http://www.tomwoods.com/cain

Figures. Ron Paul supporter.

BTW, how long has 'ole Ron been in Congress again?

(09-29-2011 06:17 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Figures. Ron Paul supporter.

BTW, how long has 'ole Ron been in Congress again?

A very smart Ron Paul supporter.

Something like 24 years I believe.

(09-29-2011 06:25 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  Something like 24 years I believe.

Exactly.

(09-29-2011 06:32 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:25 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  Something like 24 years I believe.

Exactly.

I'm confused. What about him spending 1/4 of a century as a congressman trying to change America makes him unelectable?

(09-29-2011 06:45 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:32 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:25 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  Something like 24 years I believe.

Exactly.

I'm confused. What about him spending 1/4 of a century as a congressman trying to change America makes him unelectable?

He's been part of the problem. I'm tired of politicians and he has a 1/4 of a century showing him to be just that.

(09-29-2011 06:54 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:45 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:32 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:25 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  Something like 24 years I believe.

Exactly.

I'm confused. What about him spending 1/4 of a century as a congressman trying to change America makes him unelectable?

He's been part of the problem. I'm tired of politicians and he has a 1/4 of a century showing him to be just that.

Find me what, exactly, he has on his 25 year record that makes him part of the problem. Don't be an idiot or a hater, you know he's far from part of the problem.

So tell me, how has he been part of the problem? What has he done to show that he is just another politician?

If you want to hate him for not being a blood thirsty warmonger, fine. Don't just say bull **** though.

Dak, I don't support "Warmongers", so what are you trying to say?

(09-29-2011 06:54 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:45 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:32 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:25 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  Something like 24 years I believe.

Exactly.

I'm confused. What about him spending 1/4 of a century as a congressman trying to change America makes him unelectable?

He's been part of the problem. I'm tired of politicians and he has a 1/4 of a century showing him to be just that.

So the guy who has been fighting for sound fiscal policy and civil liberties for decades, and who accurately predicted the housing bubble/financial crisis, is "part of the problem," but the guy who has worked for the Fed, supported the bailouts, and completely failed to see the recession coming is not?

(09-30-2011 08:44 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:54 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:45 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:32 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:25 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  Something like 24 years I believe.

Exactly.

I'm confused. What about him spending 1/4 of a century as a congressman trying to change America makes him unelectable?

He's been part of the problem. I'm tired of politicians and he has a 1/4 of a century showing him to be just that.

So the guy who has been fighting for sound fiscal policy and civil liberties for decades, and who accurately predicted the housing bubble/financial crisis, is "part of the problem," but the guy who has worked for the Fed, supported the bailouts, and completely failed to see the recession coming is not?

Sound fiscal policy...really? Foreign policy = . Not to mention he's been in office for 25 years and hasn't changed a damn thing..so how is he effective? We've been down this road before...if he runs against Obama he'll lose...PERIOD! If he tries to get on the ticket with the DEM/GOP nominee's he'll be nothing more than a distraction and cost us the Presidency for another four years. Get off this bandwagon...its going nowhere.

Oh, and lets not forget to mention that now he's condemning the killing of the American traitor who renounced his citizenship and openly declared war on the US. But Ron Paul thinks this guy deserves a trial...he's an enemy combatant and deserves what he got. Ron Paul is a nut job and frankly so are you if you think he would/can be our next POTUS.

Yes, sound fiscal policy. Who in congress over the last 25 years has had more knowledge on the subject? His foreign policy is only that of a true conservative. If he runs against Obama he'll lose? Explain these:

From Rasmussen last month-"Paul, whose long run afoul of the GOP establishment with his libertarian policy prescriptions, picks up 61% of the Republican vote, while 78% of Democrats fall in behind the president. Voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties prefer the longtime congressman by 10 points – 43% to 33%."

From 3 days ago-

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoo...efault.asp

Not to mention numerous others done over the last year that say the same thing.

He is condemning the killing of a U.S. citizen not because he didn't deserve to die (he did), but because of the standard it sets. Our President was able to order the assassination of two American citizens today. This means that if the President deems a citizen to be a terrorist or threat he can have him killed. This is directly against the 6th and it's against what America is. This is a slippery slope is all Ron Paul is saying. I agree.

(09-30-2011 03:10 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(09-30-2011 08:44 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:54 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:45 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 06:32 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Exactly.

I'm confused. What about him spending 1/4 of a century as a congressman trying to change America makes him unelectable?

He's been part of the problem. I'm tired of politicians and he has a 1/4 of a century showing him to be just that.

So the guy who has been fighting for sound fiscal policy and civil liberties for decades, and who accurately predicted the housing bubble/financial crisis, is "part of the problem," but the guy who has worked for the Fed, supported the bailouts, and completely failed to see the recession coming is not?

Sound fiscal policy...really? Foreign policy = . Not to mention he's been in office for 25 years and hasn't changed a damn thing..so how is he effective? We've been down this road before...if he runs against Obama he'll lose...PERIOD! If he tries to get on the ticket with the DEM/GOP nominee's he'll be nothing more than a distraction and cost us the Presidency for another four years. Get off this bandwagon...its going nowhere.

Sorry, I missed where Paul was granted the opportunity to pass bills and sign them into law without having to consult with anyone else.

He ordered the assassination of a U.S. citizen. A citizen is a citizen is a citizen. If you are for that, you are against the Constitution. You can't just pick and choose who gets a trial and who doesn't.

(09-30-2011 04:55 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  He ordered the assassination of a U.S. citizen. A citizen is a citizen is a citizen. If you are for that, you are against the Constitution. You can't just pick and choose who gets a trial and who doesn't.

Happens all the time. Guy gets in a shootout with the cops and they kill him. That's not unconstitutional.

I'm a Paul supporter. But we disagree here.

I'm very strongly opposed to the death penalty as a punishment. But if you have to kill somebody to prevent worse harm, I don't have a problem with that.

**** me. I'm on Obama's side on this. I guess my dogs will start liking cats now.

(09-30-2011 07:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-30-2011 04:55 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  He ordered the assassination of a U.S. citizen. A citizen is a citizen is a citizen. If you are for that, you are against the Constitution. You can't just pick and choose who gets a trial and who doesn't.

Happens all the time. Guy gets in a shootout with the cops and they kill him. That's not unconstitutional.

I'm a Paul supporter. But we disagree here.

I'm very strongly opposed to the death penalty as a punishment. But if you have to kill somebody to prevent worse harm, I don't have a problem with that.

In a shootout, the police are acting in self defense, just like regular citizens can shoot someone in self defense if their lives are threatened.

(10-01-2011 10:37 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(09-30-2011 07:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-30-2011 04:55 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  He ordered the assassination of a U.S. citizen. A citizen is a citizen is a citizen. If you are for that, you are against the Constitution. You can't just pick and choose who gets a trial and who doesn't.

Happens all the time. Guy gets in a shootout with the cops and they kill him. That's not unconstitutional.
I'm a Paul supporter. But we disagree here.
I'm very strongly opposed to the death penalty as a punishment. But if you have to kill somebody to prevent worse harm, I don't have a problem with that.

In a shootout, the police are acting in self defense, just like regular citizens can shoot someone in self defense if their lives are threatened.

Agreed. And I can make the argument that this is self-defense too. National self-defense.

We need to understand one thing. We can worry about all our western niceties all we want, but the folks we're fighting don't. We may not like the idea of engaging them on their terms instead of the terms with which we are comfortable, but we don't have that luxury. Unless we plan to lose. And if we plan to lose, it makes no sense to fight.

(09-30-2011 04:06 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  Yes, sound fiscal policy. Who in congress over the last 25 years has had more knowledge on the subject? His foreign policy is only that of a true conservative. If he runs against Obama he'll lose? Explain these:

From Rasmussen last month-"Paul, whose long run afoul of the GOP establishment with his libertarian policy prescriptions, picks up 61% of the Republican vote, while 78% of Democrats fall in behind the president. Voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties prefer the longtime congressman by 10 points – 43% to 33%."

From 3 days ago-

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoo...efault.asp

Not to mention numerous others done over the last year that say the same thing.

He is condemning the killing of a U.S. citizen not because he didn't deserve to die (he did), but because of the standard it sets. Our President was able to order the assassination of two American citizens today. This means that if the President deems a citizen to be a terrorist or threat he can have him killed. This is directly against the 6th and it's against what America is. This is a slippery slope is all Ron Paul is saying. I agree.

Geesh...there are just as many polls that show RP in 4th or 5th place and he ordered an air strike on an enemy combatant...thats not murder its war.

Quote:Sorry, I missed where Paul was granted the opportunity to pass bills and sign them into law without having to consult with anyone else.

I don't even know what you're talking about here from the context of this thread...maybe I just missed it. I didn't read it again.

Quote:He ordered the assassination of a U.S. citizen. A citizen is a citizen is a citizen. If you are for that, you are against the Constitution. You can't just pick and choose who gets a trial and who doesn't.

A. They were enemy combatants

B. It was widely reported they BOTH renounced their citizenship a long time ago. Though it was not renounced legally or according to our special procedure (do you really expect them too?) they still chose to engage in a war against the USA and murder our soldiers. Citizens rights no longer apply here. So if you're against the killing of enemy combatants then you're against our soldiers on the battlefield and America? See how your last statement about me not being for the Constitution makes you sound like an idiot. I realize you RP supporters feel like your rebelling against the establishment by not supporting "The Man" and you believe you're standing on moral ground but c'mon at what point do you realize RP is a distraction...after Obama wins another term because RP places himself on the ticket as a third party? Its big boy time...