Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 159

Thread: Ron Paul remains media poison

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178

    Ron Paul remains media poison

    Ron Paul remains media poison - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com

    Ron Paul remains media poison

    I admit I do not fully understand Ron Paul and his beliefs. But I do understand when a guy gets shafted, and Ron Paul just got shafted.

    On Saturday, the Ames Straw Poll was conducted in Iowa amid huge media interest and scrutiny. The results were enough to force one Republican candidate, Tim Pawlenty, out of the race, and catapult another, Michele Bachmann, into the “top tier.”

    I cant disagree here at all. I mean, it literally took me almost 10 minutes of searching to find out that Paul had taken second in the Ames straw poll. The first several articles I read did not mention him AT ALL. It listed who was first, third, fourth, etc... but apparently second place did not even exist. I literally had to type "Ron Paul Ames straw poll" into google to find it.

    But “close” does not fully describe Paul’s second-place finish. Paul lost to Bachmann by nine-tenths of one percentage point, or 152 votes out of 16,892 cast.
    Which makes it even more pathetic that the media completely ignored it.

    There was a deliciously intriguing line in The Washington Post’s fine recap of Ames on Sunday. It said had Paul edged out Bachmann, “it would have hurt the credibility and future of the straw poll, a number of Republicans said.”

    So don’t blame the media. Here are Republicans, presumably Republican operatives, who said if one candidate wins, the contest is significant, but if another wins the contest is not credible
    That is disturbing as hell. Do the american people no longer get to pick who their elected leaders on? Have we really come so low that the media and party bigwigs decide who we can and can not choose from??

    “Well, yes I can get discouraged and dispirited,” Paul told me. “We came so very close. To come that close to winning, it shows my views are very mainstream. And if we are worth our salt and our message is sound and we tell it honestly, we will do well.”

    Though possibly no one will notice.
    It makes me wonder...if Paul wins the election, will the media simply stop reporting on what the government is doing???

    For those who write Paul off as having no chance, it is worth noting that in a Rasmussen poll from april of this year Obama would have pulled 42% of the vote. Paul would have pulled 41%. That is WELL within striking distance, especially considering the fact that Paul apparently cant get air time if he pays for it. That is closer than ANY of the other republicans have come to being able to beat obama in the polls.

    In a Harris poll from this month, he is neck in neck with obama.....based on that poll they would each take 50% of the vote (there was no "undecided" or "neither" option).

    Now, I dont put a lot of faith in Harris polls because they are online polls, but Rasmussen polls are generally spot on. Their methodology is beyond reproach and they have a record of consistently being correct.

    Paul can beat Obama. Bachmann has NO chance. Palin has even less than that. Paul, though, can DO IT. The only question is whether or not Americans are ready for a president who does not spend most of their time blowing sunshine and is actually willing to have a frank and truthful discussion with the American people.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
    Posts
    3,125
    I would agree. Paul has a chance...albeit a small one, but a chance to take center stage. Personally, Paul seems to be the one able to appeal across the larger range of Americans than any other republican candidate. Why not give him the consideration of being heard by the American people? There does seem to be a media conspiracy against Paul...which is simply sad.
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

    Long is the way
    And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    I would agree. Paul has a chance...albeit a small one, but a chance to take center stage. Personally, Paul seems to be the one able to appeal across the larger range of Americans than any other republican candidate. Why not give him the consideration of being heard by the American people? There does seem to be a media conspiracy against Paul...which is simply sad.
    Roughly half the people I have talked to about the election did not even know Paul was running....much less that he took second in the Ames poll, or that he has raised more money than anybody but Romney.

    This is the media picking the president and it is detestable. Maybe the Paul campaign can use that...."A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against corporate media telling you who to elect".
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    Roughly half the people I have talked to about the election did not even know Paul was running....much less that he took second in the Ames poll, or that he has raised more money than anybody but Romney.

    This is the media picking the president and it is detestable. Maybe the Paul campaign can use that...."A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against corporate media telling you who to elect".
    The problem being, most people only know what the media feeds them. They don't bother going out and learning anything first hand or even think critically about the information that they do get from the media.

    The only thing that might bring Paul to his rightful place among the front-runners would be a win in Iowa and/or New Hampshire.
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

    Long is the way
    And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    The problem being, most people only know what the media feeds them. They don't bother going out and learning anything first hand or even think critically about the information that they do get from the media.

