Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ron Paul is just another kind of "states rights" guy (aka, each state should have their own 'interpretation' of the Constitution). While your "hoping against hope" for an "alternative" candidate is understandable, realistically it makes him no more winnable, anymore than the scores of folks who think their "craving" for a soulmate assures their success on Match.com!
You hit on what I think about Ron Paul. I saw him on the Stossel show and didin't care for him. He gave me the creeps and I thought the way he looked at the audience was like he was laughing at them. It just seemed to me he was pandering them, going along with what they wanted while all he looked like he cared about was getting their votes and money. It wasn't anything he said but that he just struck me that way.
He just goes along with any grandious idea people have of starting their own cult oops I mean society of rules made by the members of that little society in a place they choose to start their own litle cult oops I mean their own society in a town of their own. It's a grandious idea of living without any gov't rules, guidelines for food, safety, etc etc and making up your own laws for that group to live by.. Funny thing is they will have no problem purchasing products that were that were passed through Gov't guidlines for safety. They don't want those rules and they believe Corporations will sell safe products based on the fact that they want to sell the product and not lose customers. What BS that is. They would simpyl deny it happened, cover the evidence and give out coupons, sales to bring customers back. I just don't buy that he truly wants this but he's just going along with those grandious ideas of living by their rules and their rules only. LOL it's like he had this audience of Gov't conspiracy believers.
(Takes a break to go to Laboar Day parade and festival at the park.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
Just for the record, I don't think its possible to hijack a thread that you started yourself.
Oh, yes you can. The TOS says, Stay on topic. Attempts to hi-jack threads by switching topics or going off topic will be deleted and infractions issued. This is not a chat room - when people hi-jack threads by posting messages that are of interest to only few people, the threads often stop being useful discussions of initial topics.
A thread this long can easily get hijacked, and frankly, I did not know who the OP was at this point, nor do I think it matters.
*************************************
emilybh, I'm going to try to be diplomatic(!).
If you know that little about US history that you think that Ron Paul invented the phrase "War of Northern Agression", and that what you are saying about Lincoln is news, that it was unknown until you and/or Ron Paul unearthed it, you really need to study up on US history, particularly the Civil War and the ten years or so before it.
Just out of curiosity, I asked my DH out of the blue (not telling him why I wanted to know) what he learned about Lincoln and the Civil War in high school back in Omaha, Nebraska in the 60s. He replied that they learned that there was no one factor starting the CW, and that the Emancipation Proclamation freed no one. Lincoln "freed" the slaves he did not have jurisdiction over, e.g. in the Confederacy, and did not free the slaves he could have freed, those in the north (there were a few) and those in the "border states" (Delaware, Maryland, WV, KY and MO that did not leave the union but had many slaves and lots of southern sympathizers). He also said Lincoln wanted to avoid war, and waited for the south to fire the first shots. That is exactly what I learned 1000 miles away at roughly the same point in time (mid-60s) in Pennsylvania.
"The War of Northern Agression" is a commonly used phrase in the south; I have read that in the writings of southern writers, including in some of the murder mysteries I read.
Paul's stand on racism may appeal to people who don't know anything about the US history of its "peculiar institution", another commonly used phrase. Paul wants us to think that even w/o the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that one day we'd all wake up and have a collective ephiphany that segregation was bad, at least for business. He really knows better. He went to medical school in the south (Duke) as a young adult, graduating in 1961. He knows what things were like there at that time. He moved to Texas in 1968, shortly after the passage of the CRA of 1964. He certainly could see first hand the early end to segregation, and how it took years for people's hearts to catch up with the law.
I do not intend this as an "anit-southern" screed. I have posted elsewhere aobut a restaurant in my hometown that did not serve blacks; all the blacks just "knew" they shouldn't go in there.
As for this foolishness that it's better to know who the racists are and take one's business elsewhere, I would not knowingly do business with a know racist business owner if at all possible. However, sometimes that business owner is "the only game in town" for whatever goods or services he is providing, making the alternative not to purchase the goods or receive the services. Secondly, who knows who is a racist and who isn't? Why not make these racists do business with everyone? You can't legislate what is in a person's people's heart, but you can make it wrong for s/he to turn away people who are of a different race, religion, etc.
