Ignore Ron Paul are the new marching orders?

[curiousmind]

I do think this is because he is not a “company” man. But as far as his ideas go – they are faith based.

Examples? Be careful. Don’t make me drink a coffee and destroy the rubbish you will have to produce! 😉

[curiousmind]

As much as you might want him to be. I’ve said I don’t think it’s any kind of back room conspiracy (and I certainly could be wrong on this), but the fact remains that the media has not and is unlikely to get behind him. They barely give him the time of day. He hasn’t and probably won’t get the media attention that Ross Perot got 20 and 16 years ago. Despite whether he might be electable if everyone knew who he was, they don’t and won’t. That makes him unelectable. That makes him an also-ran.

You mention media and electability determination in same paragraph like.. status quo, but things change, and real estate always goes up. If that’s how you want to see the world, not my way.

There isn’t a conspiracy.. I don’t have to look to know that media probably makes more money in times of war than any other, very easy to see why they don’t want Paul elected.

[curiousmind]

As much as you might want him to be. I’ve said I don’t think it’s any kind of back room conspiracy (and I certainly could be wrong on this), but the fact remains that the media has not and is unlikely to get behind him. They barely give him the time of day. He hasn’t and probably won’t get the media attention that Ross Perot got 20 and 16 years ago. Despite whether he might be electable if everyone knew who he was, they don’t and won’t. That makes him unelectable. That makes him an also-ran.

You mention media and electability determination in same paragraph like.. status quo, but things change, and real estate always goes up. If that’s how you want to see the world, not my way.

There isn’t a conspiracy.. I don’t have to look to know that media probably makes more money in times of war than any other, very easy to see why they don’t want Paul elected.

[curiousmind]

As much as you might want him to be. I’ve said I don’t think it’s any kind of back room conspiracy (and I certainly could be wrong on this), but the fact remains that the media has not and is unlikely to get behind him. They barely give him the time of day. He hasn’t and probably won’t get the media attention that Ross Perot got 20 and 16 years ago. Despite whether he might be electable if everyone knew who he was, they don’t and won’t. That makes him unelectable. That makes him an also-ran.

You mention media and electability determination in same paragraph like.. status quo, but things change, and real estate always goes up. If that’s how you want to see the world, not my way.

There isn’t a conspiracy.. I don’t have to look to know that media probably makes more money in times of war than any other, very easy to see why they don’t want Paul elected.

[curiousmind]

As much as you might want him to be. I’ve said I don’t think it’s any kind of back room conspiracy (and I certainly could be wrong on this), but the fact remains that the media has not and is unlikely to get behind him. They barely give him the time of day. He hasn’t and probably won’t get the media attention that Ross Perot got 20 and 16 years ago. Despite whether he might be electable if everyone knew who he was, they don’t and won’t. That makes him unelectable. That makes him an also-ran.

You mention media and electability determination in same paragraph like.. status quo, but things change, and real estate always goes up. If that’s how you want to see the world, not my way.

There isn’t a conspiracy.. I don’t have to look to know that media probably makes more money in times of war than any other, very easy to see why they don’t want Paul elected.

[curiousmind]

As much as you might want him to be. I’ve said I don’t think it’s any kind of back room conspiracy (and I certainly could be wrong on this), but the fact remains that the media has not and is unlikely to get behind him. They barely give him the time of day. He hasn’t and probably won’t get the media attention that Ross Perot got 20 and 16 years ago. Despite whether he might be electable if everyone knew who he was, they don’t and won’t. That makes him unelectable. That makes him an also-ran.

You mention media and electability determination in same paragraph like.. status quo, but things change, and real estate always goes up. If that’s how you want to see the world, not my way.

There isn’t a conspiracy.. I don’t have to look to know that media probably makes more money in times of war than any other, very easy to see why they don’t want Paul elected.

[aldante]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=curiousmind]Plus he just doesn’t have media appeal. Although some of his ideas may make sense, he just comes across as another also-ran oddball.

