Let us consider this about Ron Paul.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm curious to know why some think that McCain would appoint conservative judges. From what I can see the only "conservative" position he seems to have is being in favor of staying the course in Iraq. I understand he has said he would but he has sponsored an awful lot of "liberal" legislation from what I have found on the internet and I don't understand why we should believe him. Has he actually been a contributor to discussions of Supreme Court nominees?
 
At this point we have four possible choices for the next POTUS: Hillary, Obama, McCain and Romney. I'd like it to be five and include Paul too but I really don't think he has much chance. Whatever... One of those is "electable" while the rest are "also rans."

I have gone on record here and in other places, stating that I will not vote for a candidate because he/she is 'electable.' If the candidate sucks I will not vote regardless of who might get the nod from the rest of the electorate. Back when there were more candidates than private jets to ferry them around I listed who I would not vote for. That list included all of the four I mentioned above.

It doesn't look like I'll be voting for POTUS this time around but I also won't have to carry a barf-bag into the voting booth with me.
 
I have gone on record here and in other places, stating that I will not vote for a candidate because he/she is 'electable.' If the candidate sucks I will not vote regardless of who might get the nod from the rest of the electorate.
Click to expand...

I can understand the sentiment, but to me that attitude seems awfully self indulgent. Of course, my opinion has no footing if both sides are truly equally heinous in your mind.

If they're not, then logically the concept of "competing harms" dictates that you DO vote.
 
"competing harms"
Click to expand...
Well, to put it very melodramatically, say I have 2 children, a boy-child and a girl-child. One group would kill one, one group would kill the other. And I am told to vote for one group or the other. No, thanks. I will lose one child, but the guilt will not be with me. I am voting to lose no children, even if I am out-voted. My grief will be forever, but my conscience will be clean.
 
I don't think he needs Thompson.
Click to expand...
As much as I like Thompson, a McCain/Thompson ticket would probably be viewed as "Old and Older." McCain's age will already be a factor against him, and I don't see the electorate going for that combo.

A McCain/JC Watts ticket would be interesting regardless of whether Obama or Hillary gets the Dem nomination.

(I doubt we'll see an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket; the Clintons tend toward a "scorched earth" policy regarding their opponents rather than embrace them.)
 
Well, to put it very melodramatically, say I have 2 children, a boy-child and a girl-child. One group would kill one, one group would kill the other. And I am told to vote for one group or the other. No, thanks. I will lose one child, but the guilt will not be with me. I am voting to lose no children, even if I am out-voted. My grief will be forever, but my conscience will be clean.
Click to expand...

False analogy. EQUAL harm, friend.

If you want to take your false analogy to it's logical conclusion, however...

Two dead kids and a clean conscience. Right on! Continue patting yourself on the back.

The only result of your action is your own sense of worth.

Behavior resulting in an honorable result is honorable.

Behavior in the name of honor resulting in nothing is simply self indulgent prattle.
 
Well, if you are going to take it seriously, one child would be dead no matter what I did. Why should I contribute to it? Just to say I chose which one was to die?

Sheesh, relax.
 
Behavior in the name of honor resulting in nothing is simply self indulgent prattle.
Click to expand...

While I agree that the previous posters analogy was poor, I am not sure the above statement is correct either.

Your statement implies that in order to be honorable, your behavior has to result in a positive result. I don't think that is true.

Remember the Alamo. It certainly was not an exercise in self indulgent prattle.
 
Hold up -- are you guys saying that Ron Paul was in the battle of the Alamo, killed both of his children, and that somehow makes him honorable?

:D
 
Remember the Alamo. It certainly was not an exercise in self indulgent prattle.
Click to expand...

Not a good anology, bro...of course it wasn't.

As we Texans learned in Texas History Class (required), the sacrifices made at the Battle of the Alamo turned the tide of the Revolution. I can't really see the next U.S. Revolution being spurred on by cries of "Remember Ron Paul's Ignominious Defeat in the 2008 Republican Presidential Primary!"
 
Hold up -- are you guys saying that Ron Paul was in the battle of the Alamo, killed both of his children, and that somehow makes him honorable?
Click to expand...

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am.

I'm updating Dr. Paul's wiki page now...
 
Well, you guys can theorize and rationalize the question any way you want. In the end I'm the guy who's voted twelve times - usually for the lesser of two evils, and I'm the guy who's fed up with it! Everybody bows and genuflects at the name of Regan but I was living in California during that election and I had first-hand knowledge of his underhanded political tactics there so I voted against him and given the same set of circumstances I'd do it again! At the Governor's level he was a crook!

Now we're supposed to hold McCain in equal reverance - and I do! He's just as much a crook as Regan or Johnson or Nixon or Bush I or Bush II or even Bubba Clinton. There isn't a one of them that shouldn't be erased from the memory of humanity. Still, some are trying to tell me that Hillary will be worse than McCain. That's like saying that dead is worse than dead. We - that's you and me and everyone else - are finally getting the government we deserve. And when it gets here it won't make a bit of difference if it's wearing a pantsuit or suit pants, it'll still be a socialistic puppet!

Vote for McCain or Hillary or Obama or Romney and you'll just get more of the same old s**t. You might as well vote for Cthulu and get it over with. The only candidate that showed ANY indication that he'd change things is being so marginalized by the media - and by you guys too - that he doesn't stand a chance.

So neither do we. Nor do we deserve one.
 
Oldphart: The only candidate that showed ANY indication that he'd change things is being so marginalized by the media - and by you guys too - that he doesn't stand a chance.

So neither do we. Nor do we deserve one.
Click to expand...

I've been trying to think up with a few sentences to express my feelings of what I'm finding here and you hit it right on the head!

I've looked at his board quite a bit over the last year, and decided to register and post on the Ron Paul topic. Frankly, I'm quite surprised by the amount of defeatists here. 10% of the delegates are cast so far. Instead of pecking at a keyboard with a beer in your hand arguing about honorability, why not go out and make some calls in your precinct and see if you can't scare up some votes for RON PAUL so he can snag a few of the remaining 90%??? Too much effort.

Stick your head in the defeatist sand. You'll be safe and honorable.
Feel free to HARPOON anyone who hasn't given up yet.
On Topic:
Would like to see RP put in charge of the MONEY.
 
"You've voted 12 times for what?"

For President of the United States - and when you've got that many under your belt I'll listen to suggestions about who I should cast my next vote for.

As for "Regan?" Well, a typo is still a typo and I can make as many as anyone else.
 
That really was a good speech. Rand Paul seems to be a much better speaker than his dad... to bad Rand isn't the one running.

I would encourage EVERYONE on this forum to look at this speech, even if you don't like Ron Paul and think he is a loon. His son really did an excellent job here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top