Do most Republicans think Ron Paul is crazy? (Rush Limbaugh, health care, salary)

[stycotl]

Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet

Hate to break it to you but, his idealistic and straight talk is not new.

i never alluded to the idea that this was new. in fact, i have mentioned repeatedly that paul wants to "return" to constitutional values, which would imply older values, ones that are actually written in that document that so few seem to care about anymore.

Don't be too enamored by Ron.

when my alternatives are the filthy corporate whores known as obama, romney, santorum, and gingrich, i feel pretty darn good inside becoming enamored of paul.

besides, another thing i have very often said on these forums and other places besides is that i don't agree with everything paul says or believes. but i do respect the guy for his honesty, his consistency, and his grasp of the constitution and how it relates to the issues our country currently faces.

i can't claim that about any of the other contenders at all.

This is not the first time someone got up and said what is on most of our minds at one point or another.

no, it isn't. in fact, it is ironic that so often it is the very corrupt and dishonest politicians that are screaming about morality and decency and playing fair, pointing their fingers and acting like a bunch of abused children, when in reality they are the ones doing the majority of the abuse.

The long-awaited "campaign finance reform" vote finally took place last week, with the House ultimately passing the measure. The debate was full of hypocritical high-minded talk about cleaning up corruption, all by the very politicians of both parties who dole out billions in corporate subsidies and welfare pork. It was quite a spectacle watching the big-spending, perennially-incumbent politicians argue that new laws were needed to protect them from themselves!

Ron Paul; Don't Believe the Hype- "Campaign Finance Reform" Serves Entrenched Interests, February 18, 2002

In the end, however, it is about compromise. That means all of us, you AND me, have to take a bite out of the same shiite sandwich to move forward. It's not always what we want but rather, what we can get, overall, that propels us.

if you think that this means we should give up on ideals, you are wrong. there is no way we can fix things if we just decide that having an honest, effective, well-budgeted government is impossible.

we're not quite at rock-bottom yet, but unfortunately it seems that most americans and most american politicians are waiting to hit rock-bottom before they decide to do anything about it. if we want to get out of our current problems without actually causing a depression, we don't have the time or luxury to wait, or to decide that we can compromise and overlook the government's ridiculous overspending, or their continual takeover of our rights.

we need to fix it now.

I give your voting block "A's" for sincerity and heart, F'sfor effectiveness and reality.

i accept an F for effectiveness because the system has been rigged by the rich politicians and their corporate bedfellows in order to make them richer, and in order to silence the sane and very much alarmed opposition. we're fighting an uphill battle. but as i mentioned earlier, from what i've seen, more people are paying attention now than at any other point during my lifetime.

you can keep your F for reality though, because the lackadaisical attitude that you and so many other voters out there seem to have about "compromising" on rights and budget issues is exactly why we are in this mess in the first place.

so when you are part of the massive collection of apathetic americans that caused this problem in the first place, as evidenced by your post about "reality" and compromise, you don't have any moral or intellectual ground to be grading me on my views of reality. you can keep your F, you and all of the rest of the americans that continue to accept the status quo––you've earned that F.

if you really want to get to the point where you can try to pass judgment on me for my ideals, go read a book or something and educate yourself as to what principles and rules this country was founded on, and in what areas our current "representatives" are lacking, or in which they are blatantly flaunting their disobedience and self-serving corruption.

It is....what it is....can't cut our noses off to spite our faces....i tried that once and woke up with Clinton for 8 years.....think about it....

i'd take clinton in a heartbeat over every single candidate here except paul. at the very least he could handle money. the rest of these goons are guaranteed to keep us on track for a depression.

vote carefully...we all have to live with your decision.....

that is a two-way street there, and so far, it is the paul supporters having to live with the decisions that you guys are making.

i am not going to vote for one of the other GOP pretenders just so that i can make sure obama doesn't win. i am not going to drop my goals to balance the national debt and to get rid of unconstitutional legislations in order to help you feel better about getting the democrats out of the oval office.

as far as the constitution is concerned, the current republicans are not any better than obama, so why should i vote in one deranged idiot in order to get rid of another?

i'll write in paul's name in the generals if he doesn't make the primaries. and you can live with that.