    The only thing that might bring Paul to his rightful place among the front-runners would be a win in Iowa and/or New Hampshire.
    People cannot seem to get it through their heads that the medias job is NOT to inform you, it is to sell advertising. Their #1 responsibility is to those advertisers, not the public.

    Their advertisers do not want to see Paul in the white house because he would tear down the status quo. The wealthy, including corporations wealthy enough to buy ad time on the news networks, like the status quo because in this status quo they are wealthy, there is no saying they will stay that way if the status quo changes.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,021
    I think Actually Michele Bachmann as ignorant as she is has a better chance of getting the nomination than Ron Paul. He's possibly the most radical of all of the Candidates up to this point. I mean come on, He's running for President of a Government that he despises.

    Some of the more crazy notions He supports are..

    1: He wants to take the U.S. back to the Gold Standard and eliminate paper money.
    2: He wants to Eliminate income taxes and replace them by setting a nationwide Flat Sales tax of 23% to raise revenues. (Talk about Ignorant.)
    3: He wants to end our Membership in the United Nations... He believes that the U.N. Got us involved in the Iraq War when in fact we attacked Iraq before the U.N. had a chance to voice an opinion..
    4: He supports Teaching Religion in Schools and claims that the Separation of Church and State is a myth. He believes the U.S. was founded as a Christian Nation which anyone with a knowledge of history knows is not the case.

    Here's an Excerpt from a piece written by Ron Paul. Need I say More?..

    The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
    The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.


    Source.
    The War on Religion by Rep. Ron Paul

    Plus to hear him speak doesn't exactly raise my interest in voting for him. Presidential Candidates normally have a certain demeanor and a certain way they carry themselves in public. Watching Ron Paul give and interview or Seeing him in a debate reminds me of a Crazy old Man standing on a podium spouting whatever comes to mind with no thought as to what he is actually saying.

    Ron Paul Makes It Official: He's Crazy! (And He's Running For President) | Slog

    So No, I doubt Ron Paul has much of a chance at all. He's too far off the deep end to pick up enough of the Independent Vote and it's the Independent Vote that will determine the 2012 election. America won't elect Bachmann because she's just crazy.. They won't elect Ron Paul because he's worse than Bachmann.....
    "You're too stupid to be saved." -- EasyRider.


    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
    Epicurus

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,854
    If Republicans are talking against him, that's not the media. Didn't Jon Stewart point out his invisibility at the weekend?
    " ... It's not as though he proved anything, he only refuted my evidence. ..." Archangel 04.01.09

    "Obama is not a brown-skinned anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare. You're thinking of Jesus."

    “Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil.”

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Xcaliber View Post
    I think Actually Michele Bachmann as ignorant as she is has a better chance of getting the nomination than Ron Paul. He's possibly the most radical of all of the Candidates up to this point. I mean come on, He's running for President of a Government that he despises.

    Some of the more crazy notions He supports are..

    1: He wants to take the U.S. back to the Gold Standard and eliminate paper money.
    2: He wants to Eliminate income taxes and replace them by setting a nationwide Flat Sales tax of 23% to raise revenues. (Talk about Ignorant.)
    You are right about these 2. They wont work. They CANT work. BUT...He would not have the power to do either of these as president. Nor has he said he would try to.

    3: He wants to end our Membership in the United Nations... He believes that the U.N. Got us involved in the Iraq War when in fact we attacked Iraq before the U.N. had a chance to voice an opinion..
    The first Iraq war was the result of our involvement of the UN, and violation of UN resolutions was the legal argument that Bush used to go to war.

    4: He supports Teaching Religion in Schools and claims that the Separation of Church and State is a myth. He believes the U.S. was founded as a Christian Nation which anyone with a knowledge of history knows is not the case.
    100% UNTRUE. His position is much more complex than that. Paul does not believe that the federal government should be involved in education. It is not a power delegated to them in the constitution. Education as a whole is a matter for the states to deal with. He believes that educational decisions are simply better made at the state and local level so they can be custom tailored for the local situation (a position that I agree with wholeheartedly). AS SUCH, he does not believe that the federal government has the authority to decide whether or not there is going to be prayer in school. In fact, he voted NO against house resolution 239 which would have specifically allowed prayer in public schools.

    Here's an Excerpt from a piece written by Ron Paul. Need I say More?..

