120 replies to this topic

[Little Fish]

[preacherman76]

Well that settles it for me.

[Wyvernkeeper]

Ron Paul has the luxury of saying these things as he is in opposition (sort of.)  

It wouldn't last ten minutes if he was elected...

[Little Fish]

Wyvernkeeper, on 28 February 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

Ron Paul has the luxury of saying these things as he is in opposition (sort of.)  

It wouldn't last ten minutes if he was elected...

Who do you want for US president ?

[Neognosis]

hmm... still Obama.

[NemoMysterio]

Mr T

[BiffSplitkins]

I can't see your posted image here at work but my answer is definitely 'NONE OF THE ABOVE'.

I will probably end up voting for Obama even though I'm not fond of him. That decision would be based on the fact that he now has roughly 4 years experience being president and nothing more.

[Wyvernkeeper]

Little Fish, on 28 February 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

Who do you want for US president ?

Any of the fictional ones, preferably Laura Roslin  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Roslin

Following that, James Cromwell did a pretty good job too...  As did Harrison Ford when he was on that plane.

________________

The reason I made my comment before is because we have this thing in the UK called a 'Nick Clegg,' it's a turncoat kind of creature that does one thing before an election and another afterwards...  You Ron Paul fanboys would do well to look him up.

Edited by Wyvernkeeper, 28 February 2012 - 02:38 PM.

[preacherman76]

Wyvernkeeper, on 28 February 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

Any of the fictional ones, preferably Laura Roslin  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Roslin

Following that, James Cromwell did a pretty good job too...  As did Harrison Ford when he was on that plane.

________________

The reason I made my comment before is because we have this thing in the UK called a 'Nick Clegg,' it's a turncoat kind of creature that does one thing before an election and another afterwards...  You Ron Paul fanboys would do well to look him up.

I looked up Ron Paul, and at the least, the guy deserves a shot far more then anyone on either side. At the VERY least.

[Wyvernkeeper]

preacherman76, on 28 February 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

I looked up Ron Paul, and at the least, the guy deserves a shot far more then anyone on either side. At the VERY least.

I meant you to look up Clegg...  What I am trying to describe is that career opposition politicians are often forced to renege on their promises once they have to deal with the realities of government.

How on Earth do you expect an anti-corporate politician to achieve anything in the most corporate nation on the planet without comprimising his ideals?

Now if RP ran as the republican vice-candidate, then I think Obama might have a problem.. If RP ran as the presidential candidate then Obama's victory is guaranteed.

Edited by Wyvernkeeper, 28 February 2012 - 03:14 PM.

[preacherman76]

Wyvernkeeper, on 28 February 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

I meant you to look up Clegg...  What I am trying to describe is that career opposition politicians are often forced to renege on their promises once they have to deal with the realities of government.

I know what you meant. No need. You just described every polititian I have ever known, other then a very small handful. The only difference between our views is I dont think they were forced at all. Nor do I think you have to do a whole lot of digging to discover why. Begining with finding out who funded said polititions campaign.

Quote

How on Earth do you expect an anti-corporate politician to achieve anything in the most corporate nation on the planet without comprimising his ideals?

How do you expect a government who's the most corperate nation on the planet to serve the people over the corperations? Ron Paul isnt the finnal answer to all our problems. Youd be a fool to believe that. But it is a great start. Here are the things I expect out of a Ron Paul administration.

Day 1 Call out the order to bring all troops, in peace, or at war, to come home. He is the commander and chief of all armed forces, and there isnt a declaration of war by our congress in any conflict we are engaged in. This would be within his full power.

Still day one, with his next breath he would order a full audit of the federal reserve.

These are the top priorities cause they would be fully within his power. They will also be most effective to giving a hard punch to the establishment. Then there is the side benefits.

States that legalized medical pot would be left alone. States that legalized gay marrage would be left alone. Well I could go on all day about the civil liberties that would be restored simply by not funding such federal government programs.

Youd have a man who would tell the people the truth and name names.

And last but not least, we'd have a man at the brake as they continue to try and steal our wealth, and our liberties through legislation, bailouts, and unfair trade agreements.

Edited by preacherman76, 28 February 2012 - 03:37 PM.

[and then]

Wyvernkeeper, on 28 February 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

I meant you to look up Clegg...  What I am trying to describe is that career opposition politicians are often forced to renege on their promises once they have to deal with the realities of government.

How on Earth do you expect an anti-corporate politician to achieve anything in the most corporate nation on the planet without comprimising his ideals?

Now if RP ran as the republican vice-candidate, then I think Obama might have a problem.. If RP ran as the presidential candidate then Obama's victory is guaranteed.

Rigid Libertarians like the Paul Bots do not see their partisanship or political intransigence.  They see a large, broken mess and feel that their guy is some white knight who can ride in and save the day.  The one benefit I can see to a Paul presidency is that it would completely rip the blinders off the people.  They would see former foes join forces to defeat Paul's initiatives so they could maintain the status quo.  If America did not face desperate times I would love to see that show...but there is no time for that just now.

Paul can compromise to move legislation or he can have his base of support.  He cannot do both.
He would be the hand holding the veto pen - and that's all.

[preacherman76]

and then, on 28 February 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

Paul can compromise to move legislation or he can have his base of support.  He cannot do both.
He would be the hand holding the veto pen - and that's all.

I'll ignore the insult.

Paul isnt trying to pass legislation. Passing legislation has been the problem.

[Yamato]

Little Fish, on 28 February 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

LOVES IT!

[Yamato]

and then, on 28 February 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

They would see former foes join forces to defeat Paul's initiatives so they could maintain the status quo.  If America did not face desperate times I would love to see that show...but there is no time for that just now.

The "foes" are already joined together at the hip.  Maybe you missed the picture at the top of the thread?  

So even though you actually think there are profound differences between Barack Obama and yourself, please take me down the slope of "defeating Paul's initiatives" so I can see what that looks like.