Paul is not likely to win and would get clobbered in debates.

you clearly haven't been paying attention; paul hasn't gotten clobbered in debates at all. he certainly isn't winning the polls or the state votes––and in my estimation he will not win the primary or the general (though i am still allowed to hope)––but he is kicking their asses in the debates. the others don't even know what they are talking about most of the time, and even when they do, they lie and deflect and make blatant, flip-flopping appeals to whatever group of voters they are currently facing.

gingrich and romney are just slapping each other back and forth and ignoring real issues, and santorum can't even look his foes in the eye when he is accusing and insulting them, and can't go a single sentence without telling the world how great he is, and then proceeding to set forward some fanatical religious ideals that... concern me, to say the least.

Perot was cheeky too and other than a few well placed lobs, he ended up as a footnote along with Dewey, Humphrey, Ford and others.....

Don't mistake efforts for results.

don't you worry your little establishment head about what i am or am not mistaking. we're both wrong in the eyes of the other. i take solace in the fact that the candidate i support consistently follows the constitution, and that he would fix the national debt.

you can continue taking solace in your compromise and "reality," that are guaranteed to do nothing except keep us on the track that we are already on.

[Caleb Longstreet]

I admire your zeal but, you are assuming too much when it comes to the establishment and folks like me. You are casting judgement on limited information and background perspective.

I think its fair to say that ALL of us want change, the devil is in the details. To say you want it all one way, including yours is just not realistic albeit, well intended. It just doesn't work. And because most of us compromise does not mean we are complacent? Look at history...again.....there was a guy named Hitler that believed his way was the only way for Germany and as luck would have it, the Germans to a large extent, followed him like sheep over the cliff.

In the end, he blamed the very individuals fighting for his ideals. Meanwhile, countries like Italy saw their fate, capitulated and the majority of them and their cities were saved. You learn over time that compromise is an art form unto itself.

Your zeal is as misguided in that you see things only one way. And while we all like to see certain industries overhauled you have to understand the ripple effect when you turn an apple cart over. And as unpleasant as it may seem to you and me the views that some espouse, they do have the right to espouse them. You don't have to accept them but, sooner or later you will have to compromise to some degree with them?

The movie, the American President has a great scene in where Michael Douglas sounds off to some effect "let me see you stand next to the man screaming at the top of his lungs everything you oppose at the top of yours.....defend that, suport that...etc...etc". A bit liberal for me but, it makes a good point.

Healthy debate in a free society is probably healthy. In a free society like ours, it's almost a certainty. It is the trappings of this society that allows it, good or bad. In the end, we may scream at the top of our lungs our view while our counterparts scream at the top of their lungs their diametrically opposed views but, no matter the point, a compromise is coming.....usually.

Love the zeal. Respect it I do. Check back in in about 2 or 3 months and let's go from there?

[stycotl]

Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet

I admire your zeal but, you are assuming too much when it comes to the establishment and folks like me. You are casting judgement on limited information and background perspective.

please. if you want to talk about reality, and who is making assumptions, you started this conversation with something along the lines of:

Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet

So, put the gun down, drop the butchers knife, hang up the cell phone, and take ALL of your meds....

and:

Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet

Hey, i was fascinated by Perot 20 years ago so you too can waste your vote....

and:

Paul? Aside from some chicks with anger management issues, not much.....that, and maybe Amy Irving and canyon mouth, Carol King

and:

Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet

Don't mistake efforts for results.

and this is not even considering your newest post yet.

so quit patronizing paul supporters like you you have some kind of inside information on life that gives the right to be condescending. you don't. judging by your political opinions so far, you're stuck in the same dark hole as the rest of the candidates.

