PDA

View Full Version : Fellow American voters who dont support Ron Paul: why will you not vote for him?



HardcoreBB22
05-21-2007, 06:47 PM
Tell me why and I will do my best to convince you to vote for this real American patriot. With the exception of Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul is the only American running for President.

US_Ranger
05-21-2007, 06:56 PM
Tell me why and I will do my best to convince you to vote for this real American patriot. With the exception of Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul is the only American running for President.

He hates our freedoms. Rudy does not so I will vote for him.

Beatitude
05-21-2007, 07:00 PM
He hates our freedoms. Rudy does not so I will vote for him.

noooooooo.... don't do it Ranger! Once you go down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.

AJbuilder
05-21-2007, 07:07 PM
With the exception of Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul is the only American running for President.

Harsh statement there.

John McCain did give almost six years of his life at Alcatraz and Hanoi Hilton. He may not be presidential material but he's still an American patriot. That is fact. If you deny that then that makes you a duck.

I'm not too high on this Libertarian/founding father principle stuff; way too ideological with no prudence in a globalized society in 07. Founding fathers were all practicalist, not idealists. The likes of Hamilton and Adams would probably be appalled at women's rights anyway.

Ron Paul supports privatizing the FAA. He's out of his mind on that.

hugeness
05-21-2007, 07:11 PM
Tell me why and I will do my best to convince you to vote for this real American patriot. With the exception of Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul is the only American running for President.

Right now Tancredo has my vote. If Gingrich runs he is going to get my vote.

US_Ranger
05-21-2007, 07:15 PM
noooooooo.... don't do it Ranger! Once you go down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.

Shhhh, I'm kidding. I just want to see HardcoreBB2 flip out on me again and call me a traitor. After all, being wounded fighting in Iraq and volunteering to go back another time, after 2 trips of Afghanistan is traitorous compared to sitting on my ass in the living room making racist posts!

clovely
05-21-2007, 07:27 PM
Harsh statement there.

John McCain did give almost six years of his life at Alcatraz and Hanoi Hilton. He may not be presidential material but he's still an American patriot. That is fact. If you deny that then that makes you a duck.

I'm not too high on this Libertarian/founding father principle stuff; way too ideological with no prudence in a globalized society in 07. Founding fathers were all practicalist, not idealists. The likes of Hamilton and Adams would probably be appalled at women's rights anyway.

Ron Paul supports privatizing the FAA. He's out of his mind on that.

I couldn't agree more. I'm not a fan of McCain politically but he's earned some appreciation as a patriot. I definitely don't agree with him on a lot of things or his methods/bedfellows, however!

Ron Paul intrigues me but I still have too many reservations on some philosophical issues - too ideological and not prudent in the world we live in, I agree!!

I'm also interested in Fred Thompson - purely for the image I think he might be able to restore to the Presidency and the hope I think he could restore to the country. Not sure if that'll pan out, though.

Just have to add that Guiliani creeps me out more every time I see him though. Seems more and more like a little snake to me.

Realistically at the moment, Tancredo's the only one I can support.

clovely
05-21-2007, 07:28 PM
Just a thought, if we could meld McCain's qualifications, Thompson's image and manner, and Tancredo's ideas . . . then we might have a candidate!

MantisShrimp
05-21-2007, 07:31 PM
McCain served his country valiantly, the problem is, he tends to harp on that fact almost every time he opens his mouth. He's seriously diluted his own heroism.

AJbuilder
05-21-2007, 07:40 PM
I couldn't agree more. I'm not a fan of McCain politically but he's earned some appreciation as a patriot. I definitely don't agree with him on a lot of things or his methods/bedfellows, however!

Ron Paul intrigues me but I still have too many reservations on some philosophical issues - too ideological and not prudent in the world we live in, I agree!!

I'm also interested in Fred Thompson - purely for the image I think he might be able to restore to the Presidency and the hope I think he could restore to the country. Not sure if that'll pan out, though.