    The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
    The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.


    Source.
    The War on Religion by Rep. Ron Paul
    The problem is that he is RIGHT. The rigid seperation between church and state that we see today, where jerks sue to get nativity scenes removed from fire departments, was NEVER something the founders envisioned when they wrote the constitution.

    I hate to be the one to break this to you, but Paul is absolutely in line with the main stream on BOTH sides of the isle on this one. 99.5% of americans roll their eyes when some nitwit files suit against his kids teacher for daring to tell the kid "merry christmas". I dont belong to ANY religion and still think people who get offended by christmas decorations or the idea that somebody might be praying silently next to them in school are XXXXXX.

    Plus to hear him speak doesn't exactly raise my interest in voting for him. Presidential Candidates normally have a certain demeanor and a certain way they carry themselves in public. Watching Ron Paul give and interview or Seeing him in a debate reminds me of a Crazy old Man standing on a podium spouting whatever comes to mind with no thought as to what he is actually saying.
    Yes. Most presidential candidates are dyed in the wool professional politicians who have been groomed to the position. Paul isnt. He is just a guy.

    So No, I doubt Ron Paul has much of a chance at all. He's too far off the deep end to pick up enough of the Independent Vote and it's the Independent Vote that will determine the 2012 election. America won't elect Bachmann because she's just crazy.. They won't elect Ron Paul because he's worse than Bachmann.....
    Uh....he is neck in neck with Obama in the polls when it comes to all likely voters. Narrow it down to independents and Paul comes in at 47% vs 28% for Obama. If it is the independent vote that will decide the 2012 election, Obama had better be praying that he does not end up running against Paul.

    Imagine what he could do if the media would actually give him the coverage he deserves.

    Pauls biggest problem is that his positions make TERRIBLE sound bites. Many of them, like his position on religion in school, are very reasonable and without question in keeping with the intent of those who wrote and ratified the constitution. BUT, you cant explain it in 8 words or less. If you can get people to actually pay attention long enough to hear the position, it makes sense. Most people wont, though.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Xcaliber View Post
    He's possibly the most radical of all of the Candidates up to this point.
    I agree...not being a total tool is fairly radical these days.

    Some of the more crazy notions He supports are..

    1: He wants to take the U.S. back to the Gold Standard and eliminate paper money.
    2: He wants to Eliminate income taxes and replace them by setting a nationwide Flat Sales tax of 23% to raise revenues. (Talk about Ignorant.)
    3: He wants to end our Membership in the United Nations... He believes that the U.N. Got us involved in the Iraq War when in fact we attacked Iraq before the U.N. had a chance to voice an opinion..
    4: He supports Teaching Religion in Schools and claims that the Separation of Church and State is a myth. He believes the U.S. was founded as a Christian Nation which anyone with a knowledge of history knows is not the case.
    1. No he wouldn't
    2. No he doesn't
    3. He wants us out of the UN...a good move
    4. No he doesn't support this

    You're more ignorant about Paul than the media. For shame.

    Here's an Excerpt from a piece written by Ron Paul. Need I say More?..
    No, because the below is absolutely a correct reading of the establishment clause.

    The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
    The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.
    A person understands the constitution! No FREAKIN WAY!

    Plus to hear him speak doesn't exactly raise my interest in voting for him. Presidential Candidates normally have a certain demeanor and a certain way they carry themselves in public. Watching Ron Paul give and interview or Seeing him in a debate reminds me of a Crazy old Man standing on a podium spouting whatever comes to mind with no thought as to what he is actually saying.
    You prefer someone that only says what you want to hear, don't you?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    You are right about these 2. They wont work. They CANT work. BUT...He would not have the power to do either of these as president. Nor has he said he would try to.



    The first Iraq war was the result of our involvement of the UN, and violation of UN resolutions was the legal argument that Bush used to go to war.



    100% UNTRUE. His position is much more complex than that. Paul does not believe that the federal government should be involved in education. It is not a power delegated to them in the constitution. Education as a whole is a matter for the states to deal with. He believes that educational decisions are simply better made at the state and local level so they can be custom tailored for the local situation (a position that I agree with wholeheartedly). AS SUCH, he does not believe that the federal government has the authority to decide whether or not there is going to be prayer in school. In fact, he voted NO against house resolution 239 which would have specifically allowed prayer in public schools.