I think its fair to say that ALL of us want change, the devil is in the details. To say you want it all one way, including yours is just not realistic albeit, well intended. It just doesn't work.

my point is that our country can't afford to not do it this way, whether it happens to be my way or not.

you can whine all you want that you want to keep your leg, but if it is gangrenous and spreading, it needs to be cut off, and no amount of compromise is going to fix it.

And because most of us compromise does not mean we are complacent?

nope. but adding that to the condescending, ignorant tone of the rest of your posts tells me that you are complacent, comfortable, and unwilling to educate yourself.

Look at history...again.....there was a guy named Hitler that believed his way was the only way for Germany and as luck would have it, the Germans to a large extent, followed him like sheep over the cliff.

In the end, he blamed the very individuals fighting for his ideals. Meanwhile, countries like Italy saw their fate, capitulated and the majority of them and their cities were saved. You learn over time that compromise is an art form unto itself.

i don't think you understand the implications of the example you used. in fact, it would seem to me more that the german people screwed themselves and many others besides, because they did compromise certain values that should be inherent to every person.

you can't tell me that the german citizens living just a few miles away from the concentration camps did not know what was going on. you can't tell me that they were helpless from the inception of the nazi party's abuses, and later, atrocities, that they couldn't have done something.

but they compromised. they said, "well, these jerks are already in power, and we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or rock the boat at all. so we'll pretend we don't see what is going on, or if we do bring it up, we'll just kind of shake our fingers at the guilty party and hope that they come around by themselves."

doesn't work that way. compromise is great––between two more or less equally valuable choices. but between fixing things and making them work properly, or continuing to allow corruption and the fleecing of the american people, i will not compromise.

Your zeal is as misguided in that you see things only one way.

more assumptions. i have seen them the other way and they do not work. i am tired of watching politician-corporation corruption ruin my country. you can call it what you will, accuse me of being narrow-minded until you are blue in the face, insult my intelligence because it makes you feel better about your tiny little position in the world, but it will not change my mind.

it has to stop now, with or without you. with or without ron paul. it doesn't matter who it is, so long as someone does it. if it were a mainstream republican or democrat that was as consistent as paul, and was the only one that was sincerely going to fix our country, i'd be voting for that person. but it is not a democrat or mainstream republican. it is a republican that normally registers as a libertarian, but decided that he could reach more people this time by reminding conservatives what they used to stand for.

you say that i see things only one way, and you try to equate this mindset to that of hitler (which is another level of your failure to understand reality altogether), but the way i see it, my house is being robbed, and i can either fight back and be accused by confused individuals like yourself that i only see things my way, or i can "compromise" and ask the crooks if they will at least leave us in peace should we cooperate and give them all of our valuables.

i don't see the two main issues for which i will be voting ron paul as a situation where i should compromise. all of the sideline issues, certainly important in their own right, will have to take a back seat, and in those, i am willing to compromise. but when it comes to running this country by the constitution instead of the mockery of a system we are trying in vain to keep alive on life support, and when it comes to my government representatives spending our country into a deep, dark pit, i will not compromise.

And while we all like to see certain industries overhauled you have to understand the ripple effect when you turn an apple cart over. And as unpleasant as it may seem to you and me the views that some espouse, they do have the right to espouse them. You don't have to accept them but, sooner or later you will have to compromise to some degree with them?

see, you can't even make up your mind here. are you trying to tell me something, or are you asking me? grow a pair and state your mind or quit wasting electricity.

and no, as mentioned above, there are some things that are on the table for compromise. the integrity, legitimacy and economic stability of my nation are not included in that list.

also, you might not have noticed, but i keep mentioning the constitution, which means i am fighting for the rights of those that don't agree with me to keep putting their voice out there.

The movie, the American President has a great scene in where Michael Douglas sounds off to some effect "let me see you stand next to the man screaming at the top of his lungs everything you oppose at the top of yours.....defend that, suport that...etc...etc". A bit liberal for me but, it makes a good point.

Healthy debate in a free society is probably healthy. In a free society like ours, it's almost a certainty. It is the trappings of this society that allows it, good or bad.

your key word there is "healthy," and what we have going on now is not healthy. i will not compromise to allow someone else to keep robbing my countrymen because it pacifies the opposition.

In the end, we may scream at the top of our lungs our view while our counterparts scream at the top of their lungs their diametrically opposed views but, no matter the point, a compromise is coming.....usually.

Love the zeal. Respect it I do. Check back in in about 2 or 3 months and let's go from there?

no game.

[Caleb Longstreet]

Original comments were said with humor. Lighten up. Hyperbole aside, I feel we haven't been robbed but, gang banged. It's worse than that. I have no inside scoop aside from simply having existed a little longer. Nothing more. But, time has it's benefits.

I don't think anyone likes everything that has happened in the last 3 years. However, I don't think one side or the other completey cramming their sole views down others throats (Hitler) works, either? As painful as it is, Democracy ends up compromising to get anything done.

Othewise, you end up with some sort of Dictatorship. So, in your view, exactly, what should be done? Tell me Paul's view on befriending Iran and how that will work, exactly? Tell me how he is going to appease the considerable Jewish concern here in America that this is okay. Tell me how that is going to assure and improve the security of America.

May look good on paper but, in reality, I don't think it will have a chance. Not that he is wrong and I am right but, because you don't usually win when you take on big concerns with little numbers. Case in point, look how well the President did with the Catholics and his recent view on birth control.

As you can see, on paper it looks good right up to the point of attack. So, in the end, he compromised. It had to kill him. Axelrod, a Jew, Obama, a Muslim making peace with 25% of the US voting block.....no game? Game enough?

Now, I am going to go back and re-read, slowly, your last entry....

[Caleb Longstreet]

Got through most of it...lot of emotion...that's not a bad thing. As far as bashing, I'd say you are winning that, 2 to 1...and not necessarily against me....I don't think you have met a poltician you have ever liked....outside of Paul and maybe, Clinton. The long mane of hair comment probably speaks more to this than anything. I guess that must be a new monicher of the informed.

No one is telling you who you should or should not vote for. That's completely your choice whether I, or your neighbor likes it or not. Much like the movie, I would vigorously defend your right to do so even if it made my blood boil. See? You truly can have a varying opinion and still understand the need for decension.

No one argues that compromise has it's downside. Right back with the trappings of a rich society loaded with choices and freedoms. It simply comes with the territory. Because someone is compromising, doesn't mean they lack hope nor are they completely happy with that compromise but, that's why they call it, compromise. They do it, usually, to get SOMETHING accomplished. Kind of like football, can't throw an 80 yarder on every play, can we?

This "lulled to sleep" establishment is not so sleepy as you might think. I think that over time, you learn to pick battles, learn to digest the undigestible and hope to live long enough to fight another day.

You yourself said you were willing to compromise and put certain issues on the backburner. So now, it's only certain issues? So you are willing to "settle into that established compromise" on others because those particular issues, whatever they may be, are not as important to you at this particular time. That is your choice but, it does lessen your argument. For one as committed to your cause as you seem to be, I find that a bit out of character. Not a criticism, just an observation.

I can't say I wish you luck in your campaign but, I can give you an A for at least voicing an opinion. Healthy and strong debate is fine. For me, I just think I've tried that and despite Perot's speech, it did little to move the ball one way or the other. Most campaigns are filled with fluff. They can't seem to get elected without it.

For the record, McCain was, and continues to be, a loud voice sounding off about Campaign Finance Reform and the elimination of PAC money....just curious, where were you on this issue 3 years ago? Was this issue as important to you back then as it is now? Was it a less important issue for you? Was it an item that you could/did compromise on back then?

Not a problem if you weren't but, I would like to know when you caught fire and passion. McCain, regardless of feelings on him, was squarely for campaign finance reform long before it became trendy and dare I say, necessary? He spoke out about this long, long ago and has a consistent track record on at leas this point. I guess his wife's fortune probably helped to afford this choice but, regardless, he at least went on record about it.

Predictions? The media is doing it's level best to get him re-elected based on Diane Sawyer's overwhelming feined surprise at how WELL the economy is doing one week later....the Republicans are doing their level best to help him. Santorum seems angry, Gingrich seems to be the guy everyone hates, Romney is just Romney...the twin of Perry only more successful.....

Guess? If it were today, dare I say, he would get re-elected by 4%....but, it's not today.....right now, I can only say it's 50/50. Anyone's guess. If the economy improves, he wins....if Iran is attacked, he loses, if gas goes and stays above $4, he loses, if the Republicans don't unite behind someone in a month, he wins......too close to call right now but, I don't see Paul springing ahead anytime soon.

Least of all, in about a month. Curious about another thing, if he drops out, will you still write him in?

[Caleb Longstreet]

Some more points. The Germans inadvertently screwed themelves but, it's probably amazing what one will do when they have a gun pointed at their heads. Throw in some determined young, square-jawed youth or two behind the gun and you too might become a believer. You and I have the luxury of judging by hindsight. Neither of us lived through it and for that reason alone, I can't comdemn all the German people. They had a nut job for a leader and a whole army to back him up. Probably explains why certain Despots can and continue to reign when logic would make one think the masses would rise up and kill them.

That, my friend, is reality, circa WWII in Germany. Hard to imagine, huh? Sure, there might have been a few million being killed all around them (not all Jews mind you....5.5 million weren't Jews....11.5 million total). Again, with guns all around and possibly pointed at you, it's possible to see them "compromising" in the name of self-preservation.

No, I think I understand that quite well. Even from my own little position in the world as you say. Who knows? Maybe you will be enlightened at some point and take up that debate too?

There is no confusion. The way I see it, you have a passion for your candidate. I see it as a wasted vote. Two actually because mine will cancel yours and vice versa.....feel the burn.....defend that, endorse that, compromise on that.....

The reason? I just don't see a winner in the long shot. And yeah, having a few jokes along the way is right up there with the Amy Irving and Carol King comments....touche' No, I am going to vote on the Republican, whomnever that ends up being, because I am just as committed to getting this guy out as your are getting Paul in. I want to see the spending STOPPED. This guy is completely out of control and George Bush had nothing to do with it ; )

Even if Paul could get elected, how in the world is he going to get anything done? He will end up being right up there with Captain Smith of the Titanic...noble, well intended, and combat ineffective.....can't quite see him having access to the nuclear football. If you thought it scary with Bush, consider Paul....not sure he would have the gumption to use it even if 100 "birds" in the air flying our way. Although I would desperately like to know exactly where you were if that were to happen....hate to tell you I told you so and all....

No matter. I'll make sure I reach out to you in a few weeks....as well as sooner when you read these splinters.

[stycotl]

Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet

Original comments were said with humor. Lighten up.

humor works better when it is clever, based on some sort of intelligent irony or something like that. when you finally say something that i think is clever, ill be sure to LOL or some crap like that.

Hyperbole aside, I feel we haven't been robbed but, gang banged. It's worse than that.

and yet your strategy is to continue with the status quo, hoping that the institutions that knowingly brought us into our current problems will somehow fix them now. doesn't make any sense to me.

I have no inside scoop aside from simply having existed a little longer. Nothing more. But, time has it's benefits.

i have no clue whether you are older than me or not, but there are plenty of paul supporters that are older than the both of us, so i really couldn't care less how old you are or what kind of superior wisdom you think that gives you.

as indiana jones said in raiders of the lost arc, "it's not the years, honey, it's the mileage." and in my experience, americans that are content with the establishment and its predetermined elections haven't got a lot of mileage, whether they've been sitting in the garage now for 40 years, or only a few weeks.

