Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads.
If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you.
A very liberal friend of mine said something like he was interested by Ron Paul, because of his anti-mainstream GOP stuff, and his anti-corporate talk. I explained to him that in this particular case, the enemy of his enemy is not his friend. And I didn't even have the stuff just posted to mention to him.
That many of his supporters (I guess this includes you by your own admission) are racists and conspiracy nuts.
Yes, some of his supporters are racists and conspiracy nuts. Many of them are not. That goes without saying. You're not covering any new ground here.
Now how does that make his viewpoints invalid? Do you vote for a candidate based on how you feel about their viewpoints or how other people feel about their viewpoints? If Alex Jones and Don Black made a webpage about how awesome ice cream is, does that mean that normal people should shun ice cream?
Huckabee just got thrashed in New Hampshire. -Just 11% of the GOP votes.
If Ron Paul found out tomorrow that he suddenly needed a kidney transplant, he would get one of mine right away....no questions asked. (assuming we had the same blood type).
Ron Paul is the only "breath of fresh air" on the GOP side.
So since Ron Paul only got 8%, was that a thrashing and a half?
I especially like his insane comments about the civil war being unnecessary, and that Lincoln shouldn't have attacked the South. He said we should have bought the slaves' freedom instead, as Britain did. Apparently he forgot that A. The civil war was only partly about slavery, and B. The South attacked the North at Fort Sumter.
I think we've had enough of a President that doesn't know history.
So since Ron Paul only got 8%, was that a thrashing and a half?
I especially like his insane comments about the civil war being unnecessary, and that Lincoln shouldn't have attacked the South. He said we should have bought the slaves' freedom instead, as Britain did. Apparently he forgot that A. The civil war was only partly about slavery, and B. The South attacked the North at Fort Sumter.
I think we've had enough of a President that doesn't know history.
Of course it wasn't exclusively about slavery. I'm not sure what Ron Paul comments you're talking about here, but I'm sure his opinions have something to do with states' rights over the federal government. As far as "B", yes the South did attack the North at Fort Sumter, but do you think it was some unprovoked out of the blue attack?
But hey, you probably know more about history than some guy with "Dr." at the front of his name and then another guy who graduated from Yale, right?
Edit: I'm not really trying to defend Bush, I just think it's a little silly for some average dude (or if you're "above average", let's see your creditentials) to talk about how he "doesn't know history".
Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads. 
Linear Mode