That’s your opinion, and you are very disconnected if you think that Paul is just a random “also-ran” candidate. Wake up.[/quote]

[quote=curiousmind]Ron Paul is the only candidate running who has walked the walk. He is the only candidate who’s views are based on principles(constitutional ones)- not fame, money or status quo. He is also the only candidate who implements any form of critical thinking.[/quote]

Ron Paul is not an electable candidate. As much as you might want him to be. I’ve said I don’t think it’s any kind of back room conspiracy (and I certainly could be wrong on this), but the fact remains that the media has not and is unlikely to get behind him. They barely give him the time of day. He hasn’t and probably won’t get the media attention that Ross Perot got 20 and 16 years ago. Despite whether he might be electable if everyone knew who he was, they don’t and won’t. That makes him unelectable. That makes him an also-ran.

I don’t know what walk he’s walked that others haven’t. He’s a politician. He’s made deals. His principles are no more constitutionally or ideologically consistent than any other candidate. See his views on DOMA, states rights, and full faith and credit clause. See his views on abortion, which are inconsistent with his claims to be a libertarian. (His argument that it should be left up to the states, just as he has made at times with DOMA is a total abandonement of libertarian principles on issues which he believes the government SHOULD invade personal liberties.)

Paul is an idealogue. Just the same as many politicians. Ideologies and critical thinking are like oil and water. You can craft rhetoric to make them appear to be compatible, but eventually they separate. And the critical thinking always disappears.[/quote]

Explain how he is as inconsistent as the other candidates in his beliefs given his voting record in Congress. Also, given his stance on the wars, appropriations bills, and civil liberties. Oh and do please make sure that you reference the other candidates stances on the FED (as well as the other issues I mentinoned) in 2008. That way you can make it clear that he is as inconsistent as the other candidates. Who knows maybe you will make me a believer…………….
Assuming you will not be able to do that – and you will not….then we can talk about the real issue which is why there is a perception out there that he is unelectable. I think you will find it is NOT becasue he is inconsistent!

[aldante]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=curiousmind]Plus he just doesn’t have media appeal. Although some of his ideas may make sense, he just comes across as another also-ran oddball.

That’s your opinion, and you are very disconnected if you think that Paul is just a random “also-ran” candidate. Wake up.[/quote]

[quote=curiousmind]Ron Paul is the only candidate running who has walked the walk. He is the only candidate who’s views are based on principles(constitutional ones)- not fame, money or status quo. He is also the only candidate who implements any form of critical thinking.[/quote]

Ron Paul is not an electable candidate. As much as you might want him to be. I’ve said I don’t think it’s any kind of back room conspiracy (and I certainly could be wrong on this), but the fact remains that the media has not and is unlikely to get behind him. They barely give him the time of day. He hasn’t and probably won’t get the media attention that Ross Perot got 20 and 16 years ago. Despite whether he might be electable if everyone knew who he was, they don’t and won’t. That makes him unelectable. That makes him an also-ran.

I don’t know what walk he’s walked that others haven’t. He’s a politician. He’s made deals. His principles are no more constitutionally or ideologically consistent than any other candidate. See his views on DOMA, states rights, and full faith and credit clause. See his views on abortion, which are inconsistent with his claims to be a libertarian. (His argument that it should be left up to the states, just as he has made at times with DOMA is a total abandonement of libertarian principles on issues which he believes the government SHOULD invade personal liberties.)

Paul is an idealogue. Just the same as many politicians. Ideologies and critical thinking are like oil and water. You can craft rhetoric to make them appear to be compatible, but eventually they separate. And the critical thinking always disappears.[/quote]

Explain how he is as inconsistent as the other candidates in his beliefs given his voting record in Congress. Also, given his stance on the wars, appropriations bills, and civil liberties. Oh and do please make sure that you reference the other candidates stances on the FED (as well as the other issues I mentinoned) in 2008. That way you can make it clear that he is as inconsistent as the other candidates. Who knows maybe you will make me a believer…………….
Assuming you will not be able to do that – and you will not….then we can talk about the real issue which is why there is a perception out there that he is unelectable. I think you will find it is NOT becasue he is inconsistent!