I don't think anyone likes everything that has happened in the last 3 years. However, I don't think one side or the other completey cramming their sole views down others throats (Hitler) works, either? As painful as it is, Democracy ends up compromising to get anything done.

in a pure democracy, yes. luckily, our founding fathers were not dumb enough to give us a pure democracy. what we have is a democratic constitutional republic. you might want to read up on those terms so that you understand how they apply to each other.

the short of it comes down to this: compromise is perfectly acceptable––in certain situations, and up to certain points. but what our government is doing right now crosses those lines because it steps on the constitution and the limits that were set therein.

Othewise, you end up with some sort of Dictatorship. So, in your view, exactly, what should be done? Tell me Paul's view on befriending Iran and how that will work, exactly? Tell me how he is going to appease the considerable Jewish concern here in America that this is okay. Tell me how that is going to assure and improve the security of America.

May look good on paper but, in reality, I don't think it will have a chance. Not that he is wrong and I am right but, because you don't usually win when you take on big concerns with little numbers. Case in point, look how well the President did with the Catholics and his recent view on birth control.

As you can see, on paper it looks good right up to the point of attack. So, in the end, he compromised. It had to kill him. Axelrod, a Jew, Obama, a Muslim making peace with 25% of the US voting block.....no game? Game enough?

Now, I am going to go back and re-read, slowly, your last entry....

iran needs to be dealt with as if it were a sovereign nation, which it is. we need to treat it with the respect and caution that we want ourselves to be dealt with. in that case, if iran continues to screw up and flaunt their dishonesty and bullying nature to the rest of the world, something drastic might need to be done, but only time can say. i understand that my position is more aggressive than paul's concerning iran. but as i mentioned, i am willing to compromise on some things, especially potential future problems, as they are less important in my view than the crisis our country is currently stuck in. fix what is currently broken before worrying about things that might potentially break in the future.

plus, when we finally decide to treat iran like a collection of human beings instead of ignorant subordinates, constantly pushed around by our officials and intelligence agencies, maybe they'll back off a bit. i'm not expecting them to become bed buddies, but a lessening of hostilities would be a good step in the right direction. it might take some time, but i would imagine that any of these foreign policy issues will take some time.

as far as israel is concerned, i don't give a rat's ass. they have been using shady policies and dirty warfare, just like we have, for a long time now, and we have been encouraging it by both our own bad example and by turning a blind eye to it.

i understand that some people feel some sort of inherent debt to israel, but our country cannot afford to continue propping up other nations and their wars, especially when our own nation is falling apart.

Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet

Got through most of it...lot of emotion...that's not a bad thing. As far as bashing, I'd say you are winning that, 2 to 1...and not necessarily against me....I don't think you have met a poltician you have ever liked....outside of Paul and maybe, Clinton.

i don't think i like any politician. i certainly did not like clinton. but i like him more than i like any of the current democratic or republican party leaders. give me president that can't keep his wiener to himself any day over one that spends our country into oblivion and can't go five minutes without dishonoring the ideals of the constitution.

clinton was definitely not the constitutional ideal, but again, he was much better than any of the candidates in the race nowadays.

ron paul is the closest thing to a constitutional ideal as i have seen in american politics. i have mentioned before though that i don't agree with everything he says or campaigns for. but again, on those issues, i am willing to compromise, because of the hard stance that he has on issues that i will not compromise.

The long mane of hair comment probably speaks more to this than anything. I guess that must be a new monicher of the informed.

i don't recall mentioning anything about a "long mane of hair," so you'll have to point out exactly what you are talking about in order to get my view.

No one is telling you who you should or should not vote for. That's completely your choice whether I, or your neighbor likes it or not. Much like the movie, I would vigorously defend your right to do so even if it made my blood boil. See? You truly can have a varying opinion and still understand the need for decension.