If Ron Paul were President in the 1861 the north and the south would have worked everything out peacefully and we could have avoided the Civil War and all those needless deaths. The Slavery issue and Civil Rights for Blacks would have worked itself out as it has in every other nation in the world that had slavery---and there were many. Ron Paul calls the Civil War "The War of Northern Aggression"
If you want to repeat history, elect another status quo warmongering president or keep the current one in office.
The fact that you actually believe this would be true is one of the concepts that makes you a sincere Ron Paul supporter. You and a few other posters are arguing why you believe Ron Paul is right, and the best choice. My argument is that the support you believe will be coming in his direction won't materialize.
My point was, and continues to be, that liberal voters will not see the issue you discuss above in your way.
As more is disclosed and discussed about Ron Paul, past his desire to disengage from foreign military engagements, any of his current liberal support will evaporate.
The fact that you actually believe this would be true is one of the concepts that makes you a sincere Ron Paul supporter. You and a few other posters are arguing why you believe Ron Paul is right, and the best choice. My argument is that the support you believe will be coming in his direction won't materialize.
My point was, and continues to be, that liberal voters will not see the issue you discuss above in your way.
As more is disclosed and discussed about Ron Paul, past his desire to disengage from foreign military engagements, any of his current liberal support will evaporate.
Don't you mean conservative support will evaporate? Liberals are supposed to be (traditionally were) anti-war. Obama campaigned on Peace and brining the troops home. That alone you'd think would be a big reason why a lot of people would vote for Obama and now that Ron Paul is the Peace candidate, would vote for him.
Aren't the right-wing Republicans the bigger war mongers? Shouldn't Paul lose more support from them?
Unless the parties have done a 180 on their values, I don't see what you are saying would ever materialize.
Don't you mean conservative support will evaporate? Liberals are supposed to be (traditionally were) anti-war. Obama campaigned on Peace and brining the troops home. That alone you'd think would be a big reason why a lot of people would vote for Obama and now that Ron Paul is the Peace candidate, would vote for him.
Aren't the right-wing Republicans the bigger war mongers? Shouldn't Paul lose more support from them?
Unless the parties have done a 180 on their values, I don't see what you are saying would ever materialize.
I think the right wing historically has been more supportive of foreign military engagements, however I find that both parties seem to be pretty willing to cut defense spending today.
My comment about Paul losing support from liberals had to do with the other non-military issues discussed in this thread (especially private businesses being able to choose who to serve).
It will be interesting to see how this unfolds, we'll bring this thread back up when they have the Republican primaries well under way. My expectation is that Paul will have difficulty getting above 15% in the Republican primaries.
The media does not control people. If people want to vote for Ron Paul, they will. If Ron Paul doesn't become the nominee, don't blame the media. It's so trite.
Media is everything; radio, tv, newspapers are how most get news on candidates to vote for. Globalists control R & D parties, the media, and of course banks and corporations. Media talk about the ones they are told to promote. 3rd Party candidates are not usually mentioned in the media which of course is about R and D parties.
I wonder if we are going to start to see pro-Ron Paul articles now in more of the Media. It seems the liberals at Huffington Post think Ron Paul best supports their values. There is an article there today about the 10 Best Reasons to Vote for Ron Paul.
Wow, what shockingly good news. Keep hearing democrats say they would vote for him. Seems he has both conservative and liberal supporters which could be a real advantage.
Last edited by clsicmovies; 09-05-2011 at 11:33 PM..
You hit on what I think about Ron Paul. I saw him on the Stossel show and didin't care for him. He gave me the creeps and I thought the way he looked at the audience was like he was laughing at them. It just seemed to me he was pandering them, going along with what they wanted while all he looked like he cared about was getting their votes and money. It wasn't anything he said but that he just struck me that way.
He just goes along with any grandious idea people have of starting their own cult oops I mean society of rules made by the members of that little society in a place they choose to start their own litle cult oops I mean their own society in a town of their own. It's a grandious idea of living without any gov't rules, guidelines for food, safety, etc etc and making up your own laws for that group to live by.. Funny thing is they will have no problem purchasing products that were that were passed through Gov't guidlines for safety. They don't want those rules and they believe Corporations will sell safe products based on the fact that they want to sell the product and not lose customers. What BS that is. They would simpyl deny it happened, cover the evidence and give out coupons, sales to bring customers back. I just don't buy that he truly wants this but he's just going along with those grandious ideas of living by their rules and their rules only. LOL it's like he had this audience of Gov't conspiracy believers.
