Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
aldante
Participant[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!Participant[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!ParticipantArraya,
Sorry but first and foremost RP believes in soveringty. He does not back China’s stateist methods for any other reason that he thinks we should not intervene in others nations soveringty. That being said he also believes that there are much better ways of dealing with international imbalances then the current GATT and NAFTA treaties. Which some would argue give a country which has very cheap labor an advantage in production. So again I find that anti RP sentiment is driven by a lack of understanding of what the man has said for a very long time. But the press misrepresents.ParticipantArraya,
Sorry but first and foremost RP believes in soveringty. He does not back China’s stateist methods for any other reason that he thinks we should not intervene in others nations soveringty. That being said he also believes that there are much better ways of dealing with international imbalances then the current GATT and NAFTA treaties. Which some would argue give a country which has very cheap labor an advantage in production. So again I find that anti RP sentiment is driven by a lack of understanding of what the man has said for a very long time. But the press misrepresents.ParticipantArraya,
Sorry but first and foremost RP believes in soveringty. He does not back China’s stateist methods for any other reason that he thinks we should not intervene in others nations soveringty. That being said he also believes that there are much better ways of dealing with international imbalances then the current GATT and NAFTA treaties. Which some would argue give a country which has very cheap labor an advantage in production. So again I find that anti RP sentiment is driven by a lack of understanding of what the man has said for a very long time. But the press misrepresents.ParticipantArraya,
Sorry but first and foremost RP believes in soveringty. He does not back China’s stateist methods for any other reason that he thinks we should not intervene in others nations soveringty. That being said he also believes that there are much better ways of dealing with international imbalances then the current GATT and NAFTA treaties. Which some would argue give a country which has very cheap labor an advantage in production. So again I find that anti RP sentiment is driven by a lack of understanding of what the man has said for a very long time. But the press misrepresents.ParticipantArraya,
Sorry but first and foremost RP believes in soveringty. He does not back China’s stateist methods for any other reason that he thinks we should not intervene in others nations soveringty. That being said he also believes that there are much better ways of dealing with international imbalances then the current GATT and NAFTA treaties. Which some would argue give a country which has very cheap labor an advantage in production. So again I find that anti RP sentiment is driven by a lack of understanding of what the man has said for a very long time. But the press misrepresents.Participant[quote=CONCHO][quote=briansd1]
Are the Fed’s debts the same as the National Debt? Or are the debts of the Fed in additional to the National debt? Who did the Feb borrow the money from?[/quote]“This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.” — Morpheus in “The Matrix”[/quote]
CONCHO,
That was classic.LOLParticipant[quote=CONCHO][quote=briansd1]
Are the Fed’s debts the same as the National Debt? Or are the debts of the Fed in additional to the National debt? Who did the Feb borrow the money from?[/quote]“This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.” — Morpheus in “The Matrix”[/quote]
CONCHO,
That was classic.LOLParticipant[quote=CONCHO][quote=briansd1]
Are the Fed’s debts the same as the National Debt? Or are the debts of the Fed in additional to the National debt? Who did the Feb borrow the money from?[/quote]“This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.” — Morpheus in “The Matrix”[/quote]
CONCHO,
That was classic.LOLParticipant[quote=CONCHO][quote=briansd1]
Are the Fed’s debts the same as the National Debt? Or are the debts of the Fed in additional to the National debt? Who did the Feb borrow the money from?[/quote]“This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.” — Morpheus in “The Matrix”[/quote]
CONCHO,
That was classic.LOLParticipant[quote=CONCHO][quote=briansd1]
Are the Fed’s debts the same as the National Debt? Or are the debts of the Fed in additional to the National debt? Who did the Feb borrow the money from?[/quote]“This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.” — Morpheus in “The Matrix”[/quote]
CONCHO,
That was classic.LOLParticipantBrian1,
RP actually has a book called END THE FED which answers that question. Lately, he has been more realistic that while the goal would be to end the fed it will take a while to do so because its debt needs to be liquidated.
It is his belief that money which is controld by the private interest of the FED would best be controlled by the people. He thinks that one way would be to allow for competeing currencies to exist. To decriminalize the use of gold and silver for instance. That way people will naturally choose how to be paid and how to pay.
He sees the FED release of $$ into the money supply as a moral issue becasue the debt at one point must be paid. When the debt exceeds the economy’s ability to pay the debt, future generations are paying for our livelihods.ParticipantBrian1,
RP actually has a book called END THE FED which answers that question. Lately, he has been more realistic that while the goal would be to end the fed it will take a while to do so because its debt needs to be liquidated.
It is his belief that money which is controld by the private interest of the FED would best be controlled by the people. He thinks that one way would be to allow for competeing currencies to exist. To decriminalize the use of gold and silver for instance. That way people will naturally choose how to be paid and how to pay.
He sees the FED release of $$ into the money supply as a moral issue becasue the debt at one point must be paid. When the debt exceeds the economy’s ability to pay the debt, future generations are paying for our livelihods. -
AuthorPosts