Ron Paul

[rowand's rowdies]

another soldier talking about Dr. Paul.

FACT: The military donations are highest for Dr. Paul.

 

FACT: Ron has nearly as much and sometimes more experience than the rest of the field. He is also 72 years old and has seen a lot go down. He also hasn't suggested 100 years in Iraq like the other 70+ year old. He was in the Air Force in the Korean War, did you miss that in your reading? So maybe I don't need to read anymore. Thanks though for the suggestion. Did you get that from when Ron has suggested other candidates read up on different subjects they fail to know enough about?

He ran for President in 1988, which is before Obama was even in government.

Richardson and Biden are no longer in the race, so maybe your the one not in tune (again).

Dodd, who cares?

Thompson, oooo 10 years in Congress, only 7 behind Ron. Oh wait, many as a lobbyist? That's honorable. Maybe that's where he got his spunk and arrogance.

Huckabee, gov of Arkansas? Awesome, we had one of those already not too long ago. Apparently that's the way to get to become the President of the US.

Hilary? Are you kidding me. All we need is a President who will cry to get her way and/or votes (SHE DID DO THIS, SO I'M NOT GENDER BIASED). Do we need to have the Clintons and Bushs' running this country from 1988-2008+? That's the best we can do? No wonder we are focked.

Romney is just a jerk from what I see, don't like him flip flopping. He was gov of Massachussats, I guess he has some good experience, just don't like him.

Guliani, don't get me started. His own kids don't like him. He will start a personal war with the terrorists that attacked his city. That's 90% of his campaign.

Edwards is ok, just nothing special.

 

Anyone I missed?

[southsideirish71]

Nice botnets that Ron Paul supporters are hanging out with these days.

 

More of the Anti-Patriot Act crowd thumping for Paul.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

His resume seems to be line with the the candidates of both parties

 

I would say his experience is middle of the pack, if you count in Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, ect. I wouldn't say losing an election should disqualify anyone form running again. McCain has lost before, so has Romney, so has Edwards. Experience is not an issue with Ron Paul. He's not going to win the GOP nomination because of his political stances (mainly because of his consistent opposition to the Iraq war), not because of his lack of experience.

 

Biden and Dodd seem to have the most experience, and they aren't getting any votes.

 

another soldier talking about Dr. Paul.

FACT: The military donations are highest for Dr. Paul.

 

FACT: Ron has nearly as much and sometimes more experience than the rest of the field. He is also 72 years old and has seen a lot go down. He also hasn't suggested 100 years in Iraq like the other 70+ year old. He was in the Air Force in the Korean War, did you miss that in your reading? So maybe I don't need to read anymore. Thanks though for the suggestion. Did you get that from when Ron has suggested other candidates read up on different subjects they fail to know enough about?

He ran for President in 1988, which is before Obama was even in government.

Richardson and Biden are no longer in the race, so maybe your the one not in tune (again).

Dodd, who cares?

Thompson, oooo 10 years in Congress, only 7 behind Ron. Oh wait, many as a lobbyist? That's honorable. Maybe that's where he got his spunk and arrogance.

Huckabee, gov of Arkansas? Awesome, we had one of those already not too long ago. Apparently that's the way to get to become the President of the US.

Hilary? Are you kidding me. All we need is a President who will cry to get her way and/or votes (SHE DID DO THIS, SO I'M NOT GENDER BIASED). Do we need to have the Clintons and Bushs' running this country from 1988-2008+? That's the best we can do? No wonder we are focked.

Romney is just a jerk from what I see, don't like him flip flopping. He was gov of Massachussats, I guess he has some good experience, just don't like him.

Guliani, don't get me started. His own kids don't like him. He will start a personal war with the terrorists that attacked his city. That's 90% of his campaign.

Edwards is ok, just nothing special.

 

Anyone I missed?

 

You two seem to be equating experiences like House Rep the same as US Senator, Governor, etc. That's kind of like saying that a guy who spent 8 years in A-ball has more experience than someone playing at the major league level for 4 years. Its more years, but not in the same league.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Also, Alpha Dog is just trying to stir people up and refute everything just to make them mad. I do this, too. But not over the internet like a 9 year old. Just saying.

 

 

Do you even read what you type before you hit 'reply'? How about typing a sentence that doesn't sound like you cut & paste from a Ron Paul website? How about talking to the Soxtalk member serving in Iraq right now? Maybe you have seen the threads 'Nuke's War Diary'? You like Ron, good for you. Quit acting like everyone else is an idiot because they didn't drink the same Koolaid as you.

 

[EvilMonkey]

While being the small-government champion, Ron Paul sure loves him some pork (earmarks)!

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpoliti.../tx.14.paul.pdf

 

 

$400 million and 65 pages worth.

 

[mr_genius]

You two seem to be equating experiences like House Rep the same as US Senator, Governor, etc. That's kind of like saying that a guy who spent 8 years in A-ball has more experience than someone playing at the major league level for 4 years. Its more years, but not in the same league.

 

I don't think that is an accurate analogy. Serving in the House is comparable to being in the Senate. If you want to stay with baseball, it's more like comparing the AL to the NL.

[YASNY]

No, he didn't -- he clarified and said that while he may not agree with some of his other 'positions', he feels the constitution one is the most important point. You've taken that quote completely out of context.

 

Thank you for that. When he started throwing words like kook and koolaid into the conversation, I politely extracted myself from it and extracted I will remain. I have neither the time nor the desire to discuss an issue with someone that is so .... ummmm .... focused.

[EvilMonkey]

Thank you for that. When he started throwing words like kook and koolaid into the conversation, I politely extracted myself from it and extracted I will remain. I have neither the time nor the desire to discuss an issue with someone that is so .... ummmm .... focused.

Actually, I wrote "Mr. Paul may have some ideas that sound good, he has some that just sound nutty.". I never said he was a kook, or that you were a kook. You expressed the importance of the one issue above all others, and that is fine. I suggested you can't ignore all the rest, and you replied 'yes I can'. If you were merely saying that as a return 'jab', then fine, however I took it as that was the one issue that would be THE deciding one for you, and none of his other positions would matter. If not, sorry I misinterpreted what you wrote.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think that is an accurate analogy. Serving in the House is comparable to being in the Senate. If you want to stay with baseball, it's more like comparing the AL to the NL.

House Rep is not comparable to Senator. They are on a very different level. Not only is the Senate the senior house, we're also talking about the senior/higher 100 versus the lower 435. Its AAA over AA or A+. And Governors, having executive experience, I'd put well above the US House, and possibly above the US Senate as well.

 

[sox4lifeinPA]

House Rep is not comparable to Senator. They are on a very different level. Not only is the Senate the senior house, we're also talking about the senior/higher 100 versus the lower 435. Its AAA over AA or A+. And Governors, having executive experience, I'd put well above the US House, and possibly above the US Senate as well.

 

 

but Paul is a OBGYN, so that's a definite plus

[southsider2k5]

ya, i love the patriot act, and the internet being regulated. can't wait to be arrested for talking about illegal activities (non terrorist) on my cell phone and over the internet. maybe there can be a pop up saying "you've been arrested".

 

also, anyone who thinks we shouldn't pull out of Iraq immediatly, talk to (1) a current or recently former member of the military (who supports Ron much more than anyone else) (

) and (2) go enlist to make sure we leave the "right way". I'm sure they will take you, no matter what age.

 

I'm sure the never will be born children and grandchildren and so on of the US military members who will die before we finally leave thank you for your thoughts into why we should not leave right now.

 

And my theory on who should be President, IF NOTHING ELSE, is that it should be the MOST EXPERIENCED (check) and MOST KNOWLEDGABLE (check) person who wants the job. Simply.

 

Also, Alpha Dog is just trying to stir people up and refute everything just to make them mad. I do this, too. But not over the internet like a 9 year old. Just saying.

 

And when I made a legitimate fact based arguement in the fair tax thread, no one would answer it... Just saying.

 

[vandy125]

While being the small-government champion, Ron Paul sure loves him some pork (earmarks)!

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpoliti.../tx.14.paul.pdf

 

 

$400 million and 65 pages worth.

 

Here is a nice response to that for you to read up on if you want:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/phillips5.html

 

If you also go watch his Meet the Press interview on YouTube, he responds to it there in person. Basically, it comes down to this (from what I understand). The earmarks are already in place, and he is just getting his piece of the pie for who he represents. He votes "No" for any extra spending (hence the nickname of "Dr. No"). But, when the money is there, he gets his share. TIFWIW. If you just dig a little deeper there are answers to these "issues" that are commonly brought up.

[EvilMonkey]

Here is a nice response to that for you to read up on if you want:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/phillips5.html

 

If you also go watch his Meet the Press interview on YouTube, he responds to it there in person. Basically, it comes down to this (from what I understand). The earmarks are already in place, and he is just getting his piece of the pie for who he represents. He votes "No" for any extra spending (hence the nickname of "Dr. No"). But, when the money is there, he gets his share. TIFWIW. If you just dig a little deeper there are answers to these "issues" that are commonly brought up.

He votes no because he knows that they will happen anyway. It is a safe vote for him, or anyone else who wanted to try that. At least safe for now. As far as getting their share, that is the standard response for any of them in regards to their earmarks/pork. If it is wrong for Hillary to earmark money for a Woodstock museum, it is wrong for him to earmark money to market shrimp. However, I do realize that in this instance if he stood his principles and didn't take any earmarks, he would probably be voted out of office real fast. Oh, and the earmarks are in place because he, and others, PUT them in place. They don't just magically appear from the earmark fairy.

[mr_genius]

House Rep is not comparable to Senator. They are on a very different level. Not only is the Senate the senior house, we're also talking about the senior/higher 100 versus the lower 435. Its AAA over AA or A+. And Governors, having executive experience, I'd put well above the US House, and possibly above the US Senate as well.

 

Honestly, I think you underestimate the amount of government experience all those years in the House of Reps gives someone. For one thing, the house has exclusive rights to initiate revenue bills. Obviously a Senator's vote carries more weight than a House reps (because there are less Senators). He has more government experience than the top Democrats running, thats for sure. I'm just going to leave it at that, because I think you just made a blanket statement "Paul has the least experience" and now you're just going to stay with it no matter what.

Edited January 14, 2008 by mr_genius

[vandy125]

He votes no because he knows that they will happen anyway. It is a safe vote for him, or anyone else who wanted to try that. At least safe for now. As far as getting their share, that is the standard response for any of them in regards to their earmarks/pork. If it is wrong for Hillary to earmark money for a Woodstock museum, it is wrong for him to earmark money to market shrimp. However, I do realize that in this instance if he stood his principles and didn't take any earmarks, he would probably be voted out of office real fast. Oh, and the earmarks are in place because he, and others, PUT them in place. They don't just magically appear from the earmark fairy.

 

So, which is it, he puts them in place or not? You are saying both in this one statement right here. He votes against them all of the time. So, he is not the one putting them into place. The problem is the initial putting of the extra wasteful spending of money into place, not the taking of it once it is there.

 

What should someone in that position do? If they are voting against the extra money be spent in the first place, but are getting overridden, should they just watch the money get wasted elsewhere, or should they waste the money where it does the people good that they represent? Either way, it is wasting money (which was voted against in the first place).

 

Maybe I'm missing something here. I'm sure that you will let me know if I am.

[NorthSideSox72]

Honestly, I think you underestimate the amount of government experience all those years in the House of Reps gives someone. For one thing, the house has exclusive rights to initiate revenue bills. Obviously a Senator's vote carries more weight than a House reps (because there are less Senators). He has more government experience than the top Democrats running, thats for sure. I'm just going to leave it at that, because I think you just made a blanket statement "Paul has the least experience" and now you're just going to stay with it no matter what.

I said "nearly the LEAST experienced candidate in the field", not THE least. If you are going to put my quotes in quotes, then make it my quote.

 

And its still true. He is near the bottom of the list in experience. There are a few whose exprience is less - Giuliani definitely. Others have few years but higher level experience as Senators, or executive experience as Governors.

 

[mr_genius]

I said "nearly the LEAST experienced candidate in the field", not THE least. If you are going to put my quotes in quotes, then make it my quote.

 

And its still true. He is near the bottom of the list in experience. There are a few whose exprience is less - Giuliani definitely. Others have few years but higher level experience as Senators, or executive experience as Governors.

 

I don't agree with that. Hillary and Obama have less experience. The don't do jack in the Senate, and they've barely been in there. I also think you are putting too much weight on limited Senate experience.

 

Yes, I flip-flopped from my "I'm done with this discussion" statement.

Edited January 14, 2008 by mr_genius

[EvilMonkey]

So, which is it, he puts them in place or not? You are saying both in this one statement right here. He votes against them all of the time. So, he is not the one putting them into place. The problem is the initial putting of the extra wasteful spending of money into place, not the taking of it once it is there.

 

What should someone in that position do? If they are voting against the extra money be spent in the first place, but are getting overridden, should they just watch the money get wasted elsewhere, or should they waste the money where it does the people good that they represent? Either way, it is wasting money (which was voted against in the first place).

 

Maybe I'm missing something here. I'm sure that you will let me know if I am.

Actually, B.E. summed it up pretty well. I was pointing out the slight hypocrisy of taking the 'tainted money', even though he votes against it. Some of the earmarks he doesn't put in, like highway spending. You get the total amount of the pie, and each guy fights to get certain projects in their state/district to be ones specifically funded. So in those instances, he didn't specifically ask for money to be appropriated, but he sure as hell wants to have it spent in his district (which is usually a good thing for voters). Other earmarks are not quite the same, such as the money for shrink marketing and such. He (and others)asks for those. "he is abusing a broken system for the betterment of his citizens & acknowledges that - but votes against it because he knows the system is corrupt & he wants to change the system when he has the authority to try to so that that the system can not be abused anymore." So he hates pork, but takes it anyway for his constituents, while biting the government hand that feeds it in the hopes of stopping it. Someday. So it is a do-as-I-say, not do-as-I-do. Which I understand, otherwise he wouldn't be in office very long.

 

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't agree with that. Hillary and Obama have less experience. The don't do jack in the Senate, and they've barely been in there. I also think you are putting too much weight on limited Senate experience.

 

Yes, I flip-flopped from my "I'm done with this discussion" statement.

I definitely agree on Obama's 2 years in the Senate and a couple terms as a State Senator. Hillary too, for that matter. And Dennis Kucinich I think, though he's close. There are a few.

 

[iamshack]

I definitely agree on Obama's 2 years in the Senate and a couple terms as a State Senator. Hillary too, for that matter. And Dennis Kucinich I think, though he's close. There are a few.

 

Something to be said for Hilary's experience in the White House though, whether she was just First Lady or not.

 

She has real-world experience regarding the pressures, the heat of the spotlight, etc.

 

She has more experience than any of the other candidates, in some light.

[BigSqwert]

Something to be said for Hilary's experience in the White House though, whether she was just First Lady or not.

 

She has real-world experience regarding the pressures, the heat of the spotlight, etc.

 

She has more experience than any of the other candidates, in some light.

What experience did she get in the White House? In specifics. How is she different than Barbara or Laura Bush? How does that experience translate to being the leader of the only remaining superpower in the world?

[southsider2k5]

What experience did she get in the White House? In specifics. How is she different than Barbara or Laura Bush? How does that experience translate to being the leader of the only remaining superpower in the world?

 

That would be nice to know. She is the only one is the field who is referencing experience that can't be verified, and her camp is the one preventing this from taking place.

[Balta1701]

What experience did she get in the White House? In specifics. How is she different than Barbara or Laura Bush? How does that experience translate to being the leader of the only remaining superpower in the world?

Well, look, even as a person who is an Obama supporter I think that comparison is unfair. Hillary Clinton for example was certainly involved much more in policy making than Laura has been...I mean if nothing else you had the health care plan. That's a Hell of a lot more policy work than what Laura has done.

[kapkomet]

Well, look, even as a person who is an Obama supporter I think that comparison is unfair. Hillary Clinton for example was certainly involved much more in policy making than Laura has been...I mean if nothing else you had the health care plan. That's a Hell of a lot more policy work than what Laura has done.

Boy, what experience! She has experience in something by all accounts was a TOTAL failure. Now she's TOTALLY electable!

 

[iamshack]

When I brought up her experience I stated exactly what I meant- her experience dealing with the pressures, the limelight, etc. She has real-world experience which allows her to understand what to expect when you are the leader of the free world. That, in and of itself, is valuable.

 

Talk about how other candidates have experience as Senators, and as Reps, but many of them can't run an effective Presidential campaign, let alone run the country.

 

I'm no Hilary supporter- I am an Obama supporter- but I don't think you can take away the very unique real-world experience that Hilary has.

 

And that is not even counting whatever involvement she had in policy-making. I know I can't prove that, so I won't buoy my argument with it. But to compare her to Barbara or Laura in regards to her involvement as First Lady is really not an accurate analogy.