    The problem is that he is RIGHT. The rigid seperation between church and state that we see today, where jerks sue to get nativity scenes removed from fire departments, was NEVER something the founders envisioned when they wrote the constitution.

    I hate to be the one to break this to you, but Paul is absolutely in line with the main stream on BOTH sides of the isle on this one. 99.5% of americans roll their eyes when some nitwit files suit against his kids teacher for daring to tell the kid "merry christmas". I dont belong to ANY religion and still think people who get offended by christmas decorations or the idea that somebody might be praying silently next to them in school are XXXXXX.



    Yes. Most presidential candidates are dyed in the wool professional politicians who have been groomed to the position. Paul isnt. He is just a guy.



    Uh....he is neck in neck with Obama in the polls when it comes to all likely voters. Narrow it down to independents and Paul comes in at 47% vs 28% for Obama. If it is the independent vote that will decide the 2012 election, Obama had better be praying that he does not end up running against Paul.

    Imagine what he could do if the media would actually give him the coverage he deserves.

    Pauls biggest problem is that his positions make TERRIBLE sound bites. Many of them, like his position on religion in school, are very reasonable and without question in keeping with the intent of those who wrote and ratified the constitution. BUT, you cant explain it in 8 words or less. If you can get people to actually pay attention long enough to hear the position, it makes sense. Most people wont, though.
    AHHH, you beat me to it.

    Xcaliber is actually wrong about all 4 of those. He copied it from a retarded blog which basically lists them in the same order.

    He prefers being a tool I suppose.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    AHHH, you beat me to it.

    Xcaliber is actually wrong about all 4 of those. He copied it from a retarded blog which basically lists them in the same order.

    He prefers being a tool I suppose.
    The first 2....kind of. Again, it is FAR more complex than that.

    He DOES want to eliminate the income tax BUT he wants to fund the government with excise taxes and non protectionist tariffs, not a flat sales tax. He also points out that if we eliminated personal income taxes RIGHT NOW and did not do anything to replace that revenue, we would still have enough money to fund the same government we had in 2001.

    Were we suffering from lack of governance in 2001? I seem to remember being heavily governed in 2001.

    Again....more complex than can be laid out in 8 words or less. Americans like things that can be laid out in 8 words or less.



    John Stewart talking about the medias treatment of Ron Paul. Worth watching:

    John Stewart Bashes the Media Over Ron Paul - YouTube
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    I agree...not being a total tool is fairly radical these days.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    1. No he wouldn't
    2. No he doesn't
    3. He wants us out of the UN...a good move
    4. No he doesn't support this
    You're more ignorant about Paul than the media. For shame.
    I;ve heard him say it myself.. He would if given the chance..
    Yes he does.. again it's from his own mouth
    He's virtually alone in that.. Not a good move
    I'm afraid you seem to be in denial.. He does support it , even wrote about it. He speaks of being all for the Constitution yet at every turn he would deny rights to many.. He is against Abortion, has even spoke of his desire to overturn Roe vs Wade, He's Homophobic, He's also a racist..

    I'm not the one who is ignorant.. Pull the blinders off your eyes will ya.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    No, because the below is absolutely a correct reading of the establishment clause.

    A person understands the constitution! No FREAKIN WAY!

    You prefer someone that only says what you want to hear, don't you?
    He doesn't understand the Constitution any more than Michele Bachmann does. I prefer someone who has Ideas that will actually solve the problems in this country, not someone like Ron Paul ( or You apparently) who would do whatever it takes to destroy the nation and move us backward into the stone age. If you can sit there with a straight face and honestly say Ron Paul is remotely Qualified to be President then YOU are the one who is Ignorant.
    "You're too stupid to be saved." -- EasyRider.


    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
    Epicurus

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    AHHH, you beat me to it.

    Xcaliber is actually wrong about all 4 of those. He copied it from a retarded blog which basically lists them in the same order.

    He prefers being a tool I suppose.
    So it didn't come from one of your " legit" sites that only says things that YOU want to hear, and that makes it Wrong or ignorant or retarded. Why don't you grow up.

    I've heard the Man Say the very same things I posted.. He is a radical Crazy man . He also says he wants to eliminate FEMA.. and you would see him elected ... Please.
    "You're too stupid to be saved." -- EasyRider.


    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
    Epicurus

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    You are dead wrong on most your claims, and Steeve is right that you seem to have copied the claims from someone's blog without fact checking them.

