Election '08

[criddic3]

I read the wikipedia page on Ron Paul.

Now there's a reliable source. ???

Well, it does give generally good information about people and events. I wanted a quick reference so I could respond to the question posed by Sabin.

[Penelope]

I read the wikipedia page on Ron Paul.

Now there's a reliable source. ???

[criddic3]

THAT'S NOT WHAT I FUCKING ASKED YOU!!!

I FUCKING ASKED YOU WHY RON PAUL DOESN'T EPITOMIZE THE REPUBLICAN IDEAL, NOT SIMPLY THE CURRENT TREND IN NEO-CONS!

Because he doesn't share a hard-line on foreign policy, which has been the basis for the Republican Party since at least Ronald Reagan and the Cold War. At least that how it sounded in the debates. He was the only Republican candidate who actively voted against the Iraq War resolution of 2002, along with four others from the party, despite introducing legislation to formally declare war (not a bad idea, but one he said he would not vote for himself.)

I read the wikipedia page on Ron Paul. It is true that he shares many of the conservative values of the party, but that isn't enough this time around. The way he explained his position on Iraq sounded sensible to war critics, I suppose, but sounded irrational to many Republicans. I think that hurt him more than helped. Besides that he doesn't have the presence of a candidate who can win a general election.

He had controversies about statements that came across as a bit racist in the mid-nineties while advocating for a lower age to try juveniles as adults. Personally that doesn't appeal to me.

I have not heard any Republican state that he would vote to nominate Ron Paul for the Presidency. So, I don't think he's very popular as a candidate.

He has general credentials, in that he subscribes to smaller gov't and lower taxes, is generally pro-life (except in extreme cases) and would have voted for the Defense of Marraige Act had he the opportunity. That doesn't make him the epitome of the party, but it does make him a better fit than I previously thought based on his performance in the debates.

2008 is going to be a different kind of election for Republicans, and if they aren't up to the task of nominating a viable candidate they will get squashed in the final analysis. This is why I like Rudy Guiliani. He's tough on crime and foreign policy, but he's moderate on other issues. I think he's appealing in his personal style and has explained most of his positions pretty well so far.

Ron Paul just doesn't fit the needs of 2008, and his complete opposition to the Iraq War makes him look too much like the Democrat candidates. Republicans won't go for that.

[Sabin]

No, I'm going to keep doing this. I don't care. I don't have anything else to do. If I did, I would've left this place a long time ago...

For one thing, his statements in the debates about 9/11 and Iraq did not endear himself to the party. Most Republicans still respect President Bush and hope for vindication on Iraq. Ron Paul presents himself as the anti-war Republican candidate, which is why Democrats and some independents like him. That doesn't mean he's right, and it doesn't mean Republicans would endorse him. Even with some Republicans breaking ranks with President Bush on how to handle the current issues about Iraq, they still believe in fairly healthy numbers that the initial decision was the correct one. Most of the party's anxiety comes from the prospect of losing in 2008, but their fears may still be premature. That being said, Paul holds no chance of being the nominee for President. Neither party is particularly kind to candidates who blast away at their leaders, even when they have low approval ratings in general. While national polls show the President at a low point, he still enjoys majority support from Republicans.

(adopting a different tact)

THAT'S NOT WHAT I FUCKING ASKED YOU!!!

I FUCKING ASKED YOU WHY RON PAUL DOESN'T EPITOMIZE THE REPUBLICAN IDEAL, NOT SIMPLY THE CURRENT TREND IN NEO-CONS!

Let's go back to Middle School, Criddic. If Ron Paul does not believe that the government should play an active role in the powers of the state...WHAT IS RON PAUL? A Democrat or a Republican?

(Keep in mind, the answer "Independent Party" will not be accepted because we are talking about the CLASSICAL definition of what it means to be a Republican, not the FASCIST REVISIONIST PROFITEERING one.)

[OscarGuy]

Sabin, don't hold your breath that Criddic will ever respond because he really doesn't understand the concept of answering questions without spinning his answers to avoid answering the real question.

I did respond, with reasons for why Ron Paul is not the ideal candidate for Republicans. That isn't spinning. Most Republicans will not embrace his attitude. Simple as that.

No, you told us that most Republicans don't support him. You did not such thing as tell us why he does not "epitomize" the Republican ideals. You didn't cite his positions on issues. You didn't discuss him in any way besides some random "Republicans don't support him, so obviously he isn't an ideal Republican" defense. That doesn't answer the question in the least. Regardless of whether people support him or not, what actually makes him NOT the epitome of the republican ideal.

[criddic3]

For one thing, his statements in the debates about 9/11 and Iraq did not endear himself to the party. Most Republicans still respect President Bush and hope for vindication on Iraq. Ron Paul presents himself as the anti-war Republican candidate, which is why Democrats and some independents like him. That doesn't mean he's right, and it doesn't mean Republicans would endorse him. Even with some Republicans breaking ranks with President Bush on how to handle the current issues about Iraq, they still believe in fairly healthy numbers that the initial decision was the correct one. Most of the party's anxiety comes from the prospect of losing in 2008, but their fears may still be premature. That being said, Paul holds no chance of being the nominee for President. Neither party is particularly kind to candidates who blast away at their leaders, even when they have low approval ratings in general. While national polls show the President at a low point, he still enjoys majority support from Republicans.

It's too bad that you weren't born 70-80 years ago.
You could be the live and incotrovertible proof of Albert Einstein's theory regarding human stupidity.

:laugh:

[criddic3]

Sabin, don't hold your breath that Criddic will ever respond because he really doesn't understand the concept of answering questions without spinning his answers to avoid answering the real question.

