I want Ron Paul to win; please tell me why I'm wrong

[Joey McGee]

If you detest Alex Jones, why would you vote for someone who frequently supports him and would probably go on his radio show as president? Going on his show gets Alex more listeners and Paul more supporters. These people are kooks. Why do you need more than that? That's a dealbreaker right there.

So is who he endorsed for President in 2008 among other extremely ridiculous positions,

"Baldwin has suggested reopening the investigation into the September 11 attacks, believing that the 9/11 truth movement has a right to have alternative 9/11 theories investigated, including those that raise the possibility of U.S. government involvement in the attacks.[51]

If you're fighting against 9/11 truthers but supporting this crew I'm confused...

 

[Chaos]

I was seriously asking the question. I keep hearing how I'm an idiot to want Paul as president, but I haven't heard many reasons as to exactly why.

Then I suggest that you start reading other people´s posts in this thread. They tell you exactly what is wrong with Ron Paul.

I am not a conspiracy theorist (I've been fighting against 9/11 conspiracies for years), and I detest Alex Jones, and I'm also not a racist. I find the fact that certain people had to rush to try to categorize me rather humorous.

That´s nice and symmetrical, because we find it humorous that a guy who claims to be neither a CTer nor a racist supports a politician who never found a CTer or racist he didn´t suck up to.

I just chose to ask the question so I could educate myself. When so many people have a problem with the guy you gravitate toward, I think it's important to find out if those people and their views have merit. Basically, if I'm being stupid, I would like to know. And I'm not afraid to ask to be straightened out.

So I would fall into the category (for those keeping score at home) of People Who Are Sick of Washington, Who Want Real Change, Who Are Admittedly Uneducated as to Ron Paul Outside of the Past Few Years. Or the gullible, take your pick.

Have you, perhaps, forgotten to add "People Who Ignore Information They Are Given, And Then Whine About Not Being Given Information" to your list?

 

[TK0001]

But you want to support a person with racist views and someone who supports Alex Jones?

Would you believe I was completely unaware of a Paul/Jones connection prior to starting this thread?

Ron Paul's ideas may sound great, but have you really looked at the implications of implementing his ideas?

His ideas of what exactly?

Sticking to the constitution and stop being world police? Gotta admit that sounds pretty good. Abandoning the notion of pre-emptive war and trying to force democracy upon the middle east? Sounds pretty good too. Stopping the war of drugs (which has failed), stop jailing everybody, and slashing a trillion dollars from the budget? Can't say as I disagree with that either.

Also, I may be naive, but I'm not one who thinks that electing a president means the entire country immediately adopts the ideals and policies of that person. There are checks and balances, and that's a good thing.

 

[Alt+F4]

So I would fall into the category (for those keeping score at home) of People Who Are Sick of Washington, Who Want Real Change, Who Are Admittedly Uneducated as to Ron Paul Outside of the Past Few Years. Or the gullible, take your pick.

I understand Sick of Washington but please note that Ron Paul has been in Congress for 21 years and since 1997 he has sponsored 421 bills of which 418 didn't make it out of committee and only 1 eventually became law. Do you think that is Real Change?

 

[TK0001]

Then I suggest that you start reading other people´s posts in this thread. They tell you exactly what is wrong with Ron Paul.



That´s nice and symmetrical, because we find it humorous that a guy who claims to be neither a CTer nor a racist supports a politician who never found a CTer or racist he didn´t suck up to.



Have you, perhaps, forgotten to add "People Who Ignore Information They Are Given, And Then Whine About Not Being Given Information" to your list?

Do you have any reason for attacking me, or are you just unhappy in general?

Thanks for telling me to read people's posts in a thread I created to try to educate myself. It never would have occurred to me to do that.

And please keep the insults flying. It's so productive.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I was seriously asking the question. I keep hearing how I'm an idiot to want Paul as president, but I haven't heard many reasons as to exactly why.