Just have to add that Guiliani creeps me out more every time I see him though. Seems more and more like a little snake to me.

Realistically at the moment, Tancredo's the only one I can support.

I agree that Fred Thompson seems to be the best choice. I don't think he's announced that he's running though.

KINGJAMES23
05-21-2007, 07:44 PM
Who else wouldn't want a president who watches 24 ? The cultural world will be so impressed with us.

AJbuilder
05-21-2007, 07:49 PM
Who else wouldn't want a president who watches 24 ? The cultural world will be so impressed with us.

It's certainly more pleasant than watching public executions.

KINGJAMES23
05-21-2007, 08:00 PM
It's certainly more pleasant than watching public executions.
Are you forgetting that our current president sent more men to be executed , while governor of texas , than any other elected official in US history ?

hugeness
05-21-2007, 08:07 PM
Are you forgetting that our current president sent more men to be executed , while governor of texas , than any other elected official in US history ?

True but I dont think any of the ones that got the chair got it because he cheated on his wife or stealing some apples. It seems like it doesnt take much to get executed in the middle east. At least over here you have to kill someone, although I think rapists and child molesters should get the needle right away.

KINGJAMES23
05-21-2007, 08:15 PM
True but I dont think any of the ones that got the chair got it because he cheated on his wife or stealing some apples. It seems like it doesnt take much to get executed in the middle east. At least over here you have to kill someone, although I think rapists and child molesters should get the needle right away.

Even under Sharia law you don't get put to death for stealing, and when you say Middle East you're pretty much generalizing. Not many countries in the middle east inforce Islamic law to such an extent. I don't think rapists should be put to death though, I think the perfect punishment would be for them to continually get raped themselves for a few years.

US_Ranger
05-21-2007, 08:33 PM
Even under Sharia law you don't get put to death for stealing, and when you say Middle East you're pretty much generalizing. Not many countries in the middle east inforce Islamic law to such an extent. I don't think rapists should be put to death though, I think the perfect punishment would be for them to continually get raped themselves for a few years.

Yeah, really smart, so when they get out of prison they're even more ****ed up in the head than they were before.

Beatitude
05-21-2007, 08:36 PM
Yeah, really smart, so when they get out of prison they're even more ****ed up in the head than they were before.

Haha. Yea, getting raped in prison isn't my idea of a fitting penalty for committing rape.

HardcoreBB22
05-21-2007, 08:48 PM
He hates our freedoms. Rudy does not so I will vote for him.

You're not really voting for Guilani are you?


Harsh statement there.

John McCain did give almost six years of his life at Alcatraz and Hanoi Hilton. He may not be presidential material but he's still an American patriot.

You would think that but McCain proved that is not true. He doesn't preserve what it means to be an American. If you believe opening the borders to poor, liberal non-Europeans is American I don't know what to tell you. This is completely contrary to the historical immigration laws that built this country. Ted Kennedy served in the military but he has done more to destroy this country than any foreign enemy could have ever dreamed.

I will respond later to the rest of your post and others.


After all, being wounded fighting in Iraq and volunteering to go back another time, after 2 trips of Afghanistan is traitorous compared to sitting on my ass in the living room making racist posts!

It is my firm belief that fighting to preserve American ideals is just as important than fighting overseas, for if you don't you read stories like this on a regular basis:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070521/ap_on_re_us/immigration_texas

Keep in mind if Ron Paul was elected instead of Bush you wouldn't even be in Iraq. If we had a WN government 9-11 wouldn't have happened. Btw my posts are racist because I want to preserve America's European Christian heritage and oppose non-European/third world immigration?

MantisShrimp
05-21-2007, 08:48 PM
Haha. Yea, getting raped in prison isn't my idea of a fitting penalty for committing rape.