[aldante]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=curiousmind]Plus he just doesn’t have media appeal. Although some of his ideas may make sense, he just comes across as another also-ran oddball.

That’s your opinion, and you are very disconnected if you think that Paul is just a random “also-ran” candidate. Wake up.[/quote]

[quote=curiousmind]Ron Paul is the only candidate running who has walked the walk. He is the only candidate who’s views are based on principles(constitutional ones)- not fame, money or status quo. He is also the only candidate who implements any form of critical thinking.[/quote]

Ron Paul is not an electable candidate. As much as you might want him to be. I’ve said I don’t think it’s any kind of back room conspiracy (and I certainly could be wrong on this), but the fact remains that the media has not and is unlikely to get behind him. They barely give him the time of day. He hasn’t and probably won’t get the media attention that Ross Perot got 20 and 16 years ago. Despite whether he might be electable if everyone knew who he was, they don’t and won’t. That makes him unelectable. That makes him an also-ran.

I don’t know what walk he’s walked that others haven’t. He’s a politician. He’s made deals. His principles are no more constitutionally or ideologically consistent than any other candidate. See his views on DOMA, states rights, and full faith and credit clause. See his views on abortion, which are inconsistent with his claims to be a libertarian. (His argument that it should be left up to the states, just as he has made at times with DOMA is a total abandonement of libertarian principles on issues which he believes the government SHOULD invade personal liberties.)

Paul is an idealogue. Just the same as many politicians. Ideologies and critical thinking are like oil and water. You can craft rhetoric to make them appear to be compatible, but eventually they separate. And the critical thinking always disappears.[/quote]

Explain how he is as inconsistent as the other candidates in his beliefs given his voting record in Congress. Also, given his stance on the wars, appropriations bills, and civil liberties. Oh and do please make sure that you reference the other candidates stances on the FED (as well as the other issues I mentinoned) in 2008. That way you can make it clear that he is as inconsistent as the other candidates. Who knows maybe you will make me a believer…………….
Assuming you will not be able to do that – and you will not….then we can talk about the real issue which is why there is a perception out there that he is unelectable. I think you will find it is NOT becasue he is inconsistent!

[aldante]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=curiousmind]Plus he just doesn’t have media appeal. Although some of his ideas may make sense, he just comes across as another also-ran oddball.

That’s your opinion, and you are very disconnected if you think that Paul is just a random “also-ran” candidate. Wake up.[/quote]

[quote=curiousmind]Ron Paul is the only candidate running who has walked the walk. He is the only candidate who’s views are based on principles(constitutional ones)- not fame, money or status quo. He is also the only candidate who implements any form of critical thinking.[/quote]

Ron Paul is not an electable candidate. As much as you might want him to be. I’ve said I don’t think it’s any kind of back room conspiracy (and I certainly could be wrong on this), but the fact remains that the media has not and is unlikely to get behind him. They barely give him the time of day. He hasn’t and probably won’t get the media attention that Ross Perot got 20 and 16 years ago. Despite whether he might be electable if everyone knew who he was, they don’t and won’t. That makes him unelectable. That makes him an also-ran.

I don’t know what walk he’s walked that others haven’t. He’s a politician. He’s made deals. His principles are no more constitutionally or ideologically consistent than any other candidate. See his views on DOMA, states rights, and full faith and credit clause. See his views on abortion, which are inconsistent with his claims to be a libertarian. (His argument that it should be left up to the states, just as he has made at times with DOMA is a total abandonement of libertarian principles on issues which he believes the government SHOULD invade personal liberties.)

Paul is an idealogue. Just the same as many politicians. Ideologies and critical thinking are like oil and water. You can craft rhetoric to make them appear to be compatible, but eventually they separate. And the critical thinking always disappears.[/quote]

Explain how he is as inconsistent as the other candidates in his beliefs given his voting record in Congress. Also, given his stance on the wars, appropriations bills, and civil liberties. Oh and do please make sure that you reference the other candidates stances on the FED (as well as the other issues I mentinoned) in 2008. That way you can make it clear that he is as inconsistent as the other candidates. Who knows maybe you will make me a believer…………….
Assuming you will not be able to do that – and you will not….then we can talk about the real issue which is why there is a perception out there that he is unelectable. I think you will find it is NOT becasue he is inconsistent!

