While others woo Florida, Ron Paul’s strategy is to rack up delegates in February

Paul said something much more like, "What did we expect for meddling in their affairs?"

Evidently, trying to drag their miserable lives out of the Stone Age is considered 'meddling' by Paul.

 

What changes? That's the question you keep dodging. Changes for the better or changes for the work. "You may have a negative opinion of Henry VIII, but he can effect changes"

Changes, schmanges. WHAT changes, is the million dollar question.

The market did that, not Washington.

Who? Hitler? If it weren't for the United States entering WWI, there never would have been a Hitler. And they got rid of him only by empowering another madmen: Stalin. Of course, I'd say FDR and the rest of the boys were pretty mad in and of themselves. Sorry, I don't buy the social studies textbook propaganda.

Because he's the only one of the five who doesn't openly advocate brutal despotism at home and mass slaughter abroad.

I can't understand why those savages don't through flower at our feet when we blow up their children in the name of democracy.

 

Dr Paul is way off the deep end and seems to be getting deeper by the minute.

Some of his ideology is good but we cannot be driven solely by ideology.

His supporters are loyal vut there is no way he will win the Republican nomination and will probably not be allowed to speak at the convention.

There is a good chance (I'd say nearly 50% t) that Paul's supporters will launch another independent campaign.

 

I did answer but you being a hardheaded Paul drone refuse to accept the truthful answer

 

Paul does not even have a dozen

 

It's an interesting choice of words you use to describe what we are doing in the Middle East. "Stone Age" impies that their culture is inferior to our own, "drag" implies that our efforts in the ME are done against the will of the people who reside there, and "miserable" implies a serious lack of respect for those people. And of course, we and Paul are referring to policies that go back way before September 11th, policies which date back to before the first WTC bombing, policies which go back even before the American kidnappings in Iran during Carter's presidency, so it's not as if they were being unreasonable toward us before we came in to, as you so eloquently put it, "drag their miserable lives out of the Stone Age."

I mean, these are the kind of negative words you choose to defend our foreign policy in the ME, so it just goes to show that if this is how we view our efforts in the ME, how we view the people of in the ME, those subjected to it are going to have even more negative ways to describe it.

 

I will bet that you HAVE NOT been to the websites of the other candidates and studied their ideas and plans. And if you have or do, HOW do you establish PROOF, that they have NO intention of putting any ideas or plans into action.

Where do you get the proof that all the others are lying? And where do you get the proof the Paul will DO anything when he has not for 3 decades.

You are welcome to you opinion. don't try to,present you opinion as fact. It is not!

Paul's inability to pass legislation, IS FACT. Not opinion. Your excuses for Paul's lack of success, are opinions, not facts.

 

We have been offering a helping hand to those people for decades. Have you been there? 30,40 years ago there was an earthquake in the ME. Tens of thousands died when their mud huts collapsed and buried them alive. THAT IS Stone Age. It is not a pejorative term, it is an apt description.

And what do they do with an unfaithful woman? They STONE age her to death. Yeah its all my poor choice of words. There Aren't any "nice" words for the living conditions of the ordinary people over there.
Political Correctness, you can place where the sun don't shine.
Reality, not wussy imagination is how I prefer to live my life.

 

No, it is pejorative. You're talking about a culture that taught us about medicine, mathematics, etc. Who cares what they live in? Is it their fault the only material they have to build with is sand? Can you imagine how much is must cost to import lumber and steel into the middle of a desert?

I don't disagree with you that there are many aspects of their culture that ought to be changed, but I also understand how human nature works. I've seen how Americans react when Europeans come here and write about all the bad aspects of American culture. Generally speaking, we aren't very appreciative; we get angry, and we lash out at them, calling them nasty names and taking our own cheap shots at their culture. Now imagine if Europeans weren't simply writing to us on the internet about our faults. Imagine they were actually sending troops to the US to "drag our miserable lives out of the Imperialist Age." Do you think we would just sit back and say, "Oh thank you for saving us from ourselves. We'll follow through the gates of Hell and back"? If not, why would you expect anything different from ME people when that is precisely what we are doing to them?

Well, if you prefered to live in reality, you'd understand that advocating for the exact same foreign policy that has been an utter failure for decades isn't going to improve anything in the ME.

 

Because of their records. Their records don't match their rhetoric. And a significant fraction of their rhetoric is also bad. But even where it's good, it's untrustworthy because it doesn't match their records.

I guess you missed the part where I said I'd vote for a mannequin over any one of the other three. It's what I know Paul WON'T do that's much more important than what he will do. I know he won't sign or support or push for any anti-liberty legislation. I know he won't execute aggressive foreign occupations. I know he won't seek to imprison people for victimless crimes. I know he support oppression at home and aggression abroad. I know he won't because that's his record. I know the others will because that's their records.

Actually, I just listed legislation that he passed. Not that it matters, because you're the only one of us that considers the passage of legislation any kind of litmus test. My litmus test is that the candidate hasn't spent his political career promoting theft, oppression, and brutality. That leaves the other three out...

 

Oh you did huh?? Let's take a look..shall we??

Here is the link to my exact question and the text of it...
http://www.politicalforum.com/1060817457-post63.html

Here was your reply to it...
http://www.politicalforum.com/1060820515-post75.html

Once again...me asking for you to answer the question...
http://www.politicalforum.com/1060820531-post76.html

As you can see...your very two posts once again avoids my question...
http://www.politicalforum.com/1060829289-post107.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/1060829388-post111.html

For someone that outright says anyone supporting Paul supports the death of innocent Americans on 9/11 (which is a blatant personal attack and outright disgusting thing to say...for which you never apologized still)...you are good at evading. I caught you in a lie once already and here I prove to catch you in another lie. The fact is you can't debate without factual proof and have to resort to slanderous attacks on people because of who they support..

So now...for the last time.....what do you feel was the main cause of 9/11. Why did it happen.

Are you going to man up and debate or be a child like you have been?

 

Yeah....that's what I thought. Can't back up anything that you say. Have a nice day liar...

 

Back to the OP.
Paul has 11 delegates won.
He has won no primaries.
He has absolutely no chance of winning.
The rest is sort of irrelevant.

 

WHERE did you list legislation that Paul passed on any of HIS important issues?

Funding a memorial library is the kind of perk that ALL POLITICIANS give to other POLITICIANS in their club. That is not passing legislation on an important issue. That is just showing that he is a politician like the rest, just bringing pork home to his district.

I have read other posts by brain-dead Paulobots claiming Paul passed this legislation or that legislation, but all of it fell into one of two categories. One, no such legislation was passed into LAW, or if it was passed into law, Paul neither sponsored nor voted for it.

So WHERE did you post your claims?

 

Well, it appears the GOP has made its bed and now it is going to have to sleep in it. When you marginalize Ron Paul you marginalize 10-15% of the GOP vote. You think you can win in November without 10-15% of the GOP vote?

Enjoy Obama.

 

"Since you absolutely insist upon the passage of legislation (ANY legislation!) being the litmus test, Ron Paul has passed successful legislation. His greatest achievement in that area was the partial audit of the Federal Reserve, allowing us to see the trillions of dollars they're doling out to foreign banks. In addition, per Wikipedia, 'by amending other legislation, he has helped prohibit funding for national identification numbers, funding for federal teacher certification, International Criminal Court jurisdiction over the U.S. military, American participation with any U.N. global tax, and surveillance of peaceful First Amendment activities by citizens.' In 1982, he and Jesse Helms established the U.S. Gold Commission. He has almost single-handedly made the activity of the Federal Reserve a prominent political issue, helped elect numerous other pro-liberty politicians including his son, and converted more people to a philosophy of individual liberty that perhaps any other person in history, including such figures as Ayn Rand. That sounds pretty accomplished to me."

Like it matters. Paul's opponents are very accomplished in destroying freedom, which makes them verboten for all sane people.

 

From the link YOU provide:

Legislation

Paul authors more bills than the average representative, such as those that impose term limits, or abolish the income tax[85] or the Federal Reserve; almost none escape committee review. Of the 620 bills that Paul had sponsored through December 2011, over a period of more than 22 years in Congress, only one had been signed into law — a lifetime success rate of less than 0.3%.[86] The sole measure authored by Paul that was ultimately enacted allowed for a federal customhouse to be sold to a local historic preservation society (H.R. 2121 in 2009).[86]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The above is from the link YOU posted.

40. H.R.2121 : To authorize the Administrator of General Services to convey a parcel of real property in Galveston, Texas, to the Galveston Historical Foundation.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 4/27/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Transportation and Infrastructure; Senate Environment and Public Works
House Reports: 111-246
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 111-76 [GPO: Text, PDF]

THAT became law. ONLY that.

Research the Thomas Register.

Paul sponsors the same bills over and over in each Congress. Many to limit, abolish, change, or make the Federal Reserve more transparent.

NONE have become law,,,,,,,,,,,,NONE!

I have no complaint with hundreds of bills Paul has sponsored. Like eliminate income tax. Who can't love that. Or eliminate taxes on veterans, I'm all for that.

Term limits, odd that he sponsors that bill over and over for decades, but I like it.

I keep telling you mind locked Paulobots, I'm NOT against most of what Paul says. I'm not against most of what bills Paul sponsors. I'm against the FACT that he has got crap all DONE. Not his position on important issues, his inability to make anything happen on those issues.

And now he is TOO OLD. And has run TOO MANY TIMES. And he has NO wide ranging support. He has a very narrow band of vociferous supporters to be sure. But they DON'T win elections,,,,,,,,,,,EVER!

Show me a man, not over the hill, with ability to ACCOMPLISH some of Paul's positions, and you got an all out winner. But that man has not stepped up.

Paul won't be a factor in the election. We have to choose someone better than obama. Not choose "another messiah" just someone better than obama even if only marginally better. Better is better. Paul is not a factor.

Idealism is a beautiful thing, but you have to open your mind to reality TOO. Otherwise idealism becomes quicksand.

 

Everything I listed above passed in the form of an amendment. Amendments to legislation don't count now? You have a very strange litmus test for politicians.

Between Hitler and a mannequin, who would you vote for?

He's probably more fit than you are and both his parents lived into their nineties.

Why is three over the course of 24 years too many?

He's one twelve elections and might win this one. I don't know what you "mainstream" Republicans think you're going to do over the next twenty years, with 40-50% of the under 30 vote going to Paul in most of these contests.

You may be right, because Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney sure ain't it. So I guess that leaves us with Paul

He's already a factor. You're just whistling past the graveyard of your own ideology's inevitable death.

CNN Iowa Caucus Entrance Poll--Vote by Age

--------------Paul..........Santorum.......Romney
17-24.........50%..........21%..............13%
25-29.........45%..........27%..............12%
30-39.........34%..........30%..............17%
40-49.........17%..........25%..............23%
50-64.........15%..........27%..............26%
65+...........11%..........20%..............33%

FOX New Hampshire Primary Exit Poll--Vote by Age

--------------Paul..........Romney
18-29.........46%..........28%
30-39.........35%..........34%
40-49.........24%..........42%
50-64.........18%..........42%
65+...........12%..........42%

"Just so long as we beat the other team in this election..."
Sorry, my mind doesn't work like that. As far as I can see, Mitt, Newt, and Rick are on the same team as Obama: the pro-establishment team.

 

Time will prove you wrong.

 

I don't know why so many people join a political debating forum when they don't want to debate politics. I guess they just want to hear themselves prattle; then they go hide when someone rebuts them and they don't want to bother defending their prattlings.

 

What is it with Paulobots and the entirely fictitious audit of the Federal Reserve? The Fed has always been audited. Paul wants a better audit.

The bills to do so, HR 1207 and S, 604 Never became law. And amendments to bills ARE probably the number one way that bad laws get passed.

For this you idolize Paul. But ludicrous and ill thought out.

And as "far as I can see" to quote you. I don't believe you can see a wall while sitting in a corner. ALL you can see is a completely illogical adoration of a POLITICIAN that says what you want to hear. You cannot see his record, you cannot see rationality, you only see a POLITICIAN telling you what you want to hear.
I'll take rational analysis over blind faith.

And in your breakdown of the voting above. You neglected to mention that the immature children that gave Paul their majority, were less than 10% of the voters. Yes, the unenlightened neophytes do love Paul, but there are few of them that vote, and the population of the nation is AGING and they do vote, but not for Paul. Perhaps they want substance, not empty talk.

 

Oh, look, you actually responded. So now that I've proven to you that Paul has passed legislation, you change horses in the middle of the stream by proclaiming you don't like the legislation Well, isn't that the whole point I've been making?? If you don't like the legislation being passed, why are you insistent that it be passed? Besides, I thought you just said you agree with Paul on this, that, and the other. But, oops, now suddenly you don't.

I'm talking about the records of Mitt, Newt, and Rick and how they are fundamentally as pro-tyranny as Obama's record. You want to avoid this to focus on trashing Paul, first for not passing legislation and then for passing legislation in the form of amendments. As though I'm supposed to vote for an aspiring despot like Rick Santorum instead.

The problem for you is that those wise, studious, substantive elders voting for great statesmen like Rick Santorum are all going to croak, leaving the GOP to the immature children.

 

...not a dime against a billion dollars if Paul faces Obama...won't work. Better come up with a better plan.

 

Um, that's why he said he wanted to save the money for the "long term"