Prison rape in adult populations is vastly overstated and exaggerated...my ex is one of the nation's foremost experts on the topic...the real problem is actually in juvy...so watch your ass if you're under 18.

frankenstein
05-21-2007, 09:37 PM
Harsh statement there.

John McCain did give almost six years of his life at Alcatraz and Hanoi Hilton. He may not be presidential material but he's still an American patriot. That is fact. If you deny that then that makes you a duck.

I'm not too high on this Libertarian/founding father principle stuff; way too ideological with no prudence in a globalized society in 07. Founding fathers were all practicalist, not idealists. The likes of Hamilton and Adams would probably be appalled at women's rights anyway.

Ron Paul supports privatizing the FAA. He's out of his mind on that.

Ahhhh, someone's been watching Bill Maher on HBO. That interview was the biggest waste of time. I lost a lot of respect for Maher after that interview. He asked the most bull**** questions just so he could attack Ron Paul in any way. I used to watch Maher a bit. Let's face it- his audience is the far left, who want govt to most decisions for us. That's generalizing a bit, but you get the point.

Ron Paul supports privatizing a lot of things that are run by the government. That's true. And a lot of things should be privatized. The FAA specifically??? Probably not. The point he was making was just that- that lots of govt bureacracies could be privatized. Heck, some things can still be publicly funded (at a lower rate than govt prices) and still privately run.

In all honesty, Ron Paul is not by himself goint to completely change how things run in D.C. He will however be the necessary check and balance to our runaway, drunk with POWER and MONEY spending CONGRESS!!! He would at least keep them from becoming more central planners, taking us down the immoral ****hole of govt coerced socialism.
Anyone who believes in people running their own lives gets my vote.

clovely
05-22-2007, 03:09 AM
McCain served his country valiantly, the problem is, he tends to harp on that fact almost every time he opens his mouth. He's seriously diluted his own heroism.

And Guiliani's the 9/11 pimp. It's getting old with him.

clovely
05-22-2007, 03:15 AM
It is my firm belief that fighting to preserve American ideals is just as important than fighting overseas...

There may be issues that we need to debate and "fight" for in our nation right now but comparing sitting on the internet complaining and trying to rile people up to get citizens to see an issue to putting your LIFE on the line overseas is ridiculous.


Keep in mind if Ron Paul was elected instead of Bush you wouldn't even be in Iraq. If we had a WN government 9-11 wouldn't have happened. Btw my posts are racist because I want to preserve America's European Christian heritage and oppose non-European/third world immigration?

WN?? Sorry, it's early, what are you talking about?

devire1
05-22-2007, 06:43 AM
There may be issues that we need to debate and "fight" for in our nation right now but comparing sitting on the internet complaining and trying to rile people up to get citizens to see an issue to putting your LIFE on the line overseas is ridiculous.



WN?? Sorry, it's early, what are you talking about?

WN is an acronym for white nationalist.

devire1
05-22-2007, 06:47 AM
I couldn't agree more. I'm not a fan of McCain politically but he's earned some appreciation as a patriot. I definitely don't agree with him on a lot of things or his methods/bedfellows, however!

Ron Paul intrigues me but I still have too many reservations on some philosophical issues - too ideological and not prudent in the world we live in, I agree!!

I'm also interested in Fred Thompson - purely for the image I think he might be able to restore to the Presidency and the hope I think he could restore to the country. Not sure if that'll pan out, though.

Just have to add that Guiliani creeps me out more every time I see him though. Seems more and more like a little snake to me.

Realistically at the moment, Tancredo's the only one I can support.

tom tancredo is a one issue candidate (illegal immigration). other than his stance on that i don't like him. i don't know much about fred thompson. maybe i'll look into him.

ron paul was born to be president. he is exactly what we need now, with this out of control congress and corruption among other things.