I did respond, with reasons for why Ron Paul is not the ideal candidate for Republicans. That isn't spinning. Most Republicans will not embrace his attitude. Simple as that.

[taki15]

For one thing, his statements in the debates about 9/11 and Iraq did not endear himself to the party. Most Republicans still respect President Bush and hope for vindication on Iraq. Ron Paul presents himself as the anti-war Republican candidate, which is why Democrats and some independents like him. That doesn't mean he's right, and it doesn't mean Republicans would endorse him. Even with some Republicans breaking ranks with President Bush on how to handle the current issues about Iraq, they still believe in fairly healthy numbers that the initial decision was the correct one. Most of the party's anxiety comes from the prospect of losing in 2008, but their fears may still be premature. That being said, Paul holds no chance of being the nominee for President. Neither party is particularly kind to candidates who blast away at their leaders, even when they have low approval ratings in general. While national polls show the President at a low point, he still enjoys majority support from Republicans.

It's too bad that you weren't born 70-80 years ago.
You could be the live and incotrovertible proof of Albert Einstein's theory regarding human stupidity.

[OscarGuy]

Sabin, don't hold your breath that Criddic will ever respond because he really doesn't understand the concept of answering questions without spinning his answers to avoid answering the real question.

[Penelope]

I'm going to repeat myself...

..I would like to hear an explanation as to how Ron Paul does not epitomize the Republican ideal from Criddic as soon as humanly possible...

(I'm not one of the elder statesmen on this board, nor by any means any kind of great political thinker, but this one really can't go away without explanation.)

For one thing, his statements in the debates about 9/11 and Iraq did not endear himself to the party.

Oh, that's right, Republicans can't handle the truth. They don't live in a reality-based world.

[criddic3]

I'm going to repeat myself...

..I would like to hear an explanation as to how Ron Paul does not epitomize the Republican ideal from Criddic as soon as humanly possible...

(I'm not one of the elder statesmen on this board, nor by any means any kind of great political thinker, but this one really can't go away without explanation.)

For one thing, his statements in the debates about 9/11 and Iraq did not endear himself to the party. Most Republicans still respect President Bush and hope for vindication on Iraq. Ron Paul presents himself as the anti-war Republican candidate, which is why Democrats and some independents like him. That doesn't mean he's right, and it doesn't mean Republicans would endorse him. Even with some Republicans breaking ranks with President Bush on how to handle the current issues about Iraq, they still believe in fairly healthy numbers that the initial decision was the correct one. Most of the party's anxiety comes from the prospect of losing in 2008, but their fears may still be premature. That being said, Paul holds no chance of being the nominee for President. Neither party is particularly kind to candidates who blast away at their leaders, even when they have low approval ratings in general. While national polls show the President at a low point, he still enjoys majority support from Republicans.

[Sabin]

I'm going to repeat myself...

..I would like to hear an explanation as to how Ron Paul does not epitomize the Republican ideal from Criddic as soon as humanly possible...

(I'm not one of the elder statesmen on this board, nor by any means any kind of great political thinker, but this one really can't go away without explanation.)

[Sabin]

You like [Ron Paul] because you agree with him, but the guy clearly is in the wrong party. Besides which, I disagree with his positions on just about everything.

God. you ARE stupid. Or at least pathetically ill-informed. Ron Paul is a complete and total libertarian who essentially wants no government beyond the military and a police forse, every thing else to be private sector. All of which is anathema to Democrats and liberals, but make him the true heir and soul mate of Republican icon Barry Goldwater.

The only place where Paul and the Dems cross paths is in wanting the government out of people's personal lives.

I would like to hear an explanation as to how Ron Paul does not epitomize the Republican ideal from Criddic as soon as humanly possible.



Edited By Sabin on 1184894430

[Damien]

You like him because you agree with him, but the guy clearly is in the wrong party. Besides which, I disagree with his positions on just about everything.

God. you ARE stupid. Or at least pathetically ill-informed. Ron Paul is a complete and total libertarian who essentially wants no government beyond the military and a police forse, every thing else to be private sector. All of which is anathema to Democrats and liberals, but makes him the true heir and soul mate of Republican icon Barry Goldwater.

The only place where Paul and the Dems cross paths is in wanting the government out of people's personal lives.

[criddic3]

I knew there was something I liked about this guy.

Ron Paul warns of staged terror attack
Politico.com


Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul, said the country is in "great danger" of the U.S. government staging a terrorist attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation, as the war in Iraq continues to deteriorate.

The Texas congressman offered no specifics nor mentioned President Bush by name, but he clearly insinuated that the administration would not be above staging an incident to revive flagging support.

"We're in danger in many ways," Paul said on the Alex Jones radio show. "The attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that's in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment which endangers our troops and our national defense."

Paul was asked to respond to comments by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan that the U.S. is in danger of a staged terror attack or a provocation of an enemy similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 before the Vietnam War.

During the radio interview, Paul said the government was conducting "an orchestrated effort to blame the Iranians for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq."

The comments come as several prominent terrorism experts have warned the U.S. is facing an increased risk of attack this summer. Earlier this week, in an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he had a "gut feeling" the U.S. would be attacked again.

The remark angered some Democrats, who criticized Chertoff for being too vague. [No shit.] And some pundits seized on his remarks, saying the vague warnings were meant only to revive flagging support for the war in Iraq and Bush’s larger war against terrorism.

You like him because you agree with him, but the guy clearly is in the wrong party. Besides which, I disagree with his positions on just about everything. More reason for you to like him, I guess.

The logic behind Paul's accusation is simply preposterous. The only possible reasoning he could have that the gov't WILL stage an attack is if he believes they have done so before. He obviously loves conspiracy theories. If this guy were President, we'd all go nuts. Good thing we know it now, before he can gain any traction on his bid.