No one argues that compromise has it's downside. Right back with the trappings of a rich society loaded with choices and freedoms. It simply comes with the territory. Because someone is compromising, doesn't mean they lack hope nor are they completely happy with that compromise but, that's why they call it, compromise. They do it, usually, to get SOMETHING accomplished. Kind of like football, can't throw an 80 yarder on every play, can we?

and this is again where you are wrong, and where you show that the apathy of america, and their willingness to compromise just about anything, is screwing the country over.

when the country decides that it can compromise its constitutional rights, something is wrong. we cannot afford to give up the constitutional foundation that has made our country as strong as it is. we cannot afford to forget that we are not a democracy, but a democratic republic.

and that being the case, by very definition, there are some things that we therefore cannot compromise.

This "lulled to sleep" establishment is not so sleepy as you might think. I think that over time, you learn to pick battles, learn to digest the undigestible and hope to live long enough to fight another day.

but the problem is that both sides are allowing the extremists to do the talking, and they usually end up taking hard lines over social issues, and compromising constitutional issues. so birth control becomes a bigger issue than the travesty that is the department of homeland security, and the fact that a candidate is a mormon or a protestant becomes more of a turnoff than the fact that the candidate intends to start wars in foreign countries without going through the necessary congressional checks and balances.

that, to me, is a huge problem.

You yourself said you were willing to compromise and put certain issues on the backburner. So now, it's only certain issues? So you are willing to "settle into that established compromise" on others because those particular issues, whatever they may be, are not as important to you at this particular time. That is your choice but, it does lessen your argument. For one as committed to your cause as you seem to be, I find that a bit out of character. Not a criticism, just an observation.

i have never ever said that i am willing to compromise all issues. i don't know where you are getting that. maybe you need to go back and reread what i have written.

what i have said is that our economy, our intervention in foreign wars, and our continued abuse of the constitution are primary issues in my mind. i will not compromise on them at all. i will not shrug my shoulders and accept less than 100% on any of those issues.

other issues that don't fall under one of those three, i am more willing to compromise, because those are not inherently making or breaking our future.

you can say that weakens my position if you really want to, but doing so would just mean that you didn't understand my position to begin with. i know what it is that i support––you apparently do not.

I can't say I wish you luck in your campaign but, I can give you an A for at least voicing an opinion. Healthy and strong debate is fine. For me, I just think I've tried that and despite Perot's speech, it did little to move the ball one way or the other. Most campaigns are filled with fluff. They can't seem to get elected without it.

For the record, McCain was, and continues to be, a loud voice sounding off about Campaign Finance Reform and the elimination of PAC money....just curious, where were you on this issue 3 years ago? Was this issue as important to you back then as it is now? Was it a less important issue for you? Was it an item that you could/did compromise on back then?

Not a problem if you weren't but, I would like to know when you caught fire and passion. McCain, regardless of feelings on him, was squarely for campaign finance reform long before it became trendy and dare I say, necessary? He spoke out about this long, long ago and has a consistent track record on at leas this point. I guess his wife's fortune probably helped to afford this choice but, regardless, he at least went on record about it.

campaign finance reform has been necessary for much longer than mccain has been preaching it, and as much as he is right about it currently being broken, i couldn't vote for mccain because so many of his other positions. one bright spot doesn't entirely negate all of the dark ones.

Least of all, in about a month. Curious about another thing, if he drops out, will you still write him in?

yes, i will. unless a brokered convention brings in someone new that is an even better fit for our current problems. but there is about a 1:1,000,000 chance of that happening.

Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet

You and I have the luxury of judging by hindsight. Neither of us lived through it and for that reason alone, I can't condemn all the German people.

who is condemning them? i certainly am not. however, that doesn't mean that i can't come in afterward and try to identify what they did wrong. to do otherwise would be pretty foolish, and would make their mistakes and their victories worth a lot less.