Thinman
05-22-2007, 06:48 AM
I've got a problem with Ron Paul's economic and anti-global positions. Sure, he's a great patriot and his ideals of putting Goldwater conservatism back on the map is a wonderful trait we all need. But he still seems to rely heavily on isolationism and protectionism for our country's financial well-being. Here's a quote from his website:

The ICC was never signed off by President Bush nor ratified by the Senate. As for ree trade deals, that's actually a very very good thing.

In this day in age, I don't know of anyone who would agree to keep our business within the confines of our own borders instead of reaching out globally...especially with all the global information technology we currently have and how fast it is improving. Economically, the US cannot isolate itself from the rest of the world. And he seems gung ho about this.

The last part of your statement I agree with. We live in a global economy and we can't afford to isolate ourselves.

MantisShrimp
05-22-2007, 06:54 AM
I will not vote for Paul the general election due to his foreign policy idealism (although he is vastly smarter than Bush and many others on the issue) but I will take the chance to at least help him get into the race by voting for him in the republican primaries. Being anti-war, he stands a better chance of converting the democrats and swing voters than any of the other GOP candidates anyway. He may be able to get the righties on his anti-choice stance and the lefties on his peace stance. He may just take the whole thing if he can get past the GOP.

My issue is with his anti-choice views, if he was pro-choice and chose someone with a more pragmatic military brain as his running mate, I'd vote for him in a second. Paul-Clark would be an excellent cross aisle ticket.

devire1
05-22-2007, 06:55 AM
I've got a problem with Ron Paul's economic and anti-global positions. Sure, he's a great patriot and his ideals of putting Goldwater conservatism back on the map is a wonderful trait we all need. But he still seems to rely heavily on isolationism and protectionism for our country's financial well-being. Here's a quote from his website:

The ICC was never signed off by President Bush nor ratified by the Senate. As for ree trade deals, that's actually a very very good thing.

In this day in age, I don't know of anyone who would agree to keep our business within the confines of our own borders instead of reaching out globally...especially with all the global information technology we currently have and how fast it is improving. Economically, the US cannot isolate itself from the rest of the world. And he seems gung ho about this.

ron paul is not against free trade. the WTO and CAFTA actually inhibit free trade, and, instead, cater to large corporations by helping them keep their status by protecting them from competition.

BVAV
05-22-2007, 06:58 AM
Keep in mind if Ron Paul was elected instead of Bush you wouldn't even be in Iraq. If we had a WN government 9-11 wouldn't have happened. Btw my posts are racist because I want to preserve America's European Christian heritage and oppose non-European/third world immigration?



The world just keeps passing you by doesnt it? Let me bring you up to date. It is 2007 today. There's been a great deal of advances in transportation technologies in the past century and a world where people live seperate from each other is long gone you silly clown. People have integrated and will be more integrated in the coming years. Why don't you try and catch up? You'll be a lot happier if you stop fighting inevitable reality.

Are you one of those people that drive a rusty old pick up and live in a rundown shack with rebel flags displayed all over the place? :p

Funny how you rarely see a rebel flag on a Benz.

devire1
05-22-2007, 07:02 AM
The world just keeps passing you by doesnt it? Let me bring you up to date. It is 2007 today. There's been a great deal of advances in transportation technologies in the past century and a world where people live seperate from each other is long gone you silly clown. People have integrated and will be more integrated in the coming years. Why don't you try and catch up? You'll be a lot happier if you stop fighting inevitable reality.

Are you one of those people that drive a rusty old pick up and live in a rundown shack with rebel flags displayed all over the place? :p

Funny how you rarely see a rebel flag on a Benz.

what race of people do u think made these advances in transportation technologies? or most technologies for that matter?

pfffft a benz? try a hummer. :D

devire1
05-22-2007, 07:11 AM
He absolutely is. He opposes "free" trade deals with governmental organizations such as NFTA, WTO, and CAFTA. He's even said that numerous times and is pretty open about it.