I gave you a reason. His "we The People Act"

There is a thread on it in this forum. it's not too long, only 2 pages so far.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226969


Here is a link to the act itself.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.539:

Again, not to long, the crazy's right there in the open.


Read it and understand that garbage like that is what Paul is all about.

 

[TK0001]

I understand Sick of Washington but please note that Ron Paul has been in Congress for 21 years and since 1997 he has sponsored 421 bills of which 418 didn't make it out of committee and only 1 eventually became law. Do you think that is Real Change?

This may seem idiotic, but I view that as Paul fighting an uphill battle against what we now have - a thoroughly corrupt federal government that favors corporations over the people.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I was seriously asking the question. I keep hearing how I'm an idiot to want Paul as president, but I haven't heard many reasons as to exactly why.

I see no evidence of anyone calling you names, and I personally even criticized that practice on this thread. The reasons why have been laid out fairly well here.

So your claim that you're hearing things not being said, and fail to hear things that are being said makes me question the sincerity of your first post.

I am not a conspiracy theorist (I've been fighting against 9/11 conspiracies for years), and I detest Alex Jones, and I'm also not a racist. I find the fact that certain people had to rush to try to categorize me rather humorous.

NO one did any such a thing. We've been pointing out very strong reasons why you shouldn't support Paul for president.

I just chose to ask the question so I could educate myself.

That's how I took your OP. So why have you ignored my posts?

When so many people have a problem with the guy you gravitate toward, I think it's important to find out if those people and their views have merit. Basically, if I'm being stupid, I would like to know. And I'm not afraid to ask to be straightened out.

I never considered you afraid, but now I do question the sincerity of your willingness to be persuaded by reasons not to support Paul.

So I would fall into the category <snip>Who Are Admittedly Uneducated as to Ron Paul Outside of the Past Few Years. Or the gullible, take your pick.

That'd be my choice. And your reaction to attempts here to educate you about Ron Paul outside the image he's been trying to promote only just recently (heck, it's not a matter of "the past few years") makes me think you are willfully ignorant, which means you carry the responsibility for that ignorance.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I understand Sick of Washington but please note that Ron Paul has been in Congress for 21 years and since 1997 he has sponsored 421 bills of which 418 didn't make it out of committee and only 1 eventually became law. Do you think that is Real Change?

The one that did make it to law dealt with the sale of surplus governemnt property in Galveston.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Read it and understand that garbage like that is what Paul is all about.

La-la-la. . not listening!

His reaction to posts like yours is why I accuse him of insincerity or at least willful ignorance.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012!

Oh wait... Wrong thread?

 

[daenku32]

This may seem idiotic, but I view that as Paul fighting an uphill battle against what we now have - a thoroughly corrupt federal government that favors corporations over the people.

That's a problem with the people in the government. But what Paul wants to do is remove the laws put into place to give people power to challenge the corporations.

To me Paul is the very definition of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Tricky]

People can say what they want about being "sick of Washington", but when you get a president that doesn't know how the Federal Government works, you will hear them yell just as loudly because nothing is being done. And Ron Paul, despite his long tenure, appears to not know how the US Government works.

So even if he didn't have a long record of supporting racists, conspiracy theorists, separationists, and other assorted people I don't respect, he still wouldn't be acceptable presidential material, because it is clear to me that he does not really like the USA or the Constitution.

 

[elbe]

Personally, I think a lot of his supporters like him because of his sound bites (like all politicians): legalize drugs! no taxes! smaller government! But that's a shallow understanding of the man's politics. I can't blame people for being attracted to the sound bites, but once you start actively ignoring the truth you start entering ronulan (my personal favorite nickname) zone.

 

[Alt+F4]

This may seem idiotic, but I view that as Paul fighting an uphill battle against what we now have - a thoroughly corrupt federal government that favors corporations over the people.

