Ron Paul and last nights debate...

[texas skeeter]

Well ol Rue Paul sure sealed the deal last night to the fact, HE WILL NEVER BE ELECTED POTUS!! even with some good ideas he may have, the ol salty dog CANNOT SPEAK COHERANTLY on live national TV!! im pretty sure most people sat there in their homes and said, "what the hell did he just say"? he looked like a rambling fool!! and EVERY political commentator on EVERY news outlet said the same thing. well except for maybe the "Libertarian Channel"!!

 

[M. Sage]

You're awful cheerful about something that's going to doom our nation.

 

[Shooterman]

You're awful cheerful about something that's going to doom our nation.

+1

 

[Shooterman]

The good Doctor has never done well in this type of format. Of course, the glib tongued fools always will do well.

 

[Clockwork]

Ron Paul.

 

[Rockfish Dave]

Well ol Rue Paul sure sealed the deal last night to the fact, HE WILL NEVER BE ELECTED POTUS!! even with some good ideas he may have, the ol salty dog CANNOT SPEAK COHERANTLY on live national TV!! im pretty sure most people sat there in their homes and said, "what the hell did he just say"? he looked like a rambling fool!! and EVERY political commentator on EVERY news outlet said the same thing. well except for maybe the "Libertarian Channel"!!

Not exactly steeped in deep thought or constructive.

 

[prometheus]

Not exactly steeped in deep thought or constructive.

+1

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Well ol Rue Paul sure sealed the deal last night to the fact, HE WILL NEVER BE ELECTED POTUS!! even with some good ideas he may have, the ol salty dog CANNOT SPEAK COHERANTLY on live national TV!! im pretty sure most people sat there in their homes and said, "what the hell did he just say"? he looked like a rambling fool!! and EVERY political commentator on EVERY news outlet said the same thing. well except for maybe the "Libertarian Channel"!!

I guess speaking skills are more important than ideas that can actually save the country. You do bring up a certain point. The average American may be too stupid to make coherent fact based-decisions for themselves. We should just go ahead and move to Communism so they don't have to think for themselves.

Still researching my own island in the Pacific....

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

FYI, that's sarcasm.

 

[Clockwork]

Well ol Rue Paul sure sealed the deal last night to the fact, HE WILL NEVER BE ELECTED POTUS!! even with some good ideas he may have, the ol salty dog CANNOT SPEAK COHERANTLY on live national TV!! im pretty sure most people sat there in their homes and said, "what the hell did he just say"? he looked like a rambling fool!! and EVERY political commentator on EVERY news outlet said the same thing. well except for maybe the "Libertarian Channel"!!

 

[texas skeeter]

oh dont worry guys, i still love all you RUE PAUL fans!! and Yeah i know, our country will just collapse if the old salty dog isnt elected!!

 

[M. Sage]

oh dont worry guys, i still love all you RUE PAUL fans!! and Yeah i know, our country will just collapse if the old salty dog isnt elected!!

Which of the other candidates even pretends that they're going to put us on the right track, and how do they propose to do it?

Don't know if you've noticed, but we're in some really bad shape here. We need to get drastic with our fixes now if we want the USA to exist a decade from now. Electing more of the same isn't going to do it.

The funny thing is that your arguments against him are all coming off childish, petty and very poorly-written. Yet you're criticizing him for being nutty and unintelligible? Hmmm.....

 

[Wolfwood]

Which of the other candidates even pretends that they're going to put us on the right track, and how do they propose to do it?

Don't know if you've noticed, but we're in some really bad shape here. We need to get drastic with our fixes now if we want the USA to exist a decade from now. Electing more of the same isn't going to do it.

The funny thing is that your arguments against him are all coming off childish, petty and very poorly-written. Yet you're criticizing him for being nutty and unintelligible? Hmmm.....

but voting isn't about electing the right man for the job Sage, it is about guessing who is going to win, and voting fro that guy. It is about being on the winning team.
it is about fitting in with other "conservatives". Aligning yourself with the mainstream candidates so you can feel some sort of tribal superiority or belonging.
It is about giving right thinking people a bad image with cheap shots and bad puns.

some people just dont get it.

Way to go skeeter. keep fighting the good fight.

 

[texas skeeter]

Which of the other candidates even pretends that they're going to put us on the right track, and how do they propose to do it?

Don't know if you've noticed, but we're in some really bad shape here. We need to get drastic with our fixes now if we want the USA to exist a decade from now. Electing more of the same isn't going to do it.

The funny thing is that your arguments against him are all coming off childish, petty and very poorly-written. Yet you're criticizing him for being nutty and unintelligible? Hmmm.....

first things first my lil friend Sage, i'm not running for anything so i dont have to be the smartest guy in the room and as CLEARLY yer boy ol PAUL isnt either. and You may put your stock in that nutjob as you have the freedom to do so. and as i have the freedom to give my opinion about him. what i do find that is truely funny, you decide to belittle me for a man you dont even know?? and yet you call me childish??

 

[texas skeeter]

some people just dont get it.

Way to go skeeter. keep fighting the good fight.

I will considering i dont want weed,cocaine,heroine,meth etc legal EVER!!! and the NUTJOB some here support has stated something along those lines. Blah blah blah i understand its about the freedom to do said drugs but legalizing them woud make it easier for young kids to get at em. I have 2 young boys to raise and dont need it any harder than it already is...

