Has Ron Paul bashing here caused you to change your mind?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am getting to the point where I am ready to give up on this stupid country. We are headed towards our own destruction. We are losing our wealth, our productivity, our liberties, our standing in the world, and control of our own government. We continue our self-defeating and counter-productive policies.

Here is a man who wants to give it all back, who wants to give back power to the people, and take it away from the government, the banks, and corporations, and people cannot see it or embrace it, oftentimes for silly or spiteful reasons.

I will give up after this election if he doesn't win, and ready myself for our eventual fall.
 
I would generally agree with the above assessment of Ron Paul. I think he has limitations in his speaking ability, and ability to influence people and lead. I think he scares people because of the way he speaks. At times he sounds almost shrill.

However, I will still vote for him.
 
Speaking.

The speaking thing has come up several times. On both sides of the Paul fence.
I agree his public appearances could use some polishing, especially his speaking skills.
However, I refuse to vote for an Obama or Giuliani. Public speaking is not a good quality if what your saying is pointless.
Ron Paul may not get the words out well, but he does say what matters to him, which is important to me.
 
Are we electing an Emperor or a President? Your Senators and Congressman are far more powerful then the President to influence such changes.

It's not within any Presidents power or influence to change the monetary system unilaterally, change the justice system unilaterally, repeal laws unilaterally or make laws unilaterally. Paul has the RIGHT vision but even if elected can't just march through the halls of government breaking what he doesn't like and making what he does. You do realize that don't you?

It takes a LEADER with that vision to INFLUENCE those in Congress to COOPERATE in making his vision manifest.

Don't give up but if your the type that does so that easily then fighting may not be your calling. It's been my experience that those that easily refer to others as stupid are the ones with the most to learn.
 
Quote:
Too sad for words.
And yet nonetheless all too true.
Click to expand...

None the less Look to yourselves and your " justify all and crucify any " attitudes expressed on this board to see where i am coming from . I am not a paul hater , and needless to say i am not a paul supporter . The man is simply a footnote somewhere in history and will never receive prominence. Every presidential race has one or two , and this one is pauls . I will give him credit for being somewhat consistent as one of the premiere " blame America first " pundants Heck he beats out the liberals on blaming America for all the worlds ills. By all means vote your beliefs as i will mine . I dont care for Paul , and i dont care for the tone of paul supporters .
 
Of course the president only has certain powers. He cannot single handedly abolish much of the government of get rid of the IRS. What the president can do that would have an immediate impact would be change foreign policy, cut spending, change relations with foreign countries and establish priorities, like sealing borders.

What he could also do on bigger topics, like the Federal Reserve and it's long-term detrimental effect on the people, especially poor and middle class and retired people and savers, is bring up the topic, wake people up, and have it become an issue that people are aware of, hopefully having a long-term effect.
 
And how would the President immediately cut spending as that is exclusively the power of Congress? And how, short of declaring martial law, would the President be able to seal the borders without legislation or funding?

Let me clarify, I am not AGAINST Ron Paul's message. I can't support someone that clearly lacks the leadership ability to do the job that's all. But your assertions or assumptions about what the effect of Paul being elected President would be aren't possible. I don't think your expectations match what is possible. Such sweeping reforms require leadership. Further let's gain some perspective. Those very things CAN happen the very first year of the 111th Congress if those elected THERE were to determine it was their mandate to do so. The President can't force his will on Congress, but Congress CAN, by 2/3rds majority, force IT'S will on the President.

Let's put things into perspective.

Further, should Paul NOT get the nomination how about instead of just calling everyone else stupid for not voting for him, transition that zeal and energy into your local Congressional races and get that mandate into power where in CAN actually yield the results your looking for WHOMEVER becomes President. That will have a far greater effect then just quitting and thinking your opting out in protest will have any effect whatsoever.
 
Would you seriously rather have Hillary or Obama as president rather than Paul?

Paul has his problems, and I agree with what Bruxley has said. But come on, you really think Hillary or Obama are preferable? You really think it would be better to have Democrats in control of the House, Senate, and Presidency all at the same time?
 
