers. Dishonest supporters. Whatever you wanna call it. So, if you need help why I laugh at RP supporters and talk down to them, please let me know. They will come in here and prove my point for me.
Nice post Lorien! I looked at Ron Paul in the beginning and liked most of his domestic views. What turned it for me was during the debate when he basically blamed the people that lost their lives on 9/11, you, me and the rest of America. I lost all respect for the man at that point. I would like to see Fred Thompson officially declare so that I can do some research into his stance on various foreign and domestic policies. From his voting record in congress, he would seem to be the candidate that would mesh the best with my personal views. Time will tell...
That is classic how reporters and interviewers try to run Paul into the ground on this one - trying to spin his words to make it sound like he is blaming the American people for 9/11. When he always comes back with no, its the foreign policy...Which it clearly is. Lorien, those points you brought up make me want to vote for Paul even more... I´m glad thats the best dirt you can dig up - he may not be perfect (who is?) but he is head and shoulders above the rest of the pack.
He's honest, and that puts him ahead of any of the other scumbags that are running, especially Giuliani and Romney who would just be controlled puppets, like the disastrous Bush is.
I had a long winded reply, then deleted it. Basically, Earmarks are the only way to table requests for federal funding through Congress. It's only a dirty word because some people have abused earmarks for pork. However, Ron Paul tables the requests from his constituents (as any good representative should) and then votes against them later. The NY Time Sunday Magazine had an excellent article on how Paul is notorious for denying an earmark, and then funding it out of his own pocket for his constituents, which is consistent with his not taking a congressional pension, ever voting to give himself a raise, and challenging the members of Congress to put $100 out of their pockets for Congressional Medals, rather than wasting the tax payers money on them. As far as leadership, Paul has top ratings from Pro Life, Pro Gun, and leading Economic groups. He's the chairman of the Liberty Caucus, a bipartisan group in Congress that focuses on Constitutional issues. He's endorsed by political analysts, democrats, libertarians, and conservatives. He's also endorsed by a Nobel Prize Winner, former Supreme Court Judge Andrew Napolitano, and UROC (The United Republicans of California - Goldwater Conservatives). Paul is a former Air Force Officer, an OB-GYN and an author. He;s currently serving (IIRC) the Committee on Financial Services, Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Joint Economic Committee as well as several Congressional sub committees. Campaign disclosures reveal that 71% of Paul's Congressional Campaign funding comes from out of state, highlighting his broader national appeal, and in a 2004 study, 92.5% of his campaign funding was coming from individuals, not organizations or corporations. You can find how much he spends of taxpayers money on junkets here http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/travel.asp?CID=N00005906 I'm under no illusions (nor is Paul) that he is the perfect candidate, but it is becoming high time, now that the candidates are known, for the folks who troll Ron Paul threads (and you know who you are) to tell us about your candidate, with more integrity, experience and better policies. That's right, it's time to see how Paul stacks up against the competition on merit. We already know he has an overwhelming lead in donations from the military and small donations from private citizens, now lets see where the other candidates have him beat. Because if you don't like Ron Paul evangelism, and have a candidate you endorse, then let's hear about him/her, if you truly believe they will be a better leader for America. And the 9/11 thing, it's never been about blaming America or the American people. It's been about flawed foreign policy that now has us policing 130 nations around the world, while our levees and bridges collapse at home. It's about fighting Bin Laden's soldiers, without going after Bin Laden himself. It's flawed, the people know it, and whether they vote for Paul or someone else, it's going to be the biggest issue of this campaign, and a referendum on America's foreign policy going back to Woodrow Wilson.
http://blog.ronpaul2008.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/08/message-from--2.html Ain't nothing wrong (in my books) with a message of hope.
This is pretty cool, and very smart. Leveraging the MeetUp community to assist in the campaign fundraising efforts. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/meetup/ Looking at the leaderboard, it's interesting to see all of the different areas and sizes of groups in the top 25. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/meetup/standings
Straw Poll Results in chart format http://ok4ronpaul.ashlux.com/wiki/index.php?title=2008_Presidential_GOP_straw_poll_results Compilation of 16 Republican Straw Polls since June 1, 2007 Results for Ron Paul: FIRST (5) New Hampshire Taxpayers, July 7 ~ 1st 61.9% (182/294) North Carolina, Gaston GOP, August 13, ~ 1st 36.6% (15/41) New Hampshire, Strafford Co., August 18 ~ 1st 72.7% (208/286) West Alabama, August 18 ~ 1st 81.2% (216/266) Washington State, South Sound Ronald Reagan Republican Club, August 21 ~ 1st 28.1% (40/160) SECOND (4) Utah GOP, June 12, 2nd 5.4% (70/1295) National Taxpayers Union, June 16 ~ 2nd 16.7% (NA) Georgia, Cobb Co. GOP, July 4 ~ 2nd 17% (42/247) South Carolina, Georgetown Co., July 28 ~ 2nd 17.9% (40/223) THIRD (3) National Federation of Republican Assemblies, August 4, St. Louis, MO ~ 3rd 13.8% (18/130) Illinois State Fair, Springfield, August 16 ~ 3rd 18.87% (174/922) Minnesota House Republican Caucus, August 22 ~ 3rd 16% (NA) FOURTH (2) California Republican Assembly, July 1 ~ 4th 12% (NA) Indiana, Tippecanoe Co., West Lafayette, August 18 ~ tied 4th 11.7% (21/180) FIFTH (1) Iowa, Ames, August 11 ~ 5th 9.12% (1,305/14,302) SIXTH (1) Young Republican National Federation, Ft Lauderdale FL, July 8th ~ 6th 4.5% (11/247)
Do you understand what you're quoting? The Fed is not cause of the debt. Money supply will increase inevitably as long as the government spends more than it revenues. The Fed has nothing to do with the fiscal policy.
You're kidding right? http://www.frbsf.org/publications/federalreserve/monetary/index.html Who do you think authorizes the printing of more money? Who do you think generates "credit" for the government to use in the (recurring) event of a shortfall? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve#Control_of_the_money_supply .
Monetary policy and fiscal policy are different. The way money supply is increased by the Fed directly is through outright purchases. If the Fed doesn't "print" the money to buy government securities, China will be glad to. Like I said before, if the government spends more than it revenues, money supply is going to have to increase regardless of what the Fed does.
And what happens if China cannot/will not? Before the federal reserve bank, all money per the constitution had to be backed by gold or silver. The government could spend itself into debt, but couldn't produce more money. It's an important difference.
If China will not, the following will: 1) The Public Sector (minus the Fed) 2) The Private Sector 3) Foreigners It's nearly impossible that these securities will not be sold because the market will adjust the prices to create demand.
That makes me laugh!!! Is that why he says that the US govt. is responsible for the 9/11 attacks??? Also, when did you get hired as his campaign manager? Troothes got to stick together, right? on a side note, the History channel did mention WTC7, and that it was not an explosion from a bomb....
That's incorrect. He's stated several times that it was US foreign policy (spanning multiple DEM and GOP regimes) that contributed to the attacks. For the millionth time, both the CIA and the 9-11 Commission report provide a basis for his claims.