 

[Wolfwood]

I will considering i dont want weed,cocaine,heroine,meth etc legal EVER!!! and the NUTJOB some here support has stated something along those lines. Blah blah blah i understand its about the freedom to do said drugs but legalizing them woud make it easier for young kids to get at em. I have 2 young boys to raise and dont need it any harder than it already is...

i still think it is hilarious that you need a law to tell you not to snort coke.


and for the record, it isnt about having the freedom to do drugs. it is about limiting the power fo the federal gov't. states have every right to prohibit whatever they want.

personally i think it is silly, but this is about state's rights, and limiting the feds, if you are for unilateral control by the federal gov't for the federal gov't and hate texas' and other states having control over their own districts, then i cna understand you not supporting RP.

but say it like it is. you hate state's rights. thats fine. jsut call a spade a spade is allim saying.

 

[texas skeeter]

i still think it is hilarious that you need a law to tell you not to snort coke.


.

So do you really think if drugs were legal they wouldnt be easier to be obtained by kids? Yes we as adults know they are bad and refrain from them, but teens dont think like us now do they? and for the record Wolfy, i agree with Paul on most all of his ideas. dumping the Fed, his foriegn policies etc. but he lost me on the drug issue. i like the fact those Drugs are ILLEGAL and would like it to stay that way. they've ruined many of my relatives lives. and I have no desire to ever see them legal as it WOULD make them easier to get. so why even take the slightest chance on a candidate whom could possibly sign off on the legalization of them....

 

[Wolfwood]

So do you really think if drugs were legal they wouldnt be easier to be obtained by kids? Yes we as adults know they are bad and refrain from them, but teens dont think like us now do they? and for the record Wolfy, i agree with Paul on most all of his ideas. dumping the Fed, his foriegn policies etc. but he lost me on the drug issue. i like the fact those Drugs are ILLEGAL and would like it to stay that way. they've ruined many of my relatives lives. and I have no desire to ever see them legal as it WOULD make them easier to get. so why even take the slightest chance on a candidate whom could possibly sign off on the legalization of them....

do drug laws keep kids from doing drugs?

the kids that are going to do drugs are going to do drugs. period.

your logic sounds (to me) dangerously close to that of a gun grabber "we need to make guns illegal so people don't commit crimes"
it is up to the parents to make sure their kids stay off drugs, not the damn government.
where do you draw the line?

also, drugs would most likely STAY illegal. especially here in Texas. removing federal control does not legalize these substances on a state country or city level.

this is not legalization or decriminalization, it is taking the power away from the fed and putting it in th hands of the state gov'ts. i don't see how you can be against that and be from the south at the same time.

 

[biglucky]

So do you really think if drugs were legal they wouldnt be easier to be obtained by kids? Yes we as adults know they are bad and refrain from them, but teens dont think like us now do they? and for the record Wolfy, i agree with Paul on most all of his ideas. dumping the Fed, his foriegn policies etc. but he lost me on the drug issue. i like the fact those Drugs are ILLEGAL and would like it to stay that way. they've ruined many of my relatives lives. and I have no desire to ever see them legal as it WOULD make them easier to get. so why even take the slightest chance on a candidate whom could possibly sign off on the legalization of them....

So I am not one of the Ron Paul fanboys like many on this site, but I think you are off base here. I used to believe exactly the same thing you did until I saw some more interviews where RP made his point clear. He is not for the legalization of drugs, he is against a NATIONAL policy one way or the other. He is in favor of States making drugs legal or illegal. If the state you live in wants cocaine to be legal then you can move. I am pretty sure that other than maybe pot, which shouldn't be illegal anyway, actual drugs would not be legalized in Texas.

My problem with RP is his foreign policy. He is still trying to apply the thoughts of 200 years ago when it took a week or longer by ship, on a very dangerous voyage to get from the East Coast of the US to the West Coast of the European Continent. He claims that he is about non-interventionism, but his policy is really isolationism. His desire to have "free trade" with entities who will pump tons of crap goods into our economy and not allow us to sell goods in their economy would be just as bad as we have now. If we abandoned our allies and pulled all our troops out of everywhere it would be less than a decade before a united world would be knocking on our door in the form of an invasion. If we want to avoid war on US soil we must continue to maintain our strong position globally.

 

[Texas1911]

So I am not one of the Ron Paul fanboys like many on this site, but I think you are off base here. I used to believe exactly the same thing you did until I saw some more interviews where RP made his point clear. He is not for the legalization of drugs, he is against a NATIONAL policy one way or the other. He is in favor of States making drugs legal or illegal. If the state you live in wants cocaine to be legal then you can move. I am pretty sure that other than maybe pot, which shouldn't be illegal anyway, actual drugs would not be legalized in Texas.

Indeed. So many people can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to Ron Paul's stance on legalization. He wants to shift away from 150 years of Federalization and put the power back into the States where it belongs.

Of course, it doesn't help that a large group of his followers are tin foil hatted morons and have arguments shallower than a Politician's moral compass.

My problem with RP is his foreign policy. He is still trying to apply the thoughts of 200 years ago when it took a week or longer by ship, on a very dangerous voyage to get from the East Coast of the US to the West Coast of the European Continent. He claims that he is about non-interventionism, but his policy is really isolationism. His desire to have "free trade" with entities who will pump tons of crap goods into our economy and not allow us to sell goods in their economy would be just as bad as we have now. If we abandoned our allies and pulled all our troops out of everywhere it would be less than a decade before a united world would be knocking on our door in the form of an invasion. If we want to avoid war on US soil we must continue to maintain our strong position globally.

Agreed.

His foreign relations standpoint is not feasible in a global economy. The policy of isolationism was convenient before, but as history has taught us twice; that very same policy is what allows tyrants abroad to pull us into out of control wars where millions lose their lives.

I think there is a happy medium. We don't have to be involved in everything, but we can't ignore everything on the basis that it's "someone else's problem". If history treated us like that we would all be sitting around singing the Queen's praises as subjects.