[aldante]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=curiousmind]Plus he just doesn’t have media appeal. Although some of his ideas may make sense, he just comes across as another also-ran oddball.

That’s your opinion, and you are very disconnected if you think that Paul is just a random “also-ran” candidate. Wake up.[/quote]

[quote=curiousmind]Ron Paul is the only candidate running who has walked the walk. He is the only candidate who’s views are based on principles(constitutional ones)- not fame, money or status quo. He is also the only candidate who implements any form of critical thinking.[/quote]

Ron Paul is not an electable candidate. As much as you might want him to be. I’ve said I don’t think it’s any kind of back room conspiracy (and I certainly could be wrong on this), but the fact remains that the media has not and is unlikely to get behind him. They barely give him the time of day. He hasn’t and probably won’t get the media attention that Ross Perot got 20 and 16 years ago. Despite whether he might be electable if everyone knew who he was, they don’t and won’t. That makes him unelectable. That makes him an also-ran.

I don’t know what walk he’s walked that others haven’t. He’s a politician. He’s made deals. His principles are no more constitutionally or ideologically consistent than any other candidate. See his views on DOMA, states rights, and full faith and credit clause. See his views on abortion, which are inconsistent with his claims to be a libertarian. (His argument that it should be left up to the states, just as he has made at times with DOMA is a total abandonement of libertarian principles on issues which he believes the government SHOULD invade personal liberties.)

Paul is an idealogue. Just the same as many politicians. Ideologies and critical thinking are like oil and water. You can craft rhetoric to make them appear to be compatible, but eventually they separate. And the critical thinking always disappears.[/quote]

Explain how he is as inconsistent as the other candidates in his beliefs given his voting record in Congress. Also, given his stance on the wars, appropriations bills, and civil liberties. Oh and do please make sure that you reference the other candidates stances on the FED (as well as the other issues I mentinoned) in 2008. That way you can make it clear that he is as inconsistent as the other candidates. Who knows maybe you will make me a believer…………….
Assuming you will not be able to do that – and you will not….then we can talk about the real issue which is why there is a perception out there that he is unelectable. I think you will find it is NOT becasue he is inconsistent!

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]
Explain how he is as inconsistent as the other candidates in his beliefs given his voting record in Congress. Also, given his stance on the wars, appropriations bills, and civil liberties. Oh and do please make sure that you reference the other candidates stances on the FED (as well as the other issues I mentinoned) in 2008. That way you can make it clear that he is as inconsistent as the other candidates. Who knows maybe you will make me a believer…………….
Assuming you will not be able to do that – and you will not….then we can talk about the real issue which is why there is a perception out there that he is unelectable. I think you will find it is NOT becasue he is inconsistent![/quote]

I gave you two glaring inconsistencies in his libertarian dogma. As compared to other candidates? No need, I already directed you to two inconsistencies. Do others have more? Michelle Bachmann, who I disagree with on many things, and think is incompetent to be president is reasonably consistent in her voting record. And her absolute looniness. I’m not convinced that either absolute consistency nor looniness is an asset.

I’ve explained why I think he’s unelectable. Obviously that is just my opinion. And I’ve explained why I think that. It has zero to do with his ideologies or political views. Why the perception is there, I could only surmise, but it is. His supporters point to the Iowa straw poll as evidence of his support. Really??? Less than 5,000 votes. LESS than 1% of Republican voters. Less than .4% of registered voters. He is unelectable because he has insufficient support, just as he did in his two prior presidential bids. As long as he is perceived as unelectable, he is unelectable.