I haven't seen anyone state they would rather have Hillary or Obama. Or state they would rather have another candidate. Where are you coming from?

You just taking it a different direction? A 'less bad' argument?
 
Bruxley,

That last post was not directed toward you. It was direct toward redneck repairs who said:

"However the shrillness of the Paulistinians has convinced me that i will vote for hildibeast or even obama before i will paul ."
 
And how, short of declaring martial law, would the President be able to seal the borders without legislation or funding?

President Eisenhower was able to accomplish this without martial law. Google Operation Wetback in 1954.
 
And how, short of declaring martial law, would the President be able to seal the borders without legislation or funding?
Click to expand...

The same way the 21 drinking age is enforced by revoking the liquor license of places that serve underage patrons alcohol.

By revoking the business license of employers who are caught employing illegals it gives the businesses good motivation to ensure that their workers are legal.

Arizona is doing just that and the early indicators are looking good as illegals are starting to leave AZ for greener pastures even though the law just took effect today.
 
I agree with the sentiments first posted by divemedic but I personally decided against Ron Paul when I found there were 2 better Republican candidates (Huckabee and Thompson) and 1 better Democratic candidate (Richardson).

Something to think about whenever you read something on the internet is the question of how much politicking is actually paid-for lobbying and not some good old boy's private opinion. With Ron Paul there's a growing question as to how many of his supporters are really Democrats in drag.
 
I just read a summary of Eisenhower's approach Tremendous leadership. He was able to garner political support and cooperation before he was even elected.

Tremendous leader. A General, proven leader, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces that led the Armies of not just the US, but multiple nations, to victory in Europe and won WWII on the European front. Yep, Eisenhower knew how to influence people to his vision and gain the cooperation of others in leadership.

He had decades of experience doing just that. And having demonstrated it so dramatically with his success in WWII it is no wonder any opposition apparently had little ability to challenge him.

His approach involved the cooperation of people he had formerly developed strong alliances with and he did successfully get these people through the confirmation process of the Senate. Also the Governors of Arizona and California needed to be on board with this vision.

Quite an example of leadership for certain. I wasn't able to find any legislation about how this was funded but given Eisenhower was only in office a year before this started it's apparent that it wasn't difficult to get the funding appropriated. After all, no funds no go. Congressional appropriations wasn't at all different then after all. No Presidential checkbook then either right. It would certainly require legislation appropriating funds, and cooperation in terms of getting his appointees confirmed.

Contrasting Paul with Eisenhower doesn't show well in the leadership department.

EDIT TO ADD: Good point about States doing a better job then the Fed on this issue. After all, the States are far better able to solve their own problems then the Fed usually can. This should be called Federalism..;)
 
Crosshair said:
The same way the 21 drinking age is enforced by revoking the liquor license of places that serve underage patrons alcohol.
Click to expand...
Not the way it happened at all.

Liquor Licenses are issued by the States. The Feds had (and have) no authority to revoke a license issued by a State. No amount of twisting the Commerce Clause will allow the Feds that kind of authority.

What the Feds did, was to threaten to withhold Federal Highway Funds from any State that refused to up the age to 21. That's the same way the 55mph speed limit was enforced. If an NGO were to do this, it would be called "blackmail." As it was the Federal Government doing this, it is simply legal coercion.

That said, national borders are a national (and therefore Federal) problem. It should be the Feds that solve this problem.

What Arizona is doing is a topic of an ongoing thread. Go here to comment further.

Further comments are off topic to this thread.
 
Would you seriously rather have Hillary or Obama as president rather than Paul?
Click to expand...
First off sorry for the delay in replying feeding cattle has trumped the net for a few days .
To answer you. YES i would seriously rather have hillary or obama as president than ron paul Hell ill go one better and admit i would rather have the " Breck guy " ( Edwards ) than paul , crap i would vote for gore even first .