To say he panders to the people is silly since his message of small government has remained unchanged. He's the most sincere politician out there, imo. Ron Paul is for a smaller federal government and believes in states rights like the Constitution says.
Why would anyone think corporations are that stupid they'd purposely sell unsafe products and continue doing business? That's not how the free market and competition works. When you don't have competition you get an inferior product. Like most of the government run agencies.
Government conspiracy believers?? C'mon. When you cannot attack his policies you attack the followers?
Ask yourself this question. When you go into a restaurant do you make it a point to see the restaurants health code scores? If they did pass with flying colors would you still go there if the bathroom floor was covered with filth or if the tables and silverware were dirty? Give yourself more credit than you have in this post. You're no dummy.
(Takes a break to go to Laboar Day parade and festival at the park.)
Oh, yes you can. The TOS says, Stay on topic. Attempts to hi-jack threads by switching topics or going off topic will be deleted and infractions issued. This is not a chat room - when people hi-jack threads by posting messages that are of interest to only few people, the threads often stop being useful discussions of initial topics.
A thread this long can easily get hijacked, and frankly, I did not know who the OP was at this point, nor do I think it matters.
*************************************
emilybh, I'm going to try to be diplomatic(!).
If you know that little about US history that you think that Ron Paul invented the phrase "War of Northern Agression", and that what you are saying about Lincoln is news, that it was unknown until you and/or Ron Paul unearthed it, you really need to study up on US history, particularly the Civil War and the ten years or so before it.
Just out of curiosity, I asked my DH out of the blue (not telling him why I wanted to know) what he learned about Lincoln and the Civil War in high school back in Omaha, Nebraska in the 60s. He replied that they learned that there was no one factor starting the CW, and that the Emancipation Proclamation freed no one. Lincoln "freed" the slaves he did not have jurisdiction over, e.g. in the Confederacy, and did not free the slaves he could have freed, those in the north (there were a few) and those in the "border states" (Delaware, Maryland, WV, KY and MO that did not leave the union but had many slaves and lots of southern sympathizers). He also said Lincoln wanted to avoid war, and waited for the south to fire the first shots. That is exactly what I learned 1000 miles away at roughly the same point in time (mid-60s) in Pennsylvania.
"The War of Northern Agression" is a commonly used phrase in the south; I have read that in the writings of southern writers, including in some of the murder mysteries I read.
Paul's stand on racism may appeal to people who don't know anything about the US history of its "peculiar institution", another commonly used phrase. Paul wants us to think that even w/o the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that one day we'd all wake up and have a collective ephiphany that segregation was bad, at least for business. He really knows better. He went to medical school in the south (Duke) as a young adult, graduating in 1961. He knows what things were like there at that time. He moved to Texas in 1968, shortly after the passage of the CRA of 1964. He certainly could see first hand the early end to segregation, and how it took years for people's hearts to catch up with the law.
I do not intend this as an "anit-southern" screed. I have posted elsewhere aobut a restaurant in my hometown that did not serve blacks; all the blacks just "knew" they shouldn't go in there.
As for this foolishness that it's better to know who the racists are and take one's business elsewhere, I would not knowingly do business with a know racist business owner if at all possible. However, sometimes that business owner is "the only game in town" for whatever goods or services he is providing, making the alternative not to purchase the goods or receive the services. Secondly, who knows who is a racist and who isn't? Why not make these racists do business with everyone? You can't legislate what is in a person's people's heart, but you can make it wrong for s/he to turn away people who are of a different race, religion, etc.
Really the followers of Ron Paul do not know about racism? LMAO You can make up whatever you want.
Because the people in your town were weak and didn't have a moral compass does not make it so about other places. So instead of boycotting the restaurant the answer is to keep going? Why? Is there a law that says you have to eat there?
The role of government is not to be the moral compass. They never were intended to be and by their actions prove they are horrible at it. That is the role of society. If you learn anything about politics that should be the one thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