They had a nut job for a leader and a whole army to back him up. Probably explains why certain Despots can and continue to reign when logic would make one think the masses would rise up and kill them.

i'm well aware of how that works. fortunately, if we actually stick to the constitution, it severely lessens the likelihood that such a leader could take power here. all the more reason to elect ron paul.

Again, with guns all around and possibly pointed at you, it's possible to see them "compromising" in the name of self-preservation.

what are you getting at here now? are you equating our situation to theirs? they are not even close, dude. further, your comparison has us compromising to horrible bad things because of tyrannical, murderous leaders. is that the parallel you are trying to draw?

There is no confusion. The way I see it, you have a passion for your candidate. I see it as a wasted vote. Two actually because mine will cancel yours and vice versa.....feel the burn.....defend that, endorse that, compromise on that…..

i used to think that way. in fact, i specifically didn't vote for ron paul in the last election because of that philosophy. since then, i have realized what should have been obvious: that voting for who you truly think represents the best interests of america is not a wasted vote, no matter who wins.

without that vote, americans can't ever see what the average person wants. most americans don't fall into the uber-conservative and uber-liberal camps that so many of the candidates come from. they come from much less fanatical places, and would be best represented by less fanatical leaders, assuming that they didn't think their votes were wasted.

No, I am going to vote on the Republican, whomnever that ends up being, because I am just as committed to getting this guy out as your are getting Paul in. I want to see the spending STOPPED. This guy is completely out of control and George Bush had nothing to do with it ; )

and this is where your logic is fatally flawed. the likely republican candidate will be almost as big a spender as obama. the establishment is trying to protect its current system, which makes corporations and deal-making politicians rich and powerful. that requires inordinate amounts of spending. if you elect a president that works within the established system and takes no steps to throw it down, nothing will change.

even ron paul's plans to fix the deficit will take years and years, and needs to be ramped up from its current incarnation, in my opinion, in order to be able to bring us back to balance. the others––they don't even have a shot.

so you blindly elect someone to office, simply because they were a different colored badge on their jacket, even when their politics are of the same mold. hell, even some of them are even financially supported by the same corporate backers. they play the exact same game, but wear different jerseys. but i'm pretty sure you have seen as well as i have that it is the game itself that needs to be fixed. who cares if one team can play it better or more ruthlessly than the others, if the game itself is what is bankrupting and imprisoning our country.

Even if Paul could get elected, how in the world is he going to get anything done? He will end up being right up there with Captain Smith of the Titanic...noble, well intended, and combat ineffective.....can't quite see him having access to the nuclear football. If you thought it scary with Bush, consider Paul....not sure he would have the gumption to use it even if 100 "birds" in the air flying our way. Although I would desperately like to know exactly where you were if that were to happen....hate to tell you I told you so and all....

No matter. I'll make sure I reach out to you in a few weeks....as well as sooner when you read these splinters.

to the contrary, as the only veteran among the candidates, i am pretty confident that paul would have a good idea about how to handle military situations.

as far as any military engagement, and especially a nuclear armageddon is concerned, i'd much rather have a constitutional, peace-loving military vet with his finger on the trigger than a civilian hawk with a nervous twitch whose only exposure to the military has been through hollywood, computer games, and holiday parades.

other than that, none of our leaders have ever had to deal with nuclear armageddon, so i'll save my further judgments for after the fact.

[Chi-turtle]

I wish I never read this article. Why does MSM insist on choosing the dumbest people on the planet as "representatives" of the average American voter? I see these clowns stand up and ask a dumb a$$ question at the debates, "boo" in favor of helping people and the golden rule, and now they poll morons who think sound money and ending wars is "crazy" and "out there".

This made me sick.

[itsrita]

to most people, anything that threatens change is scary.

[Hot_Handz]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/428114_386094098073467_247545411928337_1649599_145 4438943_n.jpg (broken link)