Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually he's correct. Paul may have an (R) next to his name, but he's a libertarian through and through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shpanda
It was ridiculous. Especially considering when he was asked a question, he answered it in the first sentence of his response, and then elaborated. Unlike the majority who babbled on and on avoiding answering. He also gave intelligent answers. But hey, who wants to hear from a wise vet about these things?
Paul is extremely intelligent, well spoken, and when asked a question, actually answers it. Most people are too unintelligent to understand him, or just don't care. Most, especially on the right want simple, "catch" phases like "repeal obamacare!" "one term president!" "9-9-9"! Really all you need to do to be successful in the GOP is bash obama, have a catch phrase, and bash obama again.
I new this thread would take off. I dug three or four pages down to see if Ron Paul was even mentioned in this so called 'Political Controversies' section. Paul is THE only choice.
I new this thread would take off. I dug three or four pages down to see if Ron Paul was even mentioned in this so called 'Political Controversies' section. Paul is THE only choice.
You'd like to end social security and medicare?
If so, you're in the minority of even the TEA party, and the rest of the country.
If a 10 minute speech, or even a 90 minute speech would convince Americans to end social security and medicare, Republicans would have done it decades ago.
Paul will never win the white house, and his opinions are extreme. I agree with him on a lot of things, but the two things that kill him every time is social security, and medicare.
He touches two of the "third rails" of politics at the same time.
If so, you're in the minority of even the TEA party, and the rest of the country.
If a 10 minute speech, or even a 90 minute speech would convince Americans to end social security and medicare, Republicans would have done it decades ago.
Paul will never win the white house, and his opinions are extreme. I agree with him on a lot of things, but the two things that kill him every time is social security, and medicare.
He touches two of the "third rails" of politics at the same time.
where are you getting that info? Those things arent going anywhere under his plan RON PAUL "PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA"*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/ - broken link) (see mandatory spending tables)
If so, you're in the minority of even the TEA party, and the rest of the country.
If a 10 minute speech, or even a 90 minute speech would convince Americans to end social security and medicare, Republicans would have done it decades ago.
Paul will never win the white house, and his opinions are extreme. I agree with him on a lot of things, but the two things that kill him every time is social security, and medicare.
He touches two of the "third rails" of politics at the same time.
Has what to do with Ron Paul only getting 89 seconds of air time in the establishment rigged debate?
where are you getting that info? Those things arent going anywhere under his plan RON PAUL "PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA"*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/ - broken link) (see mandatory spending tables)
Has what to do with Ron Paul only getting 89 seconds of air time in the establishment rigged debate?
Because he is a fringe candidate, with a radical view. Since he doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning the white house, he doesn't deserve any more time.
As I said previously, if a 90 minute speech (lets give Paul the entire 90 minutes) was going to end social security and medicare, then the Republicans would have done it decades ago.
Pauls positions aren't main stream, and because so he'll always be a fringe candidate.
Ron Paul wants to destroy social security, remove it, repeal it, end it, whatever you want to say. Same thing with medicare.
More then 70% of the country disagree with him on that, and as such, he will never be President.
Thats why he doesn't get "air time" during debates, he is a fringe candidate. I like a lot of what he has to say, but the only reason Ron Paul runs for President every year isn't to win, its to try and draw attention to his fringe issues. He knows he could never win the white house.
Actually the US Constitution is the most main stream. The GOP and DNC powers that be don't want to have to abide by the US Constitution and thus the MSM does their bidding by marginalizing the only candidate not toting the water for the global elite.
As to Paul's position on Medicare, you misrepresent it. Is that intentional?
Actually the US Constitution is the most main stream. The GOP and DNC powers that be don't want to have to abide by the US Constitution and thus the MSM does their bidding by marginalizing the only candidate not toting the water for the global elite.
As to Paul's position on Medicare, you misrepresent it. Is that intentional?
70% of Americans don't want social security to end, change, nothing. Same thing with medicare.
So since the majority of Americans want to keep using an interpetive view of the constitution, guess what, it won't change.
Unless you want to change the last 200 years of American history, the interpretive view will be followed.
Republicans, Democrats, Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, and Whigs all have taken an interpretive view of the constitution, and it will not change.
As such, Paul doesn't even deserve to be on a Presidential stage. He just gets there because he knows that most people won't listen to him if he wasn't on that stage. He'd be another raving libertarian on the street corner that everyone would ignore.
I predict a pendulum swing when Paul finally leaves the public light. I think this will once again lead to the rise of the wark hawk and otherwise big or powerful government Republican (and by that, I am not simply talking spending... read: be prepared for more power expansions in the name of national security... maybe even more gung-ho drug warrioring [though they may actually be losing that one long term].... more military expansions of whatever form [kind of funny how predictable it is that parties tend to tone down their war rhetoric when the 'other party' is current in the White House - that criticism tends to work both ways], etc...).
Criticize the Tea Part or libertarian type Republicans at ones peril. If you think them going bye bye will somehow make way for "more reasonable Republicans" from a Democrat perspective, I think you have another thing coming. Wishful thinking, at best. Could it be true? Sure.... "could." I'll go with what seems like the better odds though, that being history simply repeats itself as it usually does... and the pendulum simply swings back a bit from whence it came before.
* Note: I realize that comment is outside the scope of the original post. It is merely a prediction I though I would air for public criticism that doesn't neatly fit in any of the other threads.... so figured I would stick it in this Paul thread, as its probably no more off-topic than if it were in the others.
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 11-13-2011 at 05:46 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