    Making unsubstantiated claims and refusing to back down from them even when you are unable to dig up a shred of evidence in their favour only makes you look like an idiot.
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,021
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    You are right about these 2. They wont work. They CANT work. BUT...He would not have the power to do either of these as president. Nor has he said he would try to.
    Whether or not he would try or have the power to accomplish this is beside the point. Just the knowledge that he Supports these ignorant positions is enough to discredit him as being competent to lead a nation. He may not have the Power and he may even realize it, but given the White House it might go to his head just enough to make him try.

    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    The first Iraq war was the result of our involvement of the UN, and violation of UN resolutions was the legal argument that Bush used to go to war.
    He was referring to the Current Iraq war.. Not the first one, which means he can't get his facts straight or he's just crazy.


    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    100% UNTRUE. His position is much more complex than that. Paul does not believe that the federal government should be involved in education. It is not a power delegated to them in the constitution. Education as a whole is a matter for the states to deal with. He believes that educational decisions are simply better made at the state and local level so they can be custom tailored for the local situation (a position that I agree with wholeheartedly). AS SUCH, he does not believe that the federal government has the authority to decide whether or not there is going to be prayer in school. In fact, he voted NO against house resolution 239 which would have specifically allowed prayer in public schools.
    He has supported Prayer in schools, I've heard him speak on the issue myself back in 2008. So either he has changed his tune or You just don't know the man as well as you think, ( No Offense )..

    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    The problem is that he is RIGHT. The rigid seperation between church and state that we see today, where jerks sue to get nativity scenes removed from fire departments, was NEVER something the founders envisioned when they wrote the constitution.
    But they did intend to keep a Rigid separation and the Supreme court has agreed that they intended to . People like Ron Paul believe just because the Constitution doesn't say it word for word means it wasn't the intention.

    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    I hate to be the one to break this to you, but Paul is absolutely in line with the main stream on BOTH sides of the isle on this one. 99.5% of americans roll their eyes when some nitwit files suit against his kids teacher for daring to tell the kid "merry christmas". I dont belong to ANY religion and still think people who get offended by christmas decorations or the idea that somebody might be praying silently next to them in school are XXXXXX.
    But he's not advocating silent prayer , which I have no problem with. He's advocating open prayer and making His religion of Christianity the religion of choice for all of America. He would be just happy to see teachers opening their daily classes with a bible study or a prayer to the Christian God. That is where the problem is.

    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    Yes. Most presidential candidates are dyed in the wool professional politicians who have been groomed to the position. Paul isnt. He is just a guy.
    And we don't need just a "Regular" guy to lead this country. We need someone who actually knows what they are doing .

    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    Uh....he is neck in neck with Obama in the polls when it comes to all likely voters. Narrow it down to independents and Paul comes in at 47% vs 28% for Obama. If it is the independent vote that will decide the 2012 election, Obama had better be praying that he does not end up running against Paul.
    I think you're putting too much Faith in polls. So he's ahead of Obama?.. yet the Population evidently hasn't picked up on that because his chances of actually going against Obama are slim to none. He has a small following among the Extreme far right , once the General elections open up and the campaigns start going full steam you will see as he makes his Radical Policy Ideas known his numbers will fall.. and once they Crown Romney or Perry as the Nominee Ron Paul will disappear once again into the Abyss.

    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    Imagine what he could do if the media would actually give him the coverage he deserves.
    I give them credit.. They realize how radical he is and are scared if they give him any exposure he might sneak in.. Even the Right Side of the Media doesn't believe the guy is qualified. This will be his I think 3rd run at the White House.. And most people in this country still don't know who he is.. what does that say for him.

    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    Pauls biggest problem is that his positions make TERRIBLE sound bites. Many of them, like his position on religion in school, are very reasonable and without question in keeping with the intent of those who wrote and ratified the constitution. BUT, you cant explain it in 8 words or less. If you can get people to actually pay attention long enough to hear the position, it makes sense. Most people wont, though.
    I've listened to several of his speeches. I've heard him in the recent debates. He still comes across to Me as a nitwit who thinks he can lead the nation back to Prosperity. Only problem is he can't, not with his radical Right agenda at the forefront of his thinking.
    "You're too stupid to be saved." -- EasyRider.


    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
    Epicurus

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •