Tell me why Ron Paul will not get your vote

I'm not saying we should stand up and shout out "IM SORRY". We can apologize with our actions, not our words. Because words are meaningless. As Obama clearly exemplifies. Is that a better answer for you? Its not that I don't have an answer. But obviously I don't/can't know ALL The facts... I don't have clearance to all information.

 

You're perfectly free to run off to whatever country you like and shoot whoever you want. No one is stopping you.

 

Can you imagine? I hate to say it this way but if something like that happened and there was aaaany reason to believe it did then Ron Paul's ideas would ring out louder than ever. I imagine he would gladly give his life to save our country, as would I. But here's to hopin and prayin he finds a way.

 

No, it's not too complicated to legalize them because that's exactly what we did with alcohol when the country realized that prohibition DOES NOT WORK, PERIOD.

Either we're a free people or we're not; apparently, you're of the latter opinion.

 

maybe....
http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/28/study-says-its-easier-for-teens-to-buy-marijuana-than-beer/

Prohibition has proven to be a failure. And you are wrong. It is almost the entire source of our drug crime. How many crimes are there when you compare alcohol and drugs? I bet it is a big difference. We cannot fight it. Simply cannot, so we might as well regulate it. And why kick out the bad? Someone should be able to put whatever they want into their body, and if they hurt someone else in the process THEN they would be punished. After prohibition organized crime dropped SHARPLY.

 

But then that's all imagining. Back to my original point: Not enough Americans care about the constitution. We've traded it for security. We've traded it for social programs and benefits. We've traded it due to fear. It's never coming back.

 

http://youtu.be/o9iEtZnrb3M


ITS COMING BACK! (watch the whole thing)

 

Specifically how does Obama clearly exemplify that words are meaningless when it comes to foreign policy?
He made no excuses or spin when it came to pulling out of Iraq as scheduled. One war started by Bush, ended by Obama.
After getting bin Laden, he announced the full withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan.
Two wars started by Bush and ended by Obama.
He got us in and out of Libya cleanly, cheaply and without the loss of American lives. Good job Mr. President.
So who wants us to get involved in Syria? In Iran? Only one group: Republicans.
McCain, Graham and other Republicans are urging us to get more involved in Syria. This would be as big a mistake as Iraq was.
The president is saying No.
This president has screwed the pooch in a lot of ways. But I consider him to the the Best we've had on foreign policy / defense since Bush Sr (whom I thought was great).
So I'll be curious to see if again, you have an answer but no support or specifics to the question:
Specifically how does Obama clearly exemplify that words are meaningless when it comes to foreign policy / defense?

 

You're forgetting that alcohol is not legal everywhere. The states, counties, and towns decided for themselves what would be legal. In fact, Ron Paul's home town does not allow sales of hard liquor, nothing stronger than beer or wine.

 

1) He lied about when he would remove the troops. Said it was the first thing he would do

2) Funny, I thought some soldier killed bin Laden...

3) He has done several unconstitutional "military actions"

4)Ron Paul doesn't want to get involved.

5)

 

Exactly. Regulation, not prohibition.

 

Okay, but that is a room full of 4000 people. We have 310million Americans living in this country Dan. We would have to wake up a lot of people (and I can't stress that enough) to have any kind of a chance. If Obama gets reelected we're finished. And most Ron Paul supporters are pushing to get him reelected if they can't get Ron Paul nominated. Face it, we're just not intelligent enough as a people to take our country back.

 

I think a unfettered free market is doomed to failure, I don't like his stance on abortion, partically as it goes against the freedom that he supposedly defends, I think his foreign policy is too islolationist (this is coming from a left libertarian) and I hate the fact that he says he is different to eveyone else yet remains a member of the Republican Party.

 

Alcohol is just one drug. Do you put alcohol in the same category as meth? Is coke the same as weed? Is PCP the same as caffeine?

If any illegal drugs are legalized, it should be gradually, one by one, and at the demand of the people after having made an educated decision.

 

His stance on abortion? You mean getting rid of Roe V Wade, which shouldnt exist because the judicial branch doesnt have the authority to MAKE laws. And then he thinks it should be at the state level per the 10th amendment? Are you even a libertarian? Also... you don't be president without being in a party. Independent just doesnt work.

 

10th amendment

 

Yep. If drugs ARE to be prohibited/regulated then the constitution demands it is done at the state level.

 

So I get it. An APaulstle. Seen many of them.

 

He wanted to keep troops there indefinately but the Iraqi authorties wouldn't give us immunity so he settled on the monstrous embassy with thousands of private security contractors and control of their skies swarming with drones [/QUOTE]

You have no evidence Bush wouldn't have ended both wars by now. After all it's been awhile...

A meaningless statement draped in deception.

He violated not only the Constitution and the war powers act (which even that violates the constitution, double whammy, thanks Obama!) with this Libya mission and set a dangerous precedent by putting foreign commanders in charge of our men and women. He replaced Qaddafi with extremists who may prove to be arguably worse than Qaddafi (not to mention Libya is now littered with Al Qaeda members, whom we're also fighting, but never mind that)

The international community is salivating at the prospect of saving the terrorist invaders...err I mean freedom fighters. Don't single out Republicans you partisan hack you!

Their kind are an endangered species in the Republican Party.

The president says a lot of things that go against his eventual actions. It matters, in the end, what he does.

Have you been paying attention? He has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that his words mean nothing and he's almost made it like a hobby to go against it at every opportunity.

Either you're trolling or....WAKE UP!!

 

well , I'm still undecided , as a Blue-dog Democrat that voted for Obama in 2008 , I'd like to see the man have 4 more , but I'm not convinced he's the best man for the job , and Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas that I like , but I'm not sure he'd be any more effective than Obama in getting things done .

But I don't hate the man , Obama or Paul or anyone else that has the money & guts to lay it on the line to run for the Presidency of the United States .

It takes more balls & money than I've got , so I admire them all . Dem or GOP or T or Indy. Now that I'm retired , I've thought about running for Congress now that Heath Shuler is leaving , but I don't have the money or the health , politics is a younger mans game .

Having said that , in my opinion , I'd like to see Ron Paul appointed as a cabinet member over the Fed Reserve ... that's where he'd do the most good and could really make a difference and help guide our countrys fiscal policies .

 

I'm not wrong, Its a fact that he said. Then he said "you can take that to the bank".

Well, Obama has ALREADY gotten involved in other things Paul wouldn't have. Plus Obama is a big lobby sucker, a liar, and a hypocrite. All things Ron Paul at the very least doesnt do.

 

1. Indefinitely is not spelled with an a. 2. Prove it.

You have no evidence Bush wouldn't have ended both wars by now. After all it's been awhile...

Correct. I can't prove that which is unprovable. THe only provable fact is what Obama has done. But of course, you can't acknowledge this is a good thing as that would go against your indoctrination.

A meaningless statement draped in deception.

It's called a fact. of course if it doesn't fit with yor partisan hackery, then you consider it "meaningless".

He violated not only the Constitution and the war powers act (which even that violates the constitution, double whammy, thanks Obama!) with this Libya mission and set a dangerous precedent by putting foreign commanders in charge of our men and women.
As did Bush. And Clinton. And Bush. And Reagan. And... well yu get the idea... Oh and those of us who are not colosally uninformed know that American troops have served under foreign commanders in multiple conflicts going back before WWII.

He replaced Qaddafi with extremists who may prove to be arguably worse than Qaddafi (not to mention Libya is now littered with Al Qaeda members, whom we're also fighting, but never mind that)

No he didn't. He supported a NATO mission which John Boehner and Erica Cantor were screaming should take place - until it did. But unlike Bush, Obama did not install or take part in any way, in the selection of the new government.

The international community is salivating at the prospect of saving the terrorist invaders...err I mean freedom fighters. Don't single out Republicans you partisan hack you!

Your partisan hackery is showing again. Typical among wingnuts. For all your rambling, ranting and tantrum throwing, the FACT is that the official position of the president is that we should not get involved. Does that mean it would be impossible for that to change, should more solid intel and reasoning come to light? No. But the FACT (those things you're not too fond of) is that he is not.

Their kind are an endangered species in the Republican Party.

Again, that is your opinion but it doesn't change the FACT that the ONLY politicians in America who are screaming for us to get more involved, are Republicans. Danm you irrefutable facts! Bane of Right Wing Party Hacks everywhere!

The president says a lot of things that go against his eventual actions. It matters, in the end, what he does.
Well you say that unless it goes against your partisan hackery. Otherwise you would acknowledge that Obama's ACTIONS have been to shift our focus as promised, pull out of Iraq as promised, go after those who attacked us as promised and as an unpromised bonus, get bin Laden. Again, those are called FACTS.

Have you been paying attention? He has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that his words mean nothing and he's almost made it like a hobby to go against it at every opportunity.

Either you're trolling or....WAKE UP!![/QUOTE]

Well, there's no "either" here. Obama has kept a LOT of his promises. Not all because NO president ever has. But he has kept a LOT of them. So his words have meant much. You simply cant see it and certainly couldn't acknowledge it because you're obviously blinded by party / ideology.

 

Well, there's no "either" here. Obama has kept a LOT of his promises. Not all because NO president ever has. But he has kept a LOT of them. So his words have meant much. You simply cant see it and certainly couldn't acknowledge it because you're obviously blinded by party / ideology.[/QUOTE]

So... you are saying because every other president has broken the constitution that we might as well be okay with Obama doing it? No, that isn't okay with me. Its about time to change the status quo.

 

So... you are saying because every other president has broken the constitution that we might as well be okay with Obama doing it? No, that isn't okay with me. Its about time to change the status quo.[/QUOTE]

You may be surprised to learn I can respect that opinion. I disagree with it but I respect it.

 

Nice progress

Now what are the issues you agree with, disagree with, and what is flawed about libertarian philosophy?

Furthering discussions beyond silly quips is exciting no?