I wouldn't go as far as to say he is actually a protectionist though, he does oppose protectionist tariffs. He opposed CAFTA partly because it takes less power away from Congress to control the trade. Resulting in less free trade with more barriers and more bureaucratic interference. While he is for a decrease in taxes, he's also for regulations that makes US businesses become less competitive globally and abroad.

Free trade is not really "free" anyhow. Free trade really refers to the abscence of governmental interference.

i think he is opposed to those deals for reasons other than being against free trade. i will have to look into it more. but from what i gathered from his campaign site it sounds like he is opposed to those for the same reason one might be opposed to the FDA. it doesn't mean he is against free trade or an open world market.

TwiloMike
05-22-2007, 07:19 AM
Shhhh, I'm kidding. I just want to see HardcoreBB2 flip out on me again and call me a traitor. After all, being wounded fighting in Iraq and volunteering to go back another time, after 2 trips of Afghanistan is traitorous compared to sitting on my ass in the living room making racist posts!

OMG....


US_Ranger
Registered User


Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NorCal
Posts: 6,666
Rep Power: 1790

NO joke.

I gotta spread some before I can rep you again, but I so wanna! Thank you and thank you, you devil you!

clovely
05-22-2007, 11:59 AM
WN is an acronym for white nationalist.

Oh, yikes. Thanks. When I read that post I thought he was saying "my posts are racist" meaning that people interpret him as racist because he has strong beliefs. But he meant because he's an actual racist....if I'd realized I probably wouldn't have bothered.

clovely
05-22-2007, 12:43 PM
tom tancredo is a one issue candidate (illegal immigration). other than his stance on that i don't like him. i don't know much about fred thompson. maybe i'll look into him.

ron paul was born to be president. he is exactly what we need now, with this out of control congress and corruption among other things.

Tancredo's got a little more to offer than immigration: http://teamtancredo.org/tancredo_issues_index.asp

So far, there's not really too much circulating about Fred Thompson - I think he's purposefully holding things close to his chest. I think he will get into the race but I don't think he's going to offer up much until he's ready to do so. This tactic, which I think is similar to what Newt Gingrich might be thinking, seems like a gamble.

I just don't think this is the right time at all for Ron Paul - not in the current international climate.

HardcoreBB22
05-24-2007, 01:04 PM
There may be issues that we need to debate and "fight" for in our nation right now but comparing sitting on the internet complaining and trying to rile people up to get citizens to see an issue to putting your LIFE on the line overseas is ridiculous.

Who said fighting is reserved to the internet? I have said many times that fighting for your beliefs everywhere and always speaking the truth is more important and the internet is just one place. That means ALWAYS speak your mind and never cave into political correctness. If you have ever used phrases "I am not racist but" don't be surprised liberals completely destroyed conservatism and have allowed us to be invaded by Mexico. If you have ever thought "I better not say that people will think I am racist" you are not fighting for principle. What I was saying a lot of veterans go and fight in neocon wars in Iraq to do the right thing and "fight for freedom" yet they come back to a Hispanic America where the ACLU and LA RAZA are shaping our immigration policies. There is more to being an American than serving in the military. Ted Kennedy served in the military. Yet he authored the 1965 immigration act which took America from a proud white nation to a multicultural one to quickly becoming a poor Hispanic nation. But I suppose he is more "American" and more patriotic because he served in the military? People wouldn't even need to go and fight in Iraq if they followed the policies that I am advocating. In today's America they are a consequence of ignoring the first obligation required to us by our founding fathers.

WN stands for White Nationalist. I just said if the government followed standard American policies 9-11 wouldn't have happened. Expired student visas for Arabs with terrorist connections? What a joke. When America was run by White Nationalists 9-11 wouldn't have been able to have been orchestrated.


Tancredo's got a little more to offer than immigration: http://teamtancredo.org/tancredo_issues_index.asp

Paul and Tancredo have the same stance on immigration but Tancredo is more blunt about immigration probs it in his rhetoric.



I just don't think this is the right time at all for Ron Paul - not in the current international climate.

How so?