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]
Explain how he is as inconsistent as the other candidates in his beliefs given his voting record in Congress. Also, given his stance on the wars, appropriations bills, and civil liberties. Oh and do please make sure that you reference the other candidates stances on the FED (as well as the other issues I mentinoned) in 2008. That way you can make it clear that he is as inconsistent as the other candidates. Who knows maybe you will make me a believer…………….
Assuming you will not be able to do that – and you will not….then we can talk about the real issue which is why there is a perception out there that he is unelectable. I think you will find it is NOT becasue he is inconsistent![/quote]

I gave you two glaring inconsistencies in his libertarian dogma. As compared to other candidates? No need, I already directed you to two inconsistencies. Do others have more? Michelle Bachmann, who I disagree with on many things, and think is incompetent to be president is reasonably consistent in her voting record. And her absolute looniness. I’m not convinced that either absolute consistency nor looniness is an asset.

I’ve explained why I think he’s unelectable. Obviously that is just my opinion. And I’ve explained why I think that. It has zero to do with his ideologies or political views. Why the perception is there, I could only surmise, but it is. His supporters point to the Iowa straw poll as evidence of his support. Really??? Less than 5,000 votes. LESS than 1% of Republican voters. Less than .4% of registered voters. He is unelectable because he has insufficient support, just as he did in his two prior presidential bids. As long as he is perceived as unelectable, he is unelectable.

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]
Explain how he is as inconsistent as the other candidates in his beliefs given his voting record in Congress. Also, given his stance on the wars, appropriations bills, and civil liberties. Oh and do please make sure that you reference the other candidates stances on the FED (as well as the other issues I mentinoned) in 2008. That way you can make it clear that he is as inconsistent as the other candidates. Who knows maybe you will make me a believer…………….
Assuming you will not be able to do that – and you will not….then we can talk about the real issue which is why there is a perception out there that he is unelectable. I think you will find it is NOT becasue he is inconsistent![/quote]

I gave you two glaring inconsistencies in his libertarian dogma. As compared to other candidates? No need, I already directed you to two inconsistencies. Do others have more? Michelle Bachmann, who I disagree with on many things, and think is incompetent to be president is reasonably consistent in her voting record. And her absolute looniness. I’m not convinced that either absolute consistency nor looniness is an asset.

I’ve explained why I think he’s unelectable. Obviously that is just my opinion. And I’ve explained why I think that. It has zero to do with his ideologies or political views. Why the perception is there, I could only surmise, but it is. His supporters point to the Iowa straw poll as evidence of his support. Really??? Less than 5,000 votes. LESS than 1% of Republican voters. Less than .4% of registered voters. He is unelectable because he has insufficient support, just as he did in his two prior presidential bids. As long as he is perceived as unelectable, he is unelectable.

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]
Explain how he is as inconsistent as the other candidates in his beliefs given his voting record in Congress. Also, given his stance on the wars, appropriations bills, and civil liberties. Oh and do please make sure that you reference the other candidates stances on the FED (as well as the other issues I mentinoned) in 2008. That way you can make it clear that he is as inconsistent as the other candidates. Who knows maybe you will make me a believer…………….
Assuming you will not be able to do that – and you will not….then we can talk about the real issue which is why there is a perception out there that he is unelectable. I think you will find it is NOT becasue he is inconsistent![/quote]

I gave you two glaring inconsistencies in his libertarian dogma. As compared to other candidates? No need, I already directed you to two inconsistencies. Do others have more? Michelle Bachmann, who I disagree with on many things, and think is incompetent to be president is reasonably consistent in her voting record. And her absolute looniness. I’m not convinced that either absolute consistency nor looniness is an asset.

I’ve explained why I think he’s unelectable. Obviously that is just my opinion. And I’ve explained why I think that. It has zero to do with his ideologies or political views. Why the perception is there, I could only surmise, but it is. His supporters point to the Iowa straw poll as evidence of his support. Really??? Less than 5,000 votes. LESS than 1% of Republican voters. Less than .4% of registered voters. He is unelectable because he has insufficient support, just as he did in his two prior presidential bids. As long as he is perceived as unelectable, he is unelectable.

[Author]

Posts