However my fondest hope is to have a Thompson/Huckabee mix of some sort on the ticket . Good on the 2nd and not idiotically isolationist, but this thread is about paul and if the bashing has made me change my mind .

My mind was not made up on paul untill his paulistinians tuned up , once they did i started to pay attention to paul as well as some of his more " vocal " supporters here and elsewhere .
I guess i should thank some for assisting me on my decisions .

I freely admit and espouse that i am not the best educated cuss on the board , nor am i the smartest . I do however recognize " shyster " type weasel communication where by any question about rp is spun into a " hater attack " rather than answered . Hell the brady bunch have nothing on ron paul supporters when it comes to ad hominums and strawmen . Paul imho has accomplished ( like ted kennedy ) staying in office . That as far as i can see is about it , Well other than paul dont have a bridge in his past . He dont have a legislative record worth mention , he still manages to get earmarks for his district , he has not cut spending by a single cent that i can see , he talks a good talk on the constitution but has not repealed a single questionable bill nor has he sponsered and passed a single bill protecting any of our rights from infringement . Frankly imho he is another dammed professional politician just like the rest of them . And at that one who i simply cannot and will not support .
 
Has Ron Paul bashing here caused you to change your mind?
Click to expand...

more like my opinion to be exact. all the bashing has made me pay more attention to Mr.Paul. he strikes me as earnest and to the point. while neither here nor there, the attention i've given has caused me to respect R.Paul's approach.
 
He dont have a legislative record worth mention , he still manages to get earmarks for his district , he has not cut spending by a single cent that i can see , he talks a good talk on the constitution but has not repealed a single questionable bill nor has he sponsered and passed a single bill protecting any of our rights from infringement . Frankly imho he is another dammed professional politician just like the rest of them .
Click to expand...

Ron Paul returns part of his staff allowance to the Treasury each year and has refused his government pension. Is that really like the rest of them? Forget about the rest of them, is that like ANY other politician? Can you name another who is so opposed to the outrageously generous pensions that Congress votes themselves that he has actually personally refused his share?

As for his bills which have gotten through Congress, in the last couple of sessions of Congress, here are a few bills Ron Paul sponsored which passed:

72. H.AMDT.271 to H.R.2862 An amendment numbered 10 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit any of the funds in the Act from being used by the U.N. to develop or publicize any proposal concerning taxation or fees on any United States person to rause revenue for the U.N. or any of its specialized or affiliated agencies. Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 6/15/2005) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 6/15/2005 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Paul amendment (A024) Agreed to by voice vote.

75. H.AMDT.506 to H.R.3199 An amendment numbered 19 printed in part B of House Report 109-178 to express the sense of Congress that no American citizen should be the target of a federal investigation solely as a result of that person's political activities. Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 7/21/2005) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 7/21/2005 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Paul amendment (A018) Agreed to by voice vote.

107th Congress: 68. H.AMDT.480 to H.R.4546 An amendment numbered 9 printed in part A of House Report 107-450 to prohibit funds authorized in the bill from being used to assist, cooperate with, or provide any support to the International Criminal Court. Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 5/9/2002) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 5/10/2002 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Paul amendment (A010) Agreed to by recorded vote: 264 - 152 (Roll no. 155).

So he doesn't want the UN to tax us, he doesn't want domestic political persecution, and he believes in national sovereignty, and he got laws through Congress on all those things.
 
So he doesn't want the UN to tax us, he doesn't want domestic political persecution, and he believes in national sovereignty, and he got laws through Congress on all those things.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Ron Paul opposed some very good (and eminently Constitutional) pro-gun legislation.

Don't forget that he voted AGAINST passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S. 397) will prevent wrongful civil liability lawsuits against law-abiding companies and end years of abuse of America's legal system by industry opponents.


Chuck Schumer.........No
Hillary Clinton.......No
Diane Finestein.......No
Ron Paul..............No (Is that why they call him Dr. No?)
Barney Frank..........No
Ted Kennedy...........No (hic!)
Nancy Pelosi..........No
John Kerry............No
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top