That may very well be but his record shows that he's not the person that can win that battle. His lifetime success rate at getting his agenda into law is about 0.2 percent. He is extremely ineffective at getting anything done then add to that his age. If you want a candidate to end (not just complain about it) federal corruption, cool, but it's not Ron Paul.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

This may seem idiotic, but I view that as Paul fighting an uphill battle against what we now have - a thoroughly corrupt federal government that favors corporations over the people.

That is not the impression I get of him.

I see him as a fundamentalist christian who also believes in the libertarian ideal of every man for himself.

There is little doubt that he has pandered to racisits and bigots and his voting record is nothing to be proud of.

 

[varwoche]

That is not the impression I get of him.

I see him as a fundamentalist christian who also believes in the libertarian ideal of every man for himself.

There is little doubt that he has pandered to racisits and bigots and his voting record is nothing to be proud of.

Not just pander. There is almost no doubt that Paul is (was?) a racist.

 

[TK0001]

I see no evidence of anyone calling you names, and I personally even criticized that practice on this thread. The reasons why have been laid out fairly well here.

So your claim that you're hearing things not being said, and fail to hear things that are being said makes me question the sincerity of your first post.

I'm referring to Paul supporters being called "Paultards" and such. No one has directly called me a name.

NO one did any such a thing. We've been pointing out very strong reasons why you shouldn't support Paul for president.

Wildcat asked me which category I fell into here.

That's how I took your OP. So why have you ignored my posts?

Are you serious? I responded to you. Look.

I never considered you afraid, but now I do question the sincerity of your willingness to be persuaded by reasons not to support Paul.

I just started the thread. Am I now allowed to exchange a few viewpoints before being convinced I'm wrong?

That'd be my choice. And your reaction to attempts here to educate you about Ron Paul outside the image he's been trying to promote only just recently (heck, it's not a matter of "the past few years") makes me think you are willfully ignorant, which means you carry the responsibility for that ignorance.

Wow. Okay. Thanks for the "dialog". I was actually looking forward to conversing with you about this after your first response to me. Apparently I was mistaken in thinking a civil discussion was possible with you.

Jesus.

 

[Crossbow]

I make the mistake of appealing to authority quite a bit in my internet travels, and I consider this place one of the most intelligent discussion groups on all of the interwebs.

I voted for Obama because I bought his message of Hope and Change, which is now a punchline. I was duped, completely. I'm embarrassed about that now, but I voted with my heart.

My heart is still the same - I want things in Washington to change. They have to. Cronyism and corporate money has brought us to the brink of global economic collapse and I see Romney and Obama as the exact same thing - mouthpieces for special interests. Romney's biggest campaign contributor is Goldman Sachs, which was one of Obama's biggest campaign contributors. In my opinion, nothing at all will change and things will only get worse for the overwhelming majority of American citizens if Romney or Obama get elected in 2012.

So I look to Ron Paul and agree with his policies of smaller, less intrusive federal government. He makes sense to me, and he seems to be the only candidate who clearly states his positions. I don't agree with everything he has to say, but most of it, I do.

Then I come here and learn that I'm a "Paultard", that Paul has no chance, and that watching all the Paul supporters lament about the failure of their candidate will be entertaining.

I guess I don't understand. Please educate me. Why am I wrong to support this man? Why am I "stupid" to do so? I fully expect Romney to win the nomination, so if someone smarter than me can point out anything at all that he would do that is positive for the country, please inform me of that as well.

In all fairness, I think that Ron Paul is quite sincere; so that is to his credit.

However, I do not think that he has a clue as to how to enact much of anything that he has been proposing; therefore, he is not a viable canididate.

For example, his talk about making the federal government smaller and reducing our involvement in wars is quite laudable. However, he has not proposed any real plans for doing anything of the sort; just lots of talk about while avoiding all specifics.

Ugh! Sorry, but people who talk big about what the will do when they get power without knowing anything about how to exercise that power always bore me.

 

[TK0001]

La-la-la. . not listening!

His reaction to posts like yours is why I accuse him of insincerity or at least willful ignorance.

My lord man. The speed in which you dismissed me as just another idiot is truly alarming. I am actually shocked by it.