The case against Dr. Paul

Oliver said:
No. He's a loser - period. " **** deocracy, we (the media) say
he has no chance, therefore he will go away ".

Didn't work this time.
Click to expand...
Well, it did unless by "not going away" you mean "he'll continue to have a small fringe base who will keep making themselves look bad and cry about imaginary conspiracies against him."
 
Giuliani was a front runner because he was a household name, or at least should be. He was the mayor of the HANDS DOWN most historic city in the US, arguably the world. The decisions he made in a time of tragedy forged his legacy, and he ran on that legacy. Ron Paul is a congressman from TX, one who has not done anything note-worthy to the populace of the country. There is a reason Giuliani has not done well so far, and it may well doom him, as his numbers have dropped as of recently, but on national polls, he was whipping Paul, as well as a lot of the front runners. I know because I live in FL, and have a large community of former New Yorkers willing to throw their vote that way. He has slacked, and ran a terrible campaign, but the fact remains he is KNOWN for a reason. Do not make small fact of that.
 
Just because Ron Paul isn't quitting the race does not mean it isn't over for him. His fanbase only sets this fact in stone.
 
Oliver said:
Are you talking about amending the constitution via a bill that
clarifies that in America born children shouldn't get the citizenship
automatically? (If illegals beget the child)

Or are you referring to Paul's religious stance - that he doesn't
want to push - and never pushed in the past according to his
records?
Click to expand...

You are wrong.

Clearly you haven't read the Ron Paul Gay Sex thread.
 
Drudgewire said:
Well, it did unless by "not going away" you mean "he'll continue to have a small fringe base who will keep making themselves look bad and cry about imaginary conspiracies against him."
Click to expand...


And that's your imagination. While it is true that the "9/11 was an
inside Job"-people also support a smaller Government - and therefore
Dr. Paul, it isn't a majority of people who think that. That's a fact if
you dare to read the Ronpaulforums.com.

Anyway: Paul raised much more than Huck and Cain, so how does
this fact make him a third tier candidate in a supposed "free, democratic
country"?

It doesn't. Because you aren't introduced to the candidates in a
"fair&balanced" way. What you get in the Media is: "Giuliani and
Thompson are frontrunners, Kucinich and Paul are nuts. That's all
you need to know, Idiots!".
 
Oliver said:
I will read it now....
Click to expand...


Okay - read it.

So it's all about the News-letters that doesn't in any way
represent Paul's voting in the past - nor his personal speeches.

Sorry, I don't buy it for a minute:

From what I know, Paul always hold this position:


But feel free to point out anything to the contrary that came
out of his own mouth. The news-letter is mood - even if he
should've read all the news-letters. But in any way - his stance
about liberty in freedom isn't conform to any racism ... unless
you're a nitpicking conspiracy nut going with an agenda rather
than the facts.
 
You clearly have not read it, otherwise you would realise it is not about the newsletters, and everything about his record in the house.
 
You twit. You silly silly twit.

Ron Pauls congressional voting record has nothing to do with his anti-semitic remarks in the newsletter.

You poor misguided silly fool. You didn't even READ it.

Amazing. That is simply amazing.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
You clearly have not read it, otherwise you would realise it is not about the newsletters, and everything about his record in the house.
Click to expand...


I did indeed read about where the allegations came from - and that
was a newsletter called "Ron Paul Political Report". I don't see how
Rockwell's words portray Paul's stance in any way.

Point it out. In his own words - for the sake of critical thinking, please.
 
Drudgewire said:
Apparently, since I supported a candidate who didn't have a prayer.

Oh wait, you probably don't want to use that as your barometer. :D
Click to expand...


Quite frankly - I didn't see a candidate yet who is willing to nuke
the Bible-Belt. But I am willing to support this guy immediately, no
kidding here. :)
 
Oliver said:
I did indeed read about where the allegations came from - and that
was a newsletter called "Ron Paul Political Report". I don't see how
Rockwell's words portray Paul's stance in any way.

Point it out. In his own words - for the sake of critical thinking, please.
Click to expand...
So, you then believe that bills authored by Ron Paul are not "his own words"?:confused:
 
The FIRST POST! The bills he voted for were BLATANTLY for federal bans on things not protected or incriminated by the constitution. MEANING...?
 
Thorn said:
You twit. You silly silly twit.

Ron Pauls congressional voting record has nothing to do with his anti-semitic remarks in the newsletter.

You poor misguided silly fool. You didn't even READ it.

Amazing. That is simply amazing.
Click to expand...


I'm wondering about that as well. Paul's voting record should
show his supposed racism in some way. But all the people are
able to show are News-letters not even written by Ron Paul.

Personally I don't believe it until I hear it from his own mouth.
Everything else has nothing to do with skepticism or critical
thinking.
 
Oliver said:
Quite frankly - I didn't see a candidate yet who is willing to nuke
the Bible-Belt. But I am willing to support this guy immediately, no
kidding here. :)
Click to expand...
Hey great, so you support the mass murder of a sizeable percentage of the country simply because they have different ideals than you?

I'm sorry, where does that fall into the definition of a "free society?" Oh right, it doesn't. But thanks for helping validate my opiinions about RP supporters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom