Why Ron Paul Makes People Mad
One reason presidential candidate Ron Paul makes people (particularly Republicans) angry is he the way he points out the glaring problems with the current Republican governing philosophy.
On Meet the Press with Tim Russert, he stated that he would eliminate the federal income tax and replace it- with nothing. Not the dubious and regressive "Fair Tax" proposed by Neil Boortz and John Linder, which often just seems like a way of re-arranging the current mess. He wants to replace it with nothing. http://www.rogersrants.com/blog/defa...kes-People-Mad |
This article points out a few things which should be so glaringly obvious. The Republican party... USED to be about smaller government, fiscal responsibility. Don't go around trying to be the worlds' policeman. These were ideas that even George Bush was spouting back when he ran in 2000.
On a side note.. I've always been registered as an Independent.. always had pretty much thought ALL republicans AND democrats were full of **** ! And I will admit I had absolutely no interest in politics. Considered myself pretty ignorant on the whole process.. But in the last 10 years or so, I started to get interested. And when I started to hear the things that Republicans were SUPPOSED to be about.. smaller government, fiscal responsibility, not be the world's policeman, a strong defense. I said to myself.. yeah, that sounds good, that sounds about right.. However, that is not what this current administration is about. Now we've got the Patriot Act, they're pushin' for a national ID card.. illegal wire taps, Spending money like it's absolutely going out of style.. which it is by the way.. got some of the countries over there sayin' they don't want to be paid in American dollars for OIL.. We simply can not afford what we're tryin' to do anymore. Somebody has to reel the government back down to size. This economy bubble.. it's got to burst at some point. and we can wait until it burst in our face.. or we can try to start working on these problems in a more controlled manner. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate talking about these issues.. Every other candidate seems to me to be talking about more of the same ol' same ol'. Somebody, someway has got to pay for the spending we've seen these last few years.. Where's it going to come from ? |
Quote:
Yes, but then 911 happened in 2001. We were attacked on our own soil for the first time in my lifetime. It freaked a lot of people out including our President who clearly stated that changed his mission that day (to nearly unanimous support) It seems to me that it is easy to catch our enemies after the event. In fact, they make it easy for us. They usually blow themselves up in the process. Catching bad guys cannot be the priority like it is at home on the streets for the police. The name of the game is preventing an attack in the first place. That means we have to go to the potential bad guys in an offensive manner before they can even get in a first punch. First punches are not acceptable against the United States. We have not been attacked on that scale since 911. I have to assume that Bushes policies have been relatively successful and effective in preventing attacks in the last 7 years. I think that was his priority and here is why. I imagine myself president and getting hit in a 911 attack. What would I do to keep it from happening again? Would I suddenly be willing to go deeper into debt than the day before? I probably would, just like I would borrow to save a family member. Would I go over to another country and stop future attack plans? I definitely would. Where would I go? I would go to places that hate our guts and want to assassinate our President, and make plans for terrorist attacks and assassination plans and stuff like that. I would also try to foster democracy in those areas so that maybe in the future, such attack planning may not be as numerious without monsterous dictators making it easy to keep the covers on the bad guys plans. Now sure we could have just gone into Iraq and toppled Saddam and gotten the hell out without acting as the current "policeman". I don't know of very many politicians who didn't think Saddam was a major threat to us and/or our allies before we attacked. Such a notion would be sillly. We know he paid suicide bombers families for their suicide bombing "services". But if he just got out, then the "vacuum" would be filled by what? I'll tell you what. Radical Islam - Certainly not tolerant secular democracy which must be learned. Learned by who? Another successful democracy such as ourselves? Now maybe you think Iraq is now a democracy or maybe you don't. I'm not sure myself. The final question is, "did we have to try?" I think so. There is a humanitarian aspect to the aftermath of war and the victors usually don't conquer and haul ass. They remain and influence the area and that is what pisses off the Radical Islamists so much. Any culture who hasn't changed in 100's or 1000's of years probably resists change. They don't like change so they hit us thinking it will help preserve their ideology..... dumbasses... Quote:
I kindly disagree. How can you have a "strong defense" and not be "the world's policeman" to some degree. Sure we could back off, but we would have to accept some degree of attacks in exchange. Is an attack on our homeland acceptable once every 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? What's a good number. If we did hit countries without staying for a while at least, I don't think the world community would respect that, not that we are running a popularity contest. But if there has been a failure by this administration, it has been on the PR front both at home and overseas, despite the fact that we have had no attacks since 911. Imagine the mileage in the press that a democrat would get with such a record. Quote:
Good Points. I'm for profiling arabs and to heck for being politically correct. Stuff like ID cards comes from trying to be "fair" in a PC sense. I hear you on the spending, but its the taxing and/or borrowing that has my panties all in a wad. As for being paid in dollars, I'm all for fair competition. May the best currency win! Quote:
There is no single person or branch of government who could be expected to do this. It would take 2 out of the 3 branches of government to cut the government's size by a large amount. I'm all for that but "the people" are the only ones that have the power to make this happen, not a single candidate. The good news is that if "the people" were to vote in Ron Paul, they would also likely vote in senators and congressmen who were like minded and then maybe change on the scale you are talking about could happen. But you would need to take on the teachers unions and washington lobbiests and all sorts of orgs feeding at the trough. Quote:
I don't really agree with that either. If you look at a stock market chart over the past 100 years, in spite of fluctuations and even a bubble or two bursting, the average regression is always pointing up. Past 100 Years I'm just saying that the US still has the strongest economy on earth by far. If someone wants to invest in Peso's or Gold, or US stocks, let them. Yeah sure I wish there were no pesky fluctuations, cycles, and corrections in the markets. Eternal smooth sailing would be nice but that ain't happening. And yes there are things we can do to help keep us strong which are too numerous to go into. Quote:
It comes from taxes. But here is the catch. If you increase tax rates, the economy suffers, while if you cut tax rates, then the economy gets a boost, which can lead to even more total tax revenues down the road) Basically if the republicans stay in the whitehouse, capital gains tax will remain at 15% or whatever it is. If Hilary gets elected, you can count on this doubling at least to 30-40% which will reek havoc on the stock market. I'm sure Ron Paul wants to cut taxes which makes him a good guy IMHO. However I believe the issue is not who will become president but rather who should not become president. It is fine to pick 1 out of 10 candidates to vote for. But rather than becoming enamored by one guy, I'm willing to keep an open mind about voting for any of 7 or 8 out of the 10 candidates in order to keep that 1 or 2 candidates from winning no matter what. I will not throw away a vote against Hilary or Obama no matter what. And for what purpose? To express myself? Heh, I'll draw a picture or write a poem instead. I would easily vote for Bush again if he was running against those two and I thought for a moment that he could beat them. As things stand, this country is nearly split red and blue. It is important not to let a very small minority 2% or less decide the outcome of our future. I don't like things that are simple black and white but sometimes I must choose sides. I'm chosing the lesser of two evils, which is usually the case in politics... |
:goodpost2::bravo::clapbig::clapbig::clapbig::clap big:
|
Quote:
I would go on a complete freakin' rant about it.. but everyone here is so freakin' caught up in 9/11 and content to let the government get bigger and bigger and bigger, so they can protect us from the all the evils in the world. Be careful.. you just might end up getting what you wish for. |
looking at all the polls that came out today RP does not stand a chance. I agree with rhertz here on this one. Nothing personal LN just viewing the issues and thinking RP is way off on his foreign policy.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Come on man, what do ya mean he "looks and sounds like a dork"? As compared to who? That monkey that's in office now? The lyin deviant gun-grabbin maggot that was there before the monkey? I dont think so. Dr. Paul looks and sounds as presidential as any and more so than most. And yes, one man can take on the system...he's doin that right this second with this incredible grassroots movement and the moneybombs. We intend to force congress to cooperate with President Paul or they can start lookin for work. Ya cant fight "terrorism"...get that thru your heads. This country is bleedin money and troops like a stuck pig with no end in sight. We have domestic issues that urgently need attention. We won the goddamn war. It's over. Forget the war. Forget the war. Forget the war. Repeat as often as necessary.
It's either "We The People" or "You The Sheople"! It's your call. What's it gonna be? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Come debates.. the days leading up to them, your usual candidate locks himself away, pouring over their responses to see what answers poll better with the public.. Ron Paul goes through no such preparations.. his answers are based on the rule of law. And he will give his answers regardless of what he thinks the listeners want to hear. Doesn't sound like any politician I've ever heard of. how you folks continue to tie in Iraq to the war on terror is one huge mystery to me. To me it appears that there is some phantom force that prevents Americans from thinking beyond the sound bite about real-world considerations and consequences. The pattern for political dialog is Hear, Feel, and React. Unfortunately, the words Think or Question do not appear in the normal dialog patterns of most Americans. We've become a nation of people trained to only see what we're told to see and to be absolutely comfortable ignoring the obvious. |
I live with my head in the sand :nono: Look around the world and see the facts. This problem is not going away and running home will just feed the beast. Yea I would love to love everybody and save tax dollars but it is so much more than that. If nobody will come talk to him about a vote then he will not get along with the Congress and he would be a lame duck. I think Howard Dean is a doctor too. :D
|
"I never said Al that I would not vote for RP in the main election"
Ya cant vote for him in the main election if he doesnt get the party nomination, and that's where we come in. He needs your support. Wake up and realize that it's in your best interest to give it to him. Defend America, defend your freedom. Lets flush the status quo down the crapper where it belongs. Let's take our country back from the bureaucrats and oligarchs. The time is NOW. Ya snooze, ya lose. |
If you're mad at Ron Paul there's a good chance you're either a blithering idiot, a socialist democrat or a bogus republican.
|
Quote:
However.........I would (and will) vote for Ron Paul in a New York second if he is THE republican frontrunner up against the DNC freak show. Oh I wish... But I can't count on it. Not yet anyway. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you. Quote:
Government has been growing looooong before 9/11 which again just amped things up. The whole problem is expectations of citizens of a democracy. When government is expected to defend our borders and create roads and commerce, things are great. Maybe even go to the moon! But when government is expected to provide food, medicine, legal defense, health care, and everything under the sun, not only to citizens but to non-citizens, then things go awry. Then they forget to build roads and defend borders, etc. It is not easy to shut off funding to Israel, the Palentinians, or to a starving African country once it has started. This mess started before I was born. Just look at history regarding who started the spending and who didn't. The only crazy democratic spending program that I ever agreed with was the space programs. Had the soviets beat us to the moon and continued to dominate that technology, there would be nukes up there right now, I'm sure. |
Quote:
Nobody here has problems with air strikes on training camps.. execution of terrorist leaders, etc.... Invading a country like Iraq.. which HAD NO CONNECTION.. all that does is piss off folks over there.. makes more folks willing to join Al Qaida and the like. To think all that goes on in Iraq.. makes us safer, is absolutely absurd. And I never will understand this media.. that stand up and cheerleads for this war in Iraq and **** like the Patriot Act.. like it's all freakin' good for us. the "war on terror" is likely to go on as long as the 'war on drugs'. This war in Iraq, helps us ZERO with the 'war on terror'. The more we expect the Government to protect us.. the more control they will have on us. The Bigger it will get. Passing up an opportunity to do something about that. Republicans USED to be about smaller government.. has not been the case in a long freakin' time. Congressman Paul is no stranger to military support. Former president Ronald Reagan said, “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country!” |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I just cant believe you people who still reject the IRAQ connection to terrorism. It's completely ignorant to the facts- which we've already been over on this forum. Let me explain this to you in simple terms: RonPaul Is NOT electable. He is a bafoon. His "few" good ideas do NOT make-up for his MANY weaknesses. I think he has "little man syndrome"(maybe some of his supporters too:D) Get over it- Its NOT gonna happen. "NEXT"
|
Quote:
|
Grassroots campaign are worthless, just ask Howard Dean or Wesley Clark.
Also, has anyone noticed that Ron Paul and Ross Perot: 1. Have the same initials 2. Are both from Texas 3. Talk funny (although, see #3) 4. Have never been seen together 5. Are much more likely to hurt the Republicans than the Democrats, while having absolutely no chance of actually winning? A group of Ron Paul folks were picketing E 70th @ Youree this weekend for some reason. Campaign tip: You need better looking women. |
"Grassroots campaign are worthless, just ask Howard Dean or Wesley Clark"
Howard Dean and Wesley Clark aint Ron Paul. They dont have his credibility, dignity, integrity or his massive support. "Also, has anyone noticed that Ron Paul and Ross Perot:" "1. Have the same initials" Chances are good your initials match someone else's, probably someone infamous. 2. "Are both from Texas" Lots of folks are from Texas. I'm from Texas. Where are you from? 3. "Talk funny (although, see #3)" How exactly does Paul "talk funny"? I'll wager he's alot more eloquent and articulate than you are. 4. "Have never been seen together" Insinuatin they're the same guy? You've been readin comic books again, havent ya? 5. "Are much more likely to hurt the Republicans than the Democrats, while having absolutely no chance of actually winning?" Maybe, but Paul wont do half the damage not only to the party but to the nation as you'll be doin if ya dont vote for him. "A group of Ron Paul folks were picketing E 70th @ Youree this weekend for some reason. Campaign tip: You need better looking women." "Picketin"? Poor choice of words. "For some reason"? Dope it out. "Better lookin women"? That's funny, turns out they've all been propositioned by you in the past...and they all turned ya down. All in all, a disrespectful, pathetically ham-handed attempt to make fun of and marginalize a thoroughly decent man and perhaps the greatest American leader of modern times. Shame on ya, ya rat bastard. |
:laugh: Seems AL must have been one of those "picketers"!:laugh: But don't worry AL, According to the poll on this forum, Paul will win!:D
|
>perhaps the greatest American leader of modern times
Delusional much? |
That was Dr. Howard Dean :D One other thing RP is a fossil and maybe that is why he comes off a bit spaced out. I had never maid the Ross Perot connection but they do share some qualities.
|
well.. I always thought Ross Perot was a bit of a nut. other than that, a successful business man.. Ron Paul.. is a doctor.. and has been a congressman for some time.. As a congressman, he had one goal.. to change things from the inside.. he doesn't like the size of our federal government.. doesn't like laws being passed that infringe on personal freedoms.. has never voted for any gun control laws.. has never voted for a tax increase..
From what I've seen and heard on this website.. I can't help but to think that if any of your read Ron Paul's views on the many different topics.. you would be in agreement. He wants a smaller federal government.. Never voted to raise taxes never voted for an unbalanced budget never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership never voted to raise congressional pay. never voted to increase the power of the executive branch Believes if you want to allow prayer in school, that's a LOCAL decision to be made. and above all us.. believes the federal government needs to get back to a size that is more manageable.. The government just gets bigger and bigger.. requiring more and more money to keep running and to keep growing.. the bigger it gets, the more restrictions we have. Something needs to be done. To get the spending under control.. or else this is all going to just blow up in our face. I honestly feel you all would be in agreement with most of his ideas.. other than his foreign policy.. however the alternative.. continuing the war in iraq.. planning on going into iran.. it's all more the same.. means the feds are just gonna need more and more of our money to continue paying for all this.. the value of the dollar going down... This is our opportunity to do something about the size and the scope of the federal government. pass it up.. I guarandamnteeya.. it'll be more of the same.. bigger government, more intrusive government.. and more taxes taken out of our wallets. |
I bet I agree with Ron Paul on many, if not most, things, but leadership isn't just about (or mostly, in fact, about) opinions. I agree with myself on 100% of the issues but I would make a terrible President.
Wow, that was a lot of commas. |
Somebody please explain to me what's wrong with a "non-interventionist" foreign policy? Meddlin in other nation's affairs is a bad idea on so many levels I wont even bother goin into it here. "Non-interventionism" is not the same thing as "isolationism".
|
Quote:
|
You people are somethin else. Look, do ya want change? Do ya want to take back control of your country? Well, it aint gonna happen with this "wait and see" attitude many of you are goin with now. None of those fake ass republican party hacks are gonna change anything and ya damn well know it. Paul can defeat Shrillery, but he must win the nomination before he can win the general election. But that aint gonna happen if ya dont support him now in the primaries and the caucuses. Get it yet? Understand? A vote for anyone else is a vote for the status quo.
|
Quote:
this sums up why.... Quote:
|
LateNight, we've been tryin to get these people to help themselves by helpin Dr. Paul and it aint workin. They just dont get it. If they dont wise up toot sweet and pull their heads out of their asses, they're gonna end up gettin exactly what they deserve. Satisfyin as that'll be to witness, we'll be ridin the sinkin ship down with em, God help us. They'll be even more responsible for the destruction of this once great nation than the one party with two heads and it's hacks, the alphabet agencies and bureaucracies, the bought & sold congress, the federal reserve, the liberal courts and whichever new tyrant they vote into the White House combined.
|
Quote:
|
Oh, let me answer that!:D They havent thought that far. I dont really understand the obsession with Ronpaul, but they will obsess......
|
>None of those fake ass republican party hacks are gonna change anything and ya damn well know it.
Neither will Ron Paul >Paul can defeat Shrillery, Hilary is entirely unelectable, anyone can easily beat her. >but he must win the nomination before he can win the general election. But that aint gonna happen if ya dont support him now in the primaries and the caucuses. It's not going to happen, anyway. |
Well I don't understand the purpose of this caucuse crap, not everyone is voting. The way I understand it is that a group of god knows who is determining who we can vote for. Who is these people?
Caucuse: 1. U.S. Politics. a. a meeting of party leaders to select candidates, elect convention delegates, etc. b. a meeting of party members within a legislative body to select leaders and determine strategy Now I say again who is these people that get to tell us who we can vote for or for better terms that narrow the choices down. I say let them all run and let the voters their self narrow it down. To me that is just like the government tell us that some of the candidates we can't vote for.:nono: |
Quote:
Then you get into the whole delegate thing.. and I'm a bit fuzzy on that as well. |
These have nothing to do with who is allowed to be on the ballot, they're about who is which party's candidate. You can get on the ballot if you want, you just have to get a few million people to sign you up.
|
Live from New Hamshire.... It's Ron Paul live
January 6, 2008
Tonight on local New Hampshire television and simulcast on our website at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/snippets/...ster-townhall/, Ron Paul will take questions from an audience of undecided voters in the Granite State. With the New Hampshire primary just two days away, Dr. Paul will bring his message of liberty and constitutional government directly to the people-real questions, real answers, as fair and balanced as politics gets. Sunday, January 6 5:00 - 6:00 PM ET Manchester, New Hampshire |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:20 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
2008 Shreveport.com