View Full Version : Ron Paul is running!!!
Eliseus
03-13-2007, 02:52 PM
http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/
WHOO-HOO!!!!
Digging4Truth
03-13-2007, 02:54 PM
I am going to send in a form to change my party affiliation so I can vote for him as teh Repub candidate.
Eliseus
03-13-2007, 03:00 PM
Here it is!
Yes, D4T, I will register as a Republican to put this man into office.
I pray that the entire Constitution PArty comes on board for this one. It's the only way.
Digging4Truth
03-13-2007, 03:03 PM
Here it is!
Yes, D4T, I will register as a Republican to put this man into office.
I pray that the entire Constitution PArty comes on board for this one. It's the only way.
All 3rd parties need to lay down their differences and come on over and get this man through.
It is time to combine powers and get somebody in there that will remember the Constitution.
He has raised over 1/2 million in the short amount of time that he has had his exploratory website up. The people are jumping on this one.
I haven't donated yet... I just learned about the website... but I will be donating for sure and I have never donated to a political party or candidate in my entire life.
Praxeas
03-13-2007, 03:07 PM
All 3rd parties need to lay down their differences and come on over and get this man through.
It is time to combine powers and get somebody in there that will remember the Constitution.
He has raised over 1/2 million in the short amount of time that he has had his exploratory website up. The people are jumping on this one.
I haven't donated yet... I just learned about the website... but I will be donating for sure and I have never donated to a political party or candidate in my entire life.
Most republicans will vote for someone they think is a mainstreamer....look at CC1. That's just how they are. It's like people who buy only name brand medications instead of generics...even though they aren't getting something better, they think they are because it's "name brand"
Pressing-On
03-13-2007, 03:12 PM
All 3rd parties need to lay down their differences and come on over and get this man through.
It is time to combine powers and get somebody in there that will remember the Constitution.
He has raised over 1/2 million in the short amount of time that he has had his exploratory website up. The people are jumping on this one.
I haven't donated yet... I just learned about the website... but I will be donating for sure and I have never donated to a political party or candidate in my entire life.
Totally agree with you here, Digging! I will support him financially. I have never wanted to do that before either.
BTW, don't beat me - BUT - I don't think he can win. Nonetheless, I'm going to financially support him and when it gets down to the wire I'm not sure I will vote for him.
Should I leave now? lol!
Esther
03-13-2007, 03:33 PM
Totally agree with you here, Digging! I will support him financially. I have never wanted to do that before either.
BTW, don't beat me - BUT - I don't think he can win. Nonetheless, I'm going to financially support him and when it gets down to the wire I'm not sure I will vote for him.
Should I leave now? lol!
Why would you give him financial support IF you don't plan to vote for him???
Pressing-On
03-13-2007, 03:52 PM
Why would you give him financial support IF you don't plan to vote for him???
Because I would like for him to win and I trust him. He isn't going to win, but I respect him so much as a person that I would help his campaign. If he pulls it off and comes out in front I will vote for him.
What I can't do is let Hillary have my vote if it's between the Republicans and the Democrats, which it has always been and I don't see that changing in 2008.
Totally agree with you here, Digging! I will support him financially. I have never wanted to do that before either.
BTW, don't beat me - BUT - I don't think he can win. Nonetheless, I'm going to financially support him and when it gets down to the wire I'm not sure I will vote for him.
Should I leave now? lol!So, you're going to commit the sin of gambling by voting for the person you think is going to win?
I'm interested in hearing what he has to say .
BUT!!! remember this !!!
If a large group of republicans jumped on board and voted for him,
that's a automatic shoe in for Ms Hillary.
at Least guiliani will elect conservative judges
Pressing-On
03-13-2007, 04:21 PM
So, you're going to commit the sin of gambling by voting for the person you think is going to win?
Yes, Chancellor. More than likely I am going to gamble.
I'm interested in hearing what he has to say .
BUT!!! remember this !!!
If a large group of republicans jumped on board and voted for him,
that's a automatic shoe in for Ms Hillary.You presume she's going to get the Democrat nomination.
at Least guiliani will elect conservative judgesDon't be too sure about that. Even if he did, that doesn't mean they're going to be judges that follow the Constitution. Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor and she turned out to be one of the worst internationalists ever. She even went so far as to say the Court should look not only to the laws of other countries but even to world opinion in order to interpret our Constitution (even though there is nothing in Article III of the Constitution that even gives the Court the authority to interpret the Constitution).
Pressing-On
03-13-2007, 04:24 PM
You presume she's going to get the Democrat nomination.
Don't be too sure about that. Even if he did, that doesn't mean they're going to be judges that follow the Constitution. Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor and she turned out to be one of the worst internationalists ever. She even went so far as to say the Court should look not only to the laws of other countries but even to world opinion in order to interpret our Constitution (even though there is nothing in Article III of the Constitution that even gives the Court the authority to interpret the Constitution).
Very true, Chancellor and an excellent point!
Digging4Truth
03-13-2007, 04:43 PM
I'm interested in hearing what he has to say .
BUT!!! remember this !!!
If a large group of republicans jumped on board and voted for him,
that's a automatic shoe in for Ms Hillary.
at Least guiliani will elect conservative judges
Right now this is just a run for the candidacy. If he wins the republican candidacy then republicans will vote for republicans just like republicans have always voted for republicans.
As a matter of fact a lot of 3rd party people are switching their party affiliation to help get Ron Paul in.
When a good candidate ever gets in it will be over the dead bodies of all of the speculators and naysayers who constantly deluge us with their predictions of doom and gloom.
He is the most "republican" republican to run in a long time.
Digging4Truth
03-13-2007, 04:45 PM
The quote keeps coming to mind...
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
The only thing that can beat us is our own feelings of self defeat
Digging4Truth
03-13-2007, 04:52 PM
Totally agree with you here, Digging! I will support him financially. I have never wanted to do that before either.
BTW, don't beat me - BUT - I don't think he can win. Nonetheless, I'm going to financially support him and when it gets down to the wire I'm not sure I will vote for him.
Should I leave now? lol!
No ma'am.... you shouldn't leave... but you should get over the defeatist position you hold.
This country is ready for a return to the Constitution.
Ron Paul is running....into the ditch.
Digging4Truth
03-13-2007, 05:06 PM
Ron Paul is running....into the ditch.
We are all aware of you solidly made up mind Ferd... Thanks for the reminder.
If any of you think Ron Paul has a chance of getting anywhere in his Presidential bid you are smoking crack cocaine or incredibly naive when it comes to politics.
He not only cannot win he will not get but a percentage or two of the vote if he runs as a third party canidate. Probably just enough to insure the Republican loses to the Democrat as the crazy midget Ross Perot did in 1992.
Eliseus
03-13-2007, 10:08 PM
CC1, Ron is running for REPUBLICAN nominee for President.
berkeley
03-13-2007, 10:10 PM
I recently re-registered as a Democrat.
Eliseus
03-13-2007, 10:17 PM
Traitor!!!!!
:(
berkeley
03-13-2007, 10:22 PM
Traitor!!!!!
:(
Well, I figure, when the Democrats take over they will put the Republicans in stock and bonds!! :heeheehee
CC1, Ron is running for REPUBLICAN nominee for President.
That makes things simple then since he won't get anywhere. If you look up the term "fringe canidate" in the unabridged dictionary there is a color picture of him!!!!!!!!!!!!11:killinme
Eliseus
03-13-2007, 10:52 PM
Well, CC and Ferd will support the good ole boy network, while the rest of us will support Ron Paul.
I spoke to two people just this afternoon, telling them Ron Paul is running, it's official.
They both said they will now register and vote for him.
One of those people has NEVER voted, and the other hasn't voted since Reagan ran against Carter.
Just because Ron Paul is running for President...
Eliseus
03-13-2007, 10:54 PM
Correction - I think it was the Reagan-Mondale election, not Reagan-Carter...
If any of you think Ron Paul has a chance of getting anywhere in his Presidential bid you are smoking crack cocaine or incredibly naive when it comes to politics.
He not only cannot win he will not get but a percentage or two of the vote if he runs as a third party canidate. Probably just enough to insure the Republican loses to the Democrat as the crazy midget Ross Perot did in 1992.If you vote based on who has the better chance of getting elected, you are committing the sin of gambling. You might as well just go place a bet on the Kentucky Derby.
Political parties and candidates become viable (have a chance of getting anywhere) when people VOTE for them.
Of coruse, it isn't about who has the best chance of winning, it's about voting based on which candidate or party best fits one's political values.
Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same, unconstitutional, big government coin.
Well, CC and Ferd will support the good ole boy network, while the rest of us will support Ron Paul.
I spoke to two people just this afternoon, telling them Ron Paul is running, it's official.
They both said they will now register and vote for him.
One of those people has NEVER voted, and the other hasn't voted since Reagan ran against Carter.
Just because Ron Paul is running for President...
Loosing on principle is the same thing as loosing.
If you vote based on who has the better chance of getting elected, you are committing the sin of gambling. You might as well just go place a bet on the Kentucky Derby.
Political parties and candidates become viable (have a chance of getting anywhere) when people VOTE for them.
Of coruse, it isn't about who has the best chance of winning, it's about voting based on which candidate or party best fits one's political values.
Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same, unconstitutional, big government coin.
this boys and girls is what we call a common myth.
even if i cant spell very well.
Digging4Truth
03-14-2007, 09:55 AM
Loosing on principle is the same thing as loosing.
When one stands by their principles then they never truly lose.
When one stands by their principles then they never truly lose.
LOL! right.
so if the principle is loosing, do you win when you lose?
Digging4Truth
03-14-2007, 09:57 AM
this boys and girls is what we call a common myth.
even if i cant spell very well.
Thus continues the constant negative spew...
Is it alright with you that we view Ron Paul as our candidate?
It is alright with you if this is our opinion?
Can you allow someone to have their opinion without having to constantly tolerate you continual spew of condescending verbage?
this boys and girls is what we call a common myth.
even if i cant spell very well.Just look at the behavior of both parties in Congress since the late 1990s.
LOL! right.
so if the principle is loosing, do you win when you lose?
Yes, the principle is loosing - loosing the government from its bondage to ever-increasing budgets, programs and interference in the lives of the citizenry.
Esther
03-14-2007, 10:00 AM
I have to know where the candiate stands in regards to abortion and gay rights. If they support either one I can NOT vote for them!
Digging4Truth
03-14-2007, 10:03 AM
I have to know where the candiate stands in regards to abortion and gay rights. If they support either one I can NOT vote for them!
Can you support them if they are staunchly pro-life and yet recognize that the regulation of the issue of abortion is not an authority granted to the federal governement and should be handled on the state level and will, therefore, stand by the constitution and leave these decisions to the states?
I have to know where the candiate stands in regards to abortion and gay rights. If they support either one I can NOT vote for them!Well, that leaves out the Republicans (except for Ron Paul) and the Democrats.
Thus continues the constant negative spew...
Is it alright with you that we view Ron Paul as our candidate?
It is alright with you if this is our opinion?
Can you allow someone to have their opinion without having to constantly tolerate you continual spew of condescending verbage?
Spew? LOL! yet another example of someone getting indignant when someone disagrees.
D4T, you have my permission to think what ever you want. do you feel better now?
Esther
03-14-2007, 10:09 AM
Can you support them if they are staunchly pro-life and yet recognize that the regulation of the issue of abortion is not an authority granted to the federal governement and should be handled on the state level and will, therefore, stand by the constitution and leave these decisions to the states?
I will support them IF they support prolife for young and old and do not support special right for gays.
The things that are an abomination to God, how can I vote for that person in good conscience?
I can't.
I will support them IF they support prolife for young and old and do not support special right for gays.
The things that are an abomination to God, how can I vote for that person in good conscience?
I can't.
Then perhaps you should consider the Constitution Party.
Pressing-On
03-14-2007, 10:40 AM
Excellent article on Ron Paul.
Ron Paul, the Real Republican?
Tuesday , February 20, 2007
By Radley Balko
When you read about a vote in Congress that goes something like 412-1, odds are pretty good that the sole "nay" came from Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.
He so consistently votes against widely popular bills, in fact, that the Washington Post recently gave him the moniker "Congressman 'No.'"
Paul isn't a reflexive contrarian--he doesn't oppose just to oppose. Rather, he has a core set of principles that guide him. They happen to be the same principles envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution: limited government, federalism, free trade and commerce -- with a premium on peace.
When most members of Congress see a bill for the first time, they immediately judge the bill on its merits, or if you're more cynical, they determine what the political interests that support them will think of it, or how it might benefit their constituents.
For Paul, the vast majority of bills don't get that far. He first asks, "Does the Constitution authorize Congress to pass this law?" Most of the time, the answer to that question is "no." And so Paul votes accordingly.
This hasn't won him many friends in Congress, or, for that matter, his own party. It hasn't won him influential committee assignments or powerful chairmanships, either. Those are generally handed out to the party animals who vote as they're told. An incorruptible man of principle in a corrupt body almost utterly devoid of principle, Paul is often a caucus of one.
Paul recently announced his intentions to run for president in 2008. For the few of us who still care about limited government, individual rights, and a sensible foreign policy, Paul's candidacy is terrific news. Not because he's likely to win. He's a not-terribly-powerful Congressman who's a pariah in his own party – which also happens to be the minority party. Not the ideal presidential dossier.
Paul has already run for president once, on the Libertarian Party ticket. He returned to Congress as a Republican in 1996, even though the party machinery opposed him in the primary. He has since won re-election with progressively larger margins of victory, bucking the conventional wisdom about the political value of pork barrel spending and district patronage. Paul, for example, refuses to support federal farm subsidies, despite the fact that much of his district relies on agriculture. His constituents re-elect him anyway.
Paul's presence in the race is important because he'll put issues on the table that would otherwise be completely ignored. His presence in the primary debates alone will make them far more substantive and interesting than they've been in a generation. One example is the continuing disaster that is the drug war, which Paul rightly believes to be both immoral and unconstitutional. Paul also opposed the war in Iraq from its inception. Those two issues alone will differentiate him from every other candidate on the stage.
But Paul can then swing to the right of every other candidate on federal spending, regulation, the Nanny State, and the growth of government. On these issues, he can reliably and credibly serve as the party's conscience, and browbeat the sitting senators and congressmen running for president for their votes issues like the prescription drug benefit, the surge in federal spending, and the party's complicity in the corrupt earmarking process.
I don't agree with Paul on everything. His stance on monetary policy (he wants to return to the gold standard) is a bit out-there for my taste. He favors strict limits on legal immigration, and is far more alarmist about illegal immigration than I think is necessary.
Of course, the immigration issue will likely be a benefit, not a liability, to Paul in the primaries. He's also a registered OB/GYN who has delivered more than 4,000 babies – and is anti-abortion.
While Paul probably can't win the GOP nomination, there's a chance he can survive deep enough into the primaries to foster a national debate on issues like drug prohibition, as well as force the Republican Party to do some soul-searching, and perhaps reconnect with its limited government, Barry Goldwater roots.
Ideally, Paul's bona fides on immigration, abortion, federalism, constitutionalism, and limited government will win him credibility with and respect from primary voters, giving him leverage to take principled stands and spur discussion on issues like the drug war, privacy, foreign policy, and civil liberties. He could at least win enough votes and support to last well into the spring, forcing the other candidates to adopt parts of his agenda, and the press to cover his platform.
Under the less optimistic scenario, Republican Party leaders, primary opponents, and the punditocracy punish Paul for his principles, and demagogue his position on Iraq, the drug war, and federal meddling in our personal lives. Talk radio, conservative leaders, and the party machinery dismiss him as an unserious candidate, and primary voters take their cue. Under this scenario, Paul bows out early, the remaining candidates press on with business as usual, and the Republican Party continues down its unfortunate recent trajectory.
Which scenario plays out probably depends on how much primary voters actually care about the GOP's recent embrace of big government. That is, which is more important to core Republican voters: Limited government, or using big government to promote a conservative agenda?
Ronald Reagan once said that libertarianism is "the very heart and soul of conservatism" (Reagan was great at communicating the princples of limited government, if less great at actually implementing them). Of all the candidates so far declared, only Paul can credibly lay claim to the legacy of the Reagan-Goldwater revolution. How well he does, how long he lasts, and who ends up defeating him will reveal whether there's any limited government allegiance at all still stirring the Republican Party.
Radley Balko is a senior editor with Reason magazine. He publishes the weblog, TheAgitator.com.
Digging4Truth
03-14-2007, 10:51 AM
Thanks for sharing that PO
Eliseus
03-14-2007, 01:51 PM
This "pragmatism in voting" theory is exactly why we have the mess we have today with the national GOP machinery.
"If you vote for someone who REALLY is a conservative Constitutionalist, they won't win and you will have voted for a loser, therefore you need to just vote for the Good Ole Boy we put in front of you cause it's only the Good Ole Boys who stand a chance to save you from the evil Demoncrats!"
Pure baloney.
We have swung back and forth from Republican to Democrat leadership in the White House and the Congress, and where are we today?
Nuff said.
This "pragmatism in voting" theory is exactly why we have the mess we have today with the national GOP machinery.
"If you vote for someone who REALLY is a conservative Constitutionalist, they won't win and you will have voted for a loser, therefore you need to just vote for the Good Ole Boy we put in front of you cause it's only the Good Ole Boys who stand a chance to save you from the evil Demoncrats!"
Pure baloney.
We have swung back and forth from Republican to Democrat leadership in the White House and the Congress, and where are we today?
Nuff said.
eman, balony aint half bad if you fry it up a little.
I will tell you what is worse than fried baloney. the notion that your principals are satisfied by LOOSING. that is just plain wrong.
everybody wants to win but I sure dont see you guys going out and doing what it takes to win. the constitutin party is trying to microwave themselves to victory. it dont work like that.
all you third party guys are trying ot build yourselves penthouse suits but you havent even taken the time to dig out a foundation. that is what is worse than fried baloney
Spew? LOL! yet another example of someone getting indignant when someone disagrees.
D4T, you have my permission to think what ever you want. do you feel better now?
bump for Digging....
Digging4Truth
03-14-2007, 02:53 PM
bump for Digging....
I had chosen not to answer hoping you would lose interest.
What did you need me to say? I was assuming your question was rhetorical in nature.
I will tell you what is worse than fried baloney. the notion that your principals are satisfied by LOOSING. that is just plain wrong.My principles (I don't have any principals) are satisfied by loosing - by setting free - a government that is in bondage.
everybody wants to win but I sure dont see you guys going out and doing what it takes to win. the constitutin party is trying to microwave themselves to victory. it dont work like that. Typical, selfish, worldly attitude! It's all about winning with people like you. Go ahead and prostitute yourself to the horse with the best showing and show yourself to be the mindless sheeple that the Democrats and Republicans believe you to be.
all you third party guys are trying ot build yourselves penthouse suits but you havent even taken the time to dig out a foundation. that is what is worse than fried baloneyThis is proof you don't know what you're talking about. Go look at the history of some of these other parties. Here's a brief history of the Libertarian Party: http://www.lp.org/organization/history.shtml
If you want to use the force of government to make others pay for your favorite social programs, you might be a Democrat.
If you want to use the power of government to control other people’s relationships and personal decisions, you might be a Republican.
If you want to use the government to demand tax dollars for your latest environmental fad, you might be a Green.
If you believe the only moral basis for government is the protection of individual rights; if you believe the use of aggressive force can never be justified; if you believe “ that government is best which governs the least” as Thomas Jefferson did, you might be a Libertarian.
I had chosen not to answer hoping you would lose interest.
What did you need me to say? I was assuming your question was rhetorical in nature.
hey, you are the one who wanted my permission.... just wanted to make sure you knew you had it... didnt want you to loose sleep.
Bro, really. we dont agree. so what? as brother Epley says, this place is a spit and whittle corner. its what we do. I dont agree with you and will say so. I expect you to do the same.
Pressing-On
03-14-2007, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Ferd,
I will tell you what is worse than fried baloney. the notion that your principles are satisfied by LOOSING. that is just plain wrong.
Chancellor, IMO, Ferd has a great point.
Digging4Truth
03-14-2007, 03:15 PM
Chancellor, IMO, Ferd has a great point.
No one ever said that their principles are satisified BY losing.
What fool would finally feel satisfied if they lost.
All people are saying is that standing by their principles are more important than being on the winning side.
Also... Ron Paul is running for the Republican Candidacy... he isn't running third party...
Do you feel it necessary to vote for one of the other possible Republican Candidates rather than Ron Paul? Just asking....
I don't understand why voting for Ron Paul rather than the other Republican presidential candidates is problematic.
I come closer to seeing the problem if he was running 3rd party... or... like Ferd... if you just don't like the guy.... but you like him... so why do you feel it is a bad thing to vote for him in the Republican Presidential Primary?
My principles (I don't have any principals) are satisfied by loosing - by setting free - a government that is in bondage.
Typical, selfish, worldly attitude! It's all about winning with people like you. Go ahead and prostitute yourself to the horse with the best showing and show yourself to be the mindless sheeple that the Democrats and Republicans believe you to be.
This is proof you don't know what you're talking about. Go look at the history of some of these other parties. Here's a brief history of the Libertarian Party: http://www.lp.org/organization/history.shtml
If you want to use the force of government to make others pay for your favorite social programs, you might be a Democrat.
If you want to use the power of government to control other people’s relationships and personal decisions, you might be a Republican.
If you want to use the government to demand tax dollars for your latest environmental fad, you might be a Green.
If you believe the only moral basis for government is the protection of individual rights; if you believe the use of aggressive force can never be justified; if you believe “ that government is best which governs the least” as Thomas Jefferson did, you might be a Libertarian.
nice. Ive got a typical worldly attitude because I care about winning. Dude, you may know something about worldy attitudes, oh say like a haughty spirit?
Here is the FACTUAL history of these third parties. THEY AINT WON JACK yet they run some dude for president like it matters and call me worldly for not voting for their brand of mad dog 20/20. lay off that stuff man it will make you go blind!
you want history? look at real history. Third Parties win when they start working from the ground and build something substantial.
just go vote for ron paul and be proud of yourself Chan.
Digging4Truth
03-14-2007, 03:17 PM
nice. Ive got a typical worldly attitude because I care about winning. Dude, you may know something about worldy attitudes, oh say like a haughty spirit?
Here is the FACTUAL history of these third parties. THEY AINT WON JACK yet they run some dude for president like it matters and call me worldly for not voting for their brand of mad dog 20/20. lay off that stuff man it will make you go blind!
you want history? look at real history. Third Parties win when they start working from the ground and build something substantial.
just go vote for ron paul and be proud of yourself Chan.
Ron Paul is NOT running 3rd party...
Chancellor, IMO, Ferd has a great point.
Yes, it's a great principle. Imagine loosing the government from its bondage to our tax dollars and to controlling our lives.
Pressing-On
03-14-2007, 03:20 PM
No one ever said that their principles are satisfied BY losing.
What fool would finally feel satisfied if they lost.
All people are saying is that standing by their principles are more important than being on the winning side.
Also... Ron Paul is running for the Republican Candidacy... he isn't running third party...
Do you feel it necessary to vote for one of the other possible Republican Candidates rather than Ron Paul? Just asking....
I don't understand why voting for Ron Paul rather than the other Republican presidential candidates is problematic.
I come closer to seeing the problem if he was running 3rd party... or... like Ferd... if you just don't like the guy.... but you like him... so why do you feel it is a bad thing to vote for him in the Republican Presidential Primary?
He, of course, Digging is just making a point. How can you vote for someone that is going to lose and you know they are going to lose? It's like giving your vote away.
We virtually stay on top of the whole process and know the outcome before it comes. I knew Gore wasn't going to win as much as you did.
Ron Paul is running on the Republican ticket and I will be watching that very closely.
I think, though, at this time security is on the minds of every American and Giuliani knows how to bring it. I'm not sure this country is that concerned about our Constitution. They don't really believe it's in as much jeopardy, IMO. Or at least they are more concerned with others issues.
Pressing-On
03-14-2007, 03:22 PM
Yes, it's a great principle. Imagine loosing the government from its bondage to our tax dollars and to controlling our lives.
I can't imagine what it would be like to sit and have a cup of coffee with you. lol!
I do like your posting style, Chancellor. Please don't get me wrong.
Digging4Truth
03-14-2007, 03:23 PM
He, of course, Digging is just making a point. How can you vote for someone that is going to lose and you know they are going to lose? It's like giving your vote away.
Ahhhhhhhhhh... See I am not as clairevoyant and do not know that he is going to lose.
Pressing-On
03-14-2007, 03:26 PM
Ahhhhhhhhhh... See I am not as clairevoyant and do not know that he is going to lose.
LOL! I wish he would win. I just don't see it yet. Let' see as time progresses.
Digging4Truth
03-14-2007, 03:29 PM
LOL! I wish he would win. I just don't see it yet. Let' see as time progresses.
Indeed... a good ol' honest... lets see... is all one can ask. :)
nice. Ive got a typical worldly attitude because I care about winning. Dude, you may know something about worldy attitudes, oh say like a haughty spirit?Yes, being more concerned about winning than about principle is a worldly attitude.
Here is the FACTUAL history of these third parties. THEY AINT WON JACK yet they run some dude for president like it matters and call me worldly for not voting for their brand of mad dog 20/20. lay off that stuff man it will make you go blind!The factual history is that there are two Independents (a third party) in Congress. Jesse Ventura was governor of Minnesota under the Reform Party (a third party). There are various local offices that are, in fact, held by third party people.
you want history? look at real history. Third Parties win when they start working from the ground and build something substantial. Parties win when people VOTE for them.
just go vote for ron paul and be proud of yourself Chan.If he wins the Republican nomination, perhaps. Otherwise, since I'm not a Republican, I won't be voting in the primary. As for being proud, pride is sin.
I tell you this much. I am not making any dicisions about who i am voting for right now. there are more than a few out there and the field needs to clear up. right now we dont even know who is running...
I like Fred Thompson. he is an actor! they make great presidents, or so ive heard.
No one ever said that their principles are satisified BY losing.
What fool would finally feel satisfied if they lost.
All people are saying is that standing by their principles are more important than being on the winning side.
Also... Ron Paul is running for the Republican Candidacy... he isn't running third party...
Do you feel it necessary to vote for one of the other possible Republican Candidates rather than Ron Paul? Just asking....
I don't understand why voting for Ron Paul rather than the other Republican presidential candidates is problematic.
I come closer to seeing the problem if he was running 3rd party... or... like Ferd... if you just don't like the guy.... but you like him... so why do you feel it is a bad thing to vote for him in the Republican Presidential Primary?
and I am saying it is better than having half of what you want than all of nothing
Digging4Truth
03-14-2007, 03:34 PM
Ferd... you do realize that Ron Paul is not running 3rd party do you not?
Ferd... you do realize that Ron Paul is not running 3rd party do you not?
I realize that Ron Paul will be listed as a republican. he will be running for the republican primary.
The third party stuff was for our friend Chan who is a third party guy.
Ron Paul is somewhere between a constitutionalist and a Liberatarian. kind of a "Libratarian with morals" so he is kind of but not quite, not a republian.
He, of course, Digging is just making a point. How can you vote for someone that is going to lose and you know they are going to lose? It's like giving your vote away.But that's the wrong way to look at voting. What he's doing is the same thing as the sin of gambling - he's voting based on who he thinks is going to win. It is the responsibility of citizens in a government that is by, of and for the people to vote for whoever is the best person for the job and whoever's positions are constitutional.
We virtually stay on top of the whole process and know the outcome before it comes. I knew Gore wasn't going to win as much as you did.Again, it's the horse race mentality.
Ron Paul is running on the Republican ticket and I will be watching that very closely.The Republican establishment is going to do whatever it can to push him aside.
I think, though, at this time security is on the minds of every American and Giuliani knows how to bring it. I'm not sure this country is that concerned about our Constitution. They don't really believe it's in as much jeopardy, IMO. Or at least they are more concerned with others issues.
Those willing to sacrifice liberty for a little security and who are willing to trample on the Constitution for a little security are entitled to neither liberty nor security. And the time will come when they will be denied both.
Digging4Truth
03-14-2007, 03:40 PM
I realize that Ron Paul will be listed as a republican. he will be running for the republican primary.
The third party stuff was for our friend Chan who is a third party guy.
Ron Paul is somewhere between a constitutionalist and a Liberatarian. kind of a "Libratarian with morals" so he is kind of but not quite, not a republian.
Okay.. Cool...
Alright... How about some regular old fashioned discussion?
Desiring to hear your opinion I ask....
For what reasons do you feel that Ron Paul is not quite a republican. If you would... cite specific issues (some documentation would be nice but I will not require it... I will look it up myself if need be)
In advance... thanks for your thoughful answer.
Okay.. Cool...
Alright... How about some regular old fashioned discussion?
Desiring to hear your opinion I ask....
For what reasons do you feel that Ron Paul is not quite a republican. If you would... cite specific issues (some documentation would be nice but I will not require it... I will look it up myself if need be)
In advance... thanks for your thoughful answer.
It seems to me that Ron Paul is the only real Republican in the whole bunch. There was a time when the Republican Party (or at least a significant portion of it) favored less government, lower taxes, "conservative" positions on social issues, and so on.
Pressing-On
03-14-2007, 04:17 PM
Chan;But that's the wrong way to look at voting. What he's doing is the same thing as the sin of gambling - he's voting based on who he thinks is going to win. It is the responsibility of citizens in a government that is by, of and for the people to vote for whoever is the best person for the job and whoever's positions are constitutional.
Chancellor,
How can you call it gambling when no money is laid on the table? It's not like bets on a football game.
Again, it's the horse race mentality.
Politics is a race in every way.
The Republican establishment is going to do whatever it can to push him aside.
I so totally agree with you here!
Those willing to sacrifice liberty for a little security and who are willing to trample on the Constitution for a little security are entitled to neither liberty nor security. And the time will come when they will be denied both.
You are so right and I blame that on our educational system.
Pressing-On
03-14-2007, 04:18 PM
It seems to me that Ron Paul is the only real Republican in the whole bunch. There was a time when the Republican Party (or at least a significant portion of it) favored less government, lower taxes, "conservative" positions on social issues, and so on.
You are right, Chancellor, he is. You would really like him if you met him in person. I don't see how he has kept such a gentle nature being involved so long in politics.
Eliseus
03-14-2007, 04:49 PM
Great. Threads moved "out of the way", relegated to the back forty of the AFF.
I'm done with this place.
Digging4Truth
03-14-2007, 04:55 PM
Well it is a political discussion.... It does appear that it would belong where it has been moved to.
i will admit that I have posted threads of a political nature in the Fellowship Hlall because I am used to there being a News section and a Politics section. When I did not see a politics section I posted in the FH....
I have only recently read the description for the News section and saw that it does also include politics.
Also... I use the New Posts option to the areas in which a post is contained is of no consequence to me.
Digging4Truth
03-15-2007, 09:31 AM
A current poll on those running for president.
Click here (http://groups.google.com/group/teamtexas/browse_thread/thread/20df85cc93e6f4e0?hl=en) and then click on the link at the bottom of the article.
In advance of commentary on the obvious.
Not a scientific poll... aware.
Being a Texas group it might be biased... aware.
This isn't an election... aware.
This is pretty interesting though... aware. :)
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.