Redstate

So in other words, you'll cut off your nose despite your face?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

If you don't feel as though Dr Paul could be a 'leader of a national party', then tell me of the current Republican candidates, who actually has the support, following and contributions of the front runners for the Democrats?

Do any of the current Republican candidates really have a chance of beating out Hillary?

I read the following post earlier today and feel as though the points may be useful for this debate.
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_114454.asp

Fact one: Hillary Clinton will win the 2008 Democratic nomination. She is an experienced, cut-throat politician with deep ties in the party, and can take Barack Obama down pretty much any time she wants to. And John Edwards is not serious about pursuing the nomination. He is just positioning himself to be the VP nominee again, because in the wake of the 2006 Congressional elections he believes that Hillary will win the Presidency by taking a few key states where John Kerry fell short. Long story short: forget the others - Hillary is the woman to beat in 2008.

Only Ron Paul can keep the Libertarians and Constitution Party members from splintering off to support their own third-party nominees rather than another neo-con, Bush clone Republican. (In fact, the 2004 nominees of the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party, Michael Peroutka and Michael Badnarik, have both already endorsed Ron Paul's candidacy.) While the LP and CP may command only a small fraction of the overall vote, that may well be enough to turn the tide in a crucial state or two. Ask Al Gore if he could have used a few thousand of Ralph Nader's votes in 2000....

Ron Paul is more conservative than Rudy McRomney- he's surely the most fiscally conservative Republican running, and his ACTIONS are more socially conservative than the leaders (you don't see Ron Paul chasing trophy wives). However, because Ron Paul (a military veteran) has the temerity to speak against the insane Iraq war, many Republicans are acting like he's "not conservative."

When did conservatism become about supporting the current Republican party leader on a bad war instead of reducing government growth and spending, supporting personal freedom, supporting family values, and just being a good, decent man?

Ron Paul 2008!

I can't tell whether or not your "trophy wife" remark is intended for Thompson or not. Just be aware that this is why many conservatives are turned off by Ron Paul, because they tend to act and campaign like well....Democrats. That remark shows your shallow nature. The above poster claims that some Ron Paul supporters are "new" to politics. This is not that much of an excuse. Whether or not they have been in politics for decades or minutes, they should conduct themselves with respect and dignity.

BTW, I want Paul to say that terrorism is a threat and disavow the Truthers in his campaign before I regard his supporters as anything but kooks and Democrats.

On terrorism:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul262.html
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr062702.htm

On truthers:
http://seoblackhat.com/2007/07/27/ron-paul-not-truther-interview/

not facts. Until you can distinguish between the two, there can be no discussion.

Democrats hoping to split the conservative vote. I find them completely unbelievable as conservatives. Heck I'd find them completely unbelievable in a remake of deliverance.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Ignore the funny name. Otter is the GOP governor of Idaho. He has been very credible as a "Republitarian," and would be a far better ambassador of libertarian ideals than the Congressman from Texas.

Freedom Fighter in Occupied VA

As a former two-term governor of New Mexico, he would be the most credible libertarian candidate. Though he governed as a Republican, his pro-drug legalization, pro-school vouchers, anti-tax positions made him much more of a libertarian. Apparently he has turned down numerous overtures to run on the national libertarian ticket however.

The problem with libertarians is that they are by nature hyper-individualistic. That is not bad, it is noble. But when everyone in the room is that inflexible/intolerant, there is zero hope of creating a serious party that could gain significant traction on the national scene.

I resent the term Moonbat liberally applied to anyone opposed to the Iraq war. You say you want debate, and then denegrate someone with an opposing opinion. Note that RP voted to denounce Moveon.org for calling general petraeus a traitor. Its ashame all vets don't get the same respect.

Further, RP has been very strong on supporting veterans. Compare that to the current crop of chicken hawks that have basically ignored veterans issues, other than the occasional photo op.

Last, if you look at some of the people who are supporters of the other candidates, you get people much worse than the few truthers that hang out in the RP internet sites. For example, Fred Thompson gets money from people guilty of medicaid fraud, ( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5697.html ) and Rudy Giuliani has close ties to Paul Singer (http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/10/giuliani_denial.php) - "Washington, DC - Rudy Giuliani attends fundraisers in New Jersey today amid growing questions about his role in the ballot initiative to rig the Electoral College in California for the presidential election. Despite his denials, Giuliani has yet to address the fact that his top fundraiser admitted to being the sole financial backer of the initiative." - and remember Bernie Kerik ?

Scram, militarist.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Militarist ideology is the doctrinal view that society should be governed by the concepts embodied in military culture and its heritage. Militarists hold the view that discipline is the highest social priority, and claim that the development and maintenance of the military ensures national and social order. National policy is believed to be best served by focusing the society on preparation for military operations and conducting military operations. Militaristic movements in the past have developed from diverse areas: Conservative movements, radicals in the army, etc. Social repression follows the imposition of military order on civilian society.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

It's a Trifecta!

When doing so, imagine that the definition is broader than the lefties there think.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

if that's a lefty definition, then please give me the NPOV one.

However, when the best you can do is put up a total nut case, something is missing.

How anyone could read the resume of Ron Paul as posted by Cardinal Red above and call him "a total nut case" boggles the mind.

Nobody who supports a cut-and-run strategy in the Middle East deserves the slightest hearing or consideration from the American people.

Now that's democracy in action -- squelch dissent when it opposes the nation's leader, no matter how unpopular he is.

Oh please, I could put up a resume for my dead white cat that would be pretty impressive. A "resume" is nothing more than a selected bunch of implied highlights that are meant to impress. And given that, in the five points listed, there's not a single real accomplishment, I'm not impressed. A gold plated cat turd is still a cat turd.

With respect to "squelch[ing] dissent", you're just not real bright. (But since I've read some of your other posts, I knew that anyway) Nothing I've said squelches anything. As far as I'm concerned, Ron Nutcase Paul can show up with CodePink outside of Walter Reed and demostrate. I don't care how many times you march for peace with International ANSWER. You can say or do about anything (within the limits of the Patriot Act, heh!). On the other hand, that doesn't mean you get a free pass to blow that bs off as legitimate issues in a Presidential contest. Even the Democrats have figured that one out.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

While there are those on this site who would label Ron Paul supporters as vile, extreme, and uncouth, you seem quite comforable using labels like "moonbat", "total nut case", and "jerk". No matter which side of the issue one stands, the message is lost amidst such labels.

With that being said, I am compelled to address your points:

Prior to our unwarranted invasion of that sovereign nation, there were no substantiated connection between Iraq and terrorism. To remain there is to aid in the growth of Islamic terrorism because our occupation is being used as fodder for their recruitment arm. To continue to link our occupation of Iraq to the war on terrorism is nothing more than jingoism.

When I ran for Congress (IL 8th District, 1996) the major newspapers attempted to discredit me by stating that they had found some of my writings had been reposted on neo-Nazi websites. They attempted to have the reader draw the conclusion that I must subscribe to such ideologies. Nevermind that the majority of those who obtained my ballot petition signatures were black, Jewish, and of other cultures. My response to them was that such "connection" was akin to finding a Chicago Tribune on the floor of a crack house and thus concluding that the Trib promoted the use of crack. Your attempt to do the same to Ron Paul is, at a minimum, a cheap and flimsy shot.

Beyond all the hype of "left" and "right", "liberalsim" and "conservatism" resides the core issue - the Constitution. I applaud Ron Paul for being a Statesman as opposed to being a politician. Every "no" vote he cast was a small victory in the battle to keep the monster in DC chained down from mischief. I'd say that has been his best accomplishment.

I assume that you, like many today, are one who hasn't taken the time or trouble to read and understand why Article 1, Section 8 was so specific in defining (limiting) Congress' duties whereas all other powers were reserved to the States and to the People by the 10th Amendment. As a Congressman, the oath of office requires that he/she uphold the Constitution. When Ron Paul cast his many "no" votes, he was upholding his oath. If that makes him a "nut job" or a "jerk", then we need more nut jobs and jerks in Washington.

To think that another round of machine-politican leadership will take us in any other direction than the downward spiral this country is now in is to bury one's head in the sand (which makes one's rump a great target). Time to wake up.

Are any of you supporters of RonPaul™ capable of making a point in less than 4-paragraphs?

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

I guess that's the result of being informed.

Perhaps more than four paragraphs is too much for today's A.D.D. culture that has been conditioned to label empty, five-second sound bites as "news".

Hey, I did it in only three paragraphs! ;-)

I guess that's the result of being informed.

You know, you RonPaul supporters are desperate to convince us to really look at your candidate. Yet, you seem to hit the same two flaws over and over:

1) You refuse to listen to points of view and opinions that say RonPaul is a fine congressman but a poor presidential candidate -- then accuse us of not having any real points of view.

2) You indirectly accuse RedStaters of not being smart enough to understand what your candidate is all about, yet you want us to understand your posts and support RonPaul. If you don't think regular readers of a conservative blog are informed enough, what about your average pursuer of the LSM's bias?

It's really interesting to watch this debate roll through blog entry after blog entry. We get a "ronpaulisgreat" blog entry, to which a number of readers attempt to post their disagreement. RonPaul supporters ignore their points and repeat the same tired campaign points overandoverandover, to which tired Red Staters react with snark. Then the Paulites accuse us of not listening to them.

How about you try listening for a change?

Listen up - I am one of the undecided. I haven't a clue who I'll vote for in the primaries. But based on what I'm seeing here these days, I wouldn't give Ron Paul the time of DAY.

Some of the respondents here are putting up valid points for RonPaul supporters to consider. You want me to put RonPaul on the list to possibly vote for? Take the feedback you are getting, work on it, and RESPOND.

Every talking point just pushes Paul further down the list, so far as I'm concerned....and I imagine I'm not the only one.

When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. -- Abraham Maslow

If you're asking us to respond to the posts saying Ron Paul doesn't have enough accomplishments to his name, well, that's kind of the point. As long as "accomplishments" are limited to "government programs you enacted", Ron Paul won't have any to his name, because he's one of those rare people that doesn't think the government has to take care of people from cradle to grave.

I'm sure if we had the time we could look over his congressional history and find plenty of bills he's helped to defeat, plenty of government expansion he's helped to prevent, but nobody remembers you for the bad policies you've prevented from being enacted, only the ones you push through. He was one of the people who helped defeat the recent immigration reform, he and Tancredo are leaders in the same congressional committee that fought the bill, but people are hardly giving Tancredo the time of day for his work there, let alone giving Ron Paul any credit.

As President, the use of his veto pen is far more important than his ability to draft legislation. The veto pen is something that's been mostly forgotten about for the past 8 years, and it would be nice to have a President who would reinstate its use. I'd say he'd make a better President as a reviewer of bills before they can be passed into law than a Congressman who has to get them passed.

How about a plan from Mr.Wonderful that would demonstrate how any of his concerns could be realized? And I don't expect to hear from you because it's obvious based on your comment about vetoing that you are utterly clueless about how the government works. POTUS can't veto the DoEd, for instance, out of existance. As a matter of fact, he can't do squat with his veto pen other than become such a pest he will be overridden at every turn.

POTUS as a "reviewer of bills". Sheesh. Franz. Hey Franz.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Never said he could veto the department of education or any other department out of existence (though nominating only people who will prevent the DoEd from interfering too much in local decisions would be a good start), but when the democrats inevitably propose new departments and new programs and new increases in spending (or when the Republicans beat them to it), the veto pen can at least prevent the expansion of government. Can he make significant dents in the size of government? Maybe not significant enough for your or my tastes. But can he at least prevent government from growing any further? Probably, and he would certainly try harder than any of the other Republican candidates.

What he can do with his veto pen is prevent the Democrats from getting any spending increases passed without a 2/3 majority. If he sets reasonable goals for shrinking the budget and holds firm on vetoing any budget larger than the previous year's, he can do at least as much as Bill Clinton did to prevent the growth of government, which is a hell of a lot more than Bush has done.

1. Bill Clinton didn't curb the growth of government, Newt did.
2. Start vetoing continuing resolutions and they'll be overridden in a NY minute.
3. RP has no positive relationships in congress. He doesn't work with people, he just whines. He's not built a single coalition on a single issue in 20 years, how is he going to start now? Answer: he's not.
4. No President has ever been able to veto his way to fiscal restraint across the board. RP will be less successful.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I'm not saying Newt didn't do a lot to curb the growth of government, but let's face it, Clinton brought the government to a standstill over budget growth. It took both of them to curb the growth of government. Admittedly, that does reinforce the point that Ron Paul needs to work with people in Congress to keep government from growing, but as long as he's the only candidate for President who's serious about cutting spending, he's still the closest to the ideal President even if he's not 100% of the solution.

I would rather see a President veto two bad bills and see one of his vetos overriden than see a President sign two bad bills into law. Your complaint seems to be that he wouldn't be the perfect President, rather than that he wouldn't be better than anyone else your party is running.

The only growth that Clinton was responsible for curbing was int the US military. He called it the "peace dividend". He did nothing with respect to domestic spending.

Ron Paul has spent the last 20 years not working with the people in congress. That's a pattern that won't be broken. In addition, I doubt if any Congressmen or Senators give a rip about working with him.

My complaint is not that he won't be a "perfect President", that's my description of Franz. My complaint with Ron Paul is that he's an idiot with absolutely no accomplishments to point to in the last 20 years as a Member of Congress. He has, apparently, no ability as an executive and no demonstrated ability form coalitions to get anything done. He's a complete fool. My guess, he would make Jimmy Carter look like George Washington or Abe Lincoln.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I can only assume your reply to my post was one generally pointed at what you consider the average Ron Paul supporter as its content had nothing to do with my posts. However, I'd be happy to discuss any of the issues in detail... any one bugging you in particular?

As to your point about whether or not Ron Paul is a good presidential candidate:

Is he a "media darling"?
No. One gets to be a media darling by towing the party line. Isn't that what got our country into so much trouble in the first place?

Is he a self-funded gazillionaire?
No. So he won't have millions of his own money to buy his way into the White House. What a refreshing change.

Is he a "centrist"?
No. Today's "moderate" candidate may appeal to many, but must ignore that most "moderate" positions require support for extra-Constitutional government. Sadly, being a staunch Constitutionist in today's world is considered to be extreme.

Is he a member of the "good 'ol boy's network"?
No. He doesn't play well with others when they want him to break the rules (Constitution).

So by those standards, Ron Paul isn't a very good presidential candidate. It will be very hard to get him elected for the same reasons that this country needs to get him elected. Considering that all of the other Republican candidates seem to do nothing but bang on the old, worn out, tired drum (offering no real solutions, don't even address some of the "real" problems), I find Ron Paul as the ONLY candidate worthy of my support and my vote.

As to being informed:

Labeling all RedStaters as uninformed would be as stupid as labeling all Ron Paul supporters as _______. (you fill in the blank). I was addressing the individual to whom I was replying.

Like I said, if there is any issue in particular that you'd like to discuss, I'll be happy to respond. I promise my reply will be succinct.

that has been asked several times....and I as yet have NOT heard a concrete answer to...

Ron Paul has been a congressman for 20 years. What has he ACCOMPLISHED? Not what he's voted for/against...although I agree it's a good gauge of his conservatism, his voting record doesn't say much about his leadership.

Not what he's sent to committee and allowed to falter & die. There are liberal congresspersons who submit bills all the time that they know will never get anywhere....they do it so they can say "I submitted X bills". Means zip.

Several people here have asked for real life accomplishments. We've seen qualifications, and that's just fine. We've seen evidence of conservatism (mostly) and that's wonderful. What about the leadership????

This is what I want to see. Legitimate questions ANSWERED.

When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. -- Abraham Maslow

on your fingers from typing that question. What you won't get is a straight answer. You'll be told that accomplishments don't matter, ideology does. Or some crap like that.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

... but allow me to say that you're a credit to the Chair Force.

Bye. Kos misses you.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Yes

Prior to our unwarranted invasion of that sovereign nation, there were no substantiated connection between Iraq and terrorism.

I guess those $25,000 rewards that Saddam was sending to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (link1 link2 link3) doesn't count as a connection between Iraq and terrorism, then. I could give you a dozen different urls detailing connections between Saddam and bin Laden and other terrorists, but I'm guessing you're firmly in the 'dead men do bleed' camp.

The sad thing is, there are a number of us that agree with you on points about the federal government growing way out of control and poking its nose into all kinds of things that the Constitution never authorized, but when you start in on the nationalist wall-ourselves-off-from-the-rest-of-the-world rhetoric, well, we booted that out of the Republican Party last decade when we got rid of Pat Buchanan, and 9/11 just proved to us beyond a shadow of a doubt that we can ignore the rest of the world at our own peril.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Why do you think they attacked us? Because the US stuck its nose into the Middle East and took sides (by providing money, guns, planes, nukes, etc.) with Israel. When you take sides, you p*ss off the other side. If we would have kept our nose out of it and "ignore the rest of the world" as you put it, we would not have become a target of Islam.

It would be stupid to debate the validity of the US invasion of Iraq. Did you forget? We were told that Saddam had WMD. With that proved to be a fabricated lie, they justify our ongoing presence there by playing the "terrorist" card. We're not fighting terrorism in Iraq. To the contrary... we're doing one Hell of a job of creating many more of them by our unwarranted actions.

Particularly since your restraint didn't save you anyway.

Scram, nudnik.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

...back in '91?

No WMD's in Iraq? Well that really makes those Kurds look foolish, the ones that up 'n' died over nothing.

And Israel is the Little Satan. We're the Great Satan, remember? They're really pi$$ed off at the Brits and the French for ending the caliphate after WWI, except that nobody much notices when you burn John Bull or Charles deGaulle in effigy anymore.

WWRPD?

It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins

Asking American troops to fight and die to defend a foreign dictator is never a bad idea. Of course we were right to defend Kuwait.

Why do folks on the left insist that the POTUS would lie to the American people, fabricate an entire story, to take us into a war that has cost us BILLIONS and will cost us billions more, so a few companies can make some money on the side? That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard!! The president didn't lie, if anything, he relied on bad intelligence. He screwed up, and now we're stuck for that mistake.
By the way, the poster who said Saddam was paying $25k to Palestinian families shows Saddam supports terrorism was actually illustrating the OTHER SIDES point, albeit unknowingly. Those guys were attacking ISRAEL, and as much as their lobbyists think that somehow the US is an extension of them, WE ARE NOT ISRAEL. I think we should back away from that nation completely. Who got caught spying on us? Oh that's right, Jonathan Pollard, who worked for our good friends, Israel. (Google it)
I like Ron Paul. But I have a hard time throwing my support (and dollars) behind someone who has absolutely no chance of even making it out of the primaries. I wish Huckabee were more of a serious candidate too, because I like the man's principles. But I am afraid we are going to have to accept Czar Clinton for at least 4 years, because I have no faith in any of the frontrunners.

9/11 proved that Pat Buchanan was right, and that if we hadn't spent decades giving billions of dollars to Muslim dictators while putting tens of thousands of troops in the Middle East, there wouldn't be so many people who hate us enough to throw their lives away trying to kill us.

15/19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. More than half the suicide bombings against us in Iraq are by Saudis. The people of Saudi Arabia, one of the countries we helped defend against Saddam Hussein 15 years ago and a country we've given billions of dollars to, hate us enough to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in order to kill us. Maybe, just maybe, we should stop giving billions of dollars to dictators and stop involving ourselves in unnecessary conflicts?

there were no substantiated connection between Iraq and terrorism.

So I guess that guy from the Aquililaro (sp?) they captured was just some guy in Hollywood make-up huh?

Sorry, No. Saddam was part and parcel of the terrorist network. Only, unlike Hitler and the SS, he learned not to have written agreements with the thugs perpetrating it.

Pardon me, but none of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqis... most were Saudis, Bin Laden is a Saudi... but we didn't invade Saudi Arabia, now did we? Ever wonder why?

I read through the offending comment several times and couldn't find where TG said that any of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqis.

He did note that Saddam supported terrorist organizations, including aQ, and that is simply a fact.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Prior to our unwarranted invasion of that sovereign nation, there were no substantiated connection between Iraq and terrorism.

Check yer facts.

Saddam Hussein is paying $25,000 to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers — a $15,000 raise much welcomed by the bombers' families.

In Tulkarm, one of the poorest towns on the West Bank, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council handed out the checks from Saddam. The payments have been made for at least two years, but the amount has suddenly jumped up by $15,000 — a bonus for the families of martyrs, to reward those taking part in the escalating war against Israel.

Care to take a step or two away from "moonbat" territory, please? Oh, and farther than "There was no substantiated connection between Iraq and al Qaeda." Please don't make me dig up the commission reports that detail the real but informal connections between Hussein's dictatorship and al Qaeda.

-
NARF

But Saddam was paying terrorists to kill Jooooooooos. He wasn't paying them to kill Americans! Why should we care if he pays to kill Joooooooos?

In your opinion Ron Paul may be a "moonbat" about the war, but the one thing we should all be able to agree on is that Ron Paul is very fiscal.

So the thing that Ron Paul understands about the war that most other Americans have failed to grasp, is:

WE CAN'T AFFORD THIS WAR!

It costs hundreds of billions of dollars PER MONTH most of which is borrowed from China.

It's all well and good that we are fighting a war thousands of miles away to keep us safe here, but if we are borrowing the money then obviously we can't afford to be over there.

Have we all not realized that it will be our Grandkids and Great Grandkids are going to be the one's who actually pay for this war? Do we not care about future generations of America?

So I say as long as we can pay for the war without borrowing money, then fight as long as we want. But just like the new car that I may want.. If I don't have the money, then I need not even consider the purchase.

and was it worth the cost?

If freedom worth paying fighting for?

declared war. Not the same thing you know.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Since when was the war in Iraq ever about American freedom?

nothing I will say will ever convince you. too bad, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

"Rep Paul is a complete and total moonbat on the war. He has no clue about the face of the enemy, he has no clue about real progress against aQ in Iraq, and generally would prefer to fight terrorism in shopping malls in Topeka with security guards than in the Middle East with the US military."

Alright, so rather than just throw empty accusations at us, how about you tell us exactly what the "face of the enemy" is, and how our foreign interventionism in Iraq helps us combat it?

If the enemy is extremist Muslims who want to kill Americans, then one qualification for the next President would be the person who can most reduce the numbers and effectiveness of extremist Muslims who want to kill Americans, correct? If a change in our foreign policy would do a better job of that than overextending ourselves in multiple conflicts halfway around the world, wouldn't the Presidential candidate who can offer that be the best choice?

Ah, now I see the heart of your confusion:

Like William Shatner doing the voice in an animated flick, YOU think rolling over and playing dead is a survival tactic!

Sorry, I can't help until you correct that misconception. But perhaps if you spend went in country a couple of weeks and spent some time talking to some natives of Baghdad they might be able to help you out. You know, do that whole travel thing and broaden your horizons.

"I don't much care if the people of his district want to send him to Congress (although I think that may come to an end this term),"

Care to make a wager on that? It'd be the easiest money I ever made.

Ron Paul is very popular in his district (they like real fiscal conservatives)- the "Bush wing" of the Texas Republican Party has tried to get rid of him every election since 1998, and failed dismally every time- now that Bush's popularity is seriously flagging, even here in Texas, they don't have a chance. The Democrats, of course, don't have a prayer of unseating him.

I used to live in Ron Paul's district, until I moved to an adjacent district (San Antonio)- I WISH Ron Paul was still my congressman.

James

Ron Paul 2008!

First of all, comparing Ron Paul supporters to Nazis is disgusting and shameful.

"As you note, Rep Paul has served 10 terms in Congress. In 20+ years he has yet to actually accomplish anything."

I would argue that fighting an uphill battle to uphold the constitution in a government driven by the agendas of passing figureheads is an accomplishment in itself.

I would argue that fighting an uphill battle to uphold the consitution

Woohoo, maybe there's a light at the end of the tunnel here. HopefulAmerican, please answer this....

You say RonPaul has fought an uphill battle. This implies that he's done more than just sit around and submit bills without giving them the push they need to move. This implies that he's done more than just vote according to his ideals - don't get me wrong, I admire that, but it's not what I'm asking.

Can you show us the FIGHT? The BATTLE? What has he DONE to really get his ideals converted into actions?

I want to hear this...I really want to know that this guy is worth looking at. Through hundreds of posts, I haven't yet seen this question answered.

When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. -- Abraham Maslow

"Can you show us the FIGHT? The BATTLE?"

You don't have to look any further than your own post to see what I mean by "uphill battle." Defending the constitution doesn't seem to be a popular position in politics, and I don't believe a politician should have to abandon his beliefs and principles just to "get something done."

"What has he DONE to really get his ideals converted into actions?"

You speak as if being a congressman for 20 years in itself accomplishes nothing. Tell me, how are things decided if not through the direct actions of congress? I also don't understand why people discount his career achievements, family life, military background, and medical background as accomplishments. These are the very qualities I look for in a Commander-in-Chief.

He's out there right now, "doing" it. And he is counting on his honesty, integrity, and consistent voting records to carry him to the White House to make good on his word. If those are the things that get him there, how are they not accomplishments?

and he's still doing NOTHING.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Just curious, what's your candidate doing?

keeping his pink tummy cool.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I don't believe a politician should have to abandon his beliefs and principles just to "get something done."

I'm not asking him to abandon anything. If he wants to get something done, he has to DO SOMETHING.

If you want your kitchen cleaned up, sending emails to your neighbors telling them it really needs cleaning isn't likely to do much good. Your neighbors telling friends that you are very aware of how badly your kitchen needs cleaning won't do much good. The fact that you've lived in that house for 20 years means nothing in terms of that kitchen being dirty.

To clean the kitchen, you have to get in there and CLEAN it. If you can't do it on your own, you get others to help you.

How is RonPaul contributing to the cleanup?

You speak as if being a congressman for 20 years in itself accomplishes nothing.

Sure, it's a great thing, but it doesn't show LEADERSHIP. Anyone who meets the qualifications and can get elected can sit in a congressional chair. What does it prove?

I'm sure he is a fine congressman or his constituents wouldn't keep sending him back. But tell me, an undecided voter trying to narrow down my list....what should convince me, other than the talking points I've heard 500 times, that he should be PRESIDENT?

When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. -- Abraham Maslow

reading comprehension can be your friend, bonehead. I would suggest an extra class or two while you work on your GED. The point in question:
2. RonPaul™ gleans large support from Troofers and folks who sound like the American Nazi Party. He is silent on their support. Not good. did not accuse Rep Paul of being a Nazi or a Troofer. My point, which you are obviously too dense to understand, is that when people from the far, far, far, far out fringes start saying nice things about you and you find out about it, it's good policy to repudiate their support and their fundamental beliefs. RP can't be bothered to do that. Hence my comment, "Not good."

With respect to fighting for the Constitution, if we have to depend on Ron Paul saving us, WE ARE DOOMED. After 20 years as a member of congress he's not been able to reinforce one comma, let alone make progress in a "battle".

Go take your meds now. And study for your GED.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

You said: "RonPaul™ gleans large support from Troofers and folks who sound like the American Nazi Party."

Ron Paul has my support, therefore, according to you, that makes me a "sound like the American Nazi Party." How did I not comprehend that?

You could use some reading comprehension yourself. I said you called his SUPPORTERS Nazis, not Ron Paul himself...bonehead. And way to resort to name-calling and attempting to discredit my education, as if it's relevant. Good job contributing to the discussion.

just proves my point that you are incapable of comprehending what you purport to read. I take back all the stuff about the GED. You're a long way from that.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I came here to engage in intelligent, respectful debate. I guess I'll have to look elsewhere.

You just have to present an argument that makes some sort of rational sense. OTOH, if that's a problem for you - and so far it appears to be - bye!
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Some As are Bs.
C is an A.
Therefore,
C may be a B.

...isn't really mbecker's fault.

Moe

PS: You'll notice a lack of posting ability at this point. Luckily, a 500 word essay on basic logic will remedy that lack nicely.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

It was so my fault. Mine. Mine. All mine. He'll grow up and become a cereal killer and when he's caught, you'll see. He'll fess up. "It was that mbecker908 guy at Redstate. He talks to me in my sleep." And I meant cereal, not serial.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

A is a subset of B
C belongs to B

It is a logical fallacy to conclude that C must belong to A.

All you can conclude is that it may or may not be the case that C belongs to A, which is another way of saying that you can't conclude anything at all about C's membership in A

A = Nazis
B = RiP supporters
C = you

Hope this starts you in the right direction

And Rightly So!

1. Ron Paul comes across as the only person who has been reading and learning about the WHOLE story of Islamic terrorism. He's the only one who has studied the history of US intervention and how it ANGERS people. The CIA has just come into your nation and conducted terrorist acts ending with the overthrow of your nation's -elected- government. The US then installs a brutal dictator and sets up an even more brutal secret police. Friends of yours, family members even, simply vanish into the prisons of the secret police never to be heard from again in the following 25 years or so. Are you angry yet? Pissed off? Even mildly? Only Ron Paul understands this history of those running.

In addition to that, Ron Paul is the only one up there who understands that it is the USA that worked to radicalize the muslim extremists for its own ends. Trouble is, now there's a bunch of armed radicals who were only allies of the short term but were serving their own long-term interests.

Ron Paul understands the long term consequences of the past short-term thinking in foreign policy. Only Ron Paul will address it. Correct it. The other candidates understand that the US people would be appalled at what the US government has done in their name, that's why they lash out at Dr. Paul for daring to mention what is historical fact.

2. 9-11??? If so, the evidence is clear, it's not a question of a cover up, only a question of how big and what was covered up.

3. I suggest you read what he has done and has tried to do. It's actually *gasp* for the people, for our liberty. Not to serve some corporate interest. IMO, you haven't done anything but get your information from the likes of Hannity.

Jerk? No, that's what Rudy Fred McRomney is. Ron Paul is the only one up there who's done his homework. The only one who has studied things to understand them. The rest are just doing the usual sound bite short term shallow nonsense.

If Ron Paul isn't elected, the USA will be broken by the CFR member that is elected. Why don't you go read up on what the CFR wants. Notice how Bush, Clinton, Bush have implemented steps to those ends. If you want Robert Pastor's vision of North America, feel free to elect a CFR lacky. Especially Rudy G, who represents the toll-road company behind the trans-texas-corridor. If you don't agree with the CFR vision, well you only have one choice to vote for.... Ron Paul.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

n/t

It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins

n/t

If government has any purpose at all it is the protection of individual rights. This then logically applies to all government employees including congressmen.

Since modern bureaucratic governments like ours are systemic rights abusers, the highest calling of any congressman should be to attempt to repeal unjust laws and stem the tide of new unconstitutional legislation (i.e. to reverse or block the "accomplishments" of statist politicians).

Congressman Paul has done this admirably and on a continual basis for many years. The fact that some people don't see the protection of liberty as an accomplishment is very sad.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

No. But I'm sure we could both think of a bunch of unjust laws that should be repealed. Paul has submitted many bills to repeal laws, and of course they don't get passed. Are you surprised? Are you indicting Paul's inability to convince an overwhelmingly socialist Congress that the vast body of the laws that it has passed are unconstitutional? Is that your complaint about Paul?

Other Republicans have managed to kill departments or cut funding. Ron Paul is a miserable failure though.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Fair enough. Why do you think that is? Does he bite off more than he can chew (e.g. getting us out of the U.N.) in the sense that other Republicans are not willing to go along with such "radical" bills? In other words, do you generally believe that his government reduction ideas are too drastic for reasonable people to consider? Or do you agree with his aims but simply think that any half-decent politician should be able to push such things through?

If I had my way we'd cut a trillion to a trillion and a half off of federal spending, and then cut taxes to match. That's where I'm coming from.

But yes, Ron Paul shows an ineffectiveness at politics. Rather than chipping away, playing libertarian small ball to gradually improve things, he just votes no and puts forward bills that won't go anywhere.

The progressives and the socialists took a century to get us where we are now. It may take that long to undo it, if we started now.

A good politican should be able to get PROGRESS over 20 years. I'll say that much.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

1. He's a loner. He has no demonstrated interest in working within the system. And I'm perfectly willing to agree that the system sucks, but it's the only game in town so play in it.

2. He has no clue how to develop a plan to accomplish anything. He just throws [stuff] in the form of ill conceived legislation, that he has to know will never make it out of committee, against the wall to see if it will stick. It doesn't.

3. He can't work with people form a coalition to accomplish a goal.

4. He's an all-or-nothing guy. Despite his current blather that he understands it will take a generation to privatize SS, it's all blather. He's had 20 freaking years to work on these problems and all we get from his is sound and fury. Mostly sound.

5. I honestly have no clue what his "aims" are. I don't think he does either. He certainly can't reduce them to an action plan, so IMO they're moot.

6. In terms of whether his "ideas" are too radical, that's his problem. He's got to be able to reduce them to something that he can explain and sell to the American people. See #5. Personally, I don't think elimination of entitlements is all that "radical" or all that difficult to explain. I just don't think he's smart enough to explain it.

7. The messenger. You didn't include this one, but it's a major problem. If he did manage to put together a plan and work to sell it (not holding my breath here), he's got major baggage. Gold standard/fiat money & foreign affairs policy for two. Anybody worth his salt could tar RP with his moonbat stances on both of those and he's choke on his tongue. The guy can't communicate.

8. Half decent politicians. No, I don't think your average Member or Senator could push most of this stuff through. But a President should have a demonstrated ability to push legislation through the Congress (McCain), or at least accomplish stated goals outside of the federal government (Rudy/Mitt for example). Why would I want an "average" Congressman who's spent the last 20 years sitting around with his thumb in his nether regions to be President? I wouldn't.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Congressman Ron Paul has had 20-years - 20. freaking. years. - with which to demonstrate he is capable of working within the system (playing nice with the other kids, and all that) to get done what he wants and what he claims to care about - cut spending, eliminate departments, repeal "unjust laws", whatever.

And he's accomplished...

Nothing.

Zero.

Nada.

That, right there, is pretty much the "alpha" of my indictment of RonPaul™ (In case you're wondering, the "omega" is his suicidally moonbat-crazy foreign "policy".)

Of his acolytes, I could go on for days...

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

It's the same problem over and over again, Until a Candidate is perceived as capable of winning, people won't support him or her, but until a candidate wins, they are not considered capable of winning.

So, I wonder how much of our perception of who can win and who can't win is managed by the Media? Even Huckabee is having serious issue gaining traction in the mainstream media, and I think that's a shame.

Right now Polls really aren't showing much more than name recognition. That'll change shortly, and then we'll see just how much traction various Candidates have, and which of the First Tier candidates collapse.

Yeah, even as a Ron Paul supporter I like Huckabee a lot and would like to see him taken more seriously. He has more charisma than any of the top tier, and more sensible positions on most things than any of the top tier, so even if he's not quite as strong on fiscal conservatism or changing our foreign policy as Ron Paul I'd still prefer him as my second choice, and easily vote for him over any of the Democrats (not sure I can say the same about anyone in the top tier).

I think it is difficult to support someone opposed to evolution. But having said that I think he is a fine person, speaker and politician and like his stance on the few issues I've heard.

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. -Goethe

I think it is difficult to support someone opposed to evolution

You wanted the door way over there on the LEFT!

One of the ironies in politics that I've never understood is that the liberals all want Darwin taught in biology, but they're deathly afraid of anything resembling "social darwinism". Conservatives are often more than happy to implement social darwinism, to expect people to sink or swim on their own and to reward hard workers while letting lazy people suffer, despite the fact that so many of them don't believe Darwin was right.

Are you really trying to say that a Dissenting voice is not leadership? I think it's time that the American people pick up a history book.

The only thing Congress should be working/voting on is if it's Constitutional. This is not a document of convenience. It is the supreme law of the land. Period!

Regarding Social security/medicare, RP has stated that he would continue with those programs for the people that have grown dependent on them. However, he would let the younger generations OPT-OUT and put their money into IRA or 401k. Sounds like a fantastic idea to me.

n/t

but I have to take exception to this:

Given that he believes most federal programs are unconstitutional, (Medicare, Social Security, etc.), the electorate who have grown to depend on these programs would vote against the Republican party down the ballot, and would give the dems a super majority in the Senate and House.

You are probably right about the results, but it still needs to be done. As conservatives, we pride ourselves on following the Constitution, even when the path isn't easy. These programs certainly aren't within the Constitutional bounds of federal power and we need to fight them as a matter of principle. If we can't get rid of them totally, we can at least improve and reduce them.

My point is, in absence of a plan to tell the electorate why any other alternative might be better, the electorate that is dependent on these programs will vote en masse against the candidate that says these programs are unconstitutional, but offers nothing better in return.

I love to keep reading that Ron Paul is the most electable because he’s ideologically pure, but that completely ignores the fact that he has to get a majority of electoral votes to be president. Look at the number of candidates that have lost elections because their challenger wrongfully accused them of wanting to cut social security. Ron Paul says it with a smile.

BUt I still think he's a better choice than any of the other candidates. I'm quite tired of politics as usual.

As for the social programs, I consider that to be a false-flag progressive argument. Congressman Paul has said that disemboweling the entitlement system is pretty far down on his list of priorities. He said those changes would take generations to implement, and he fully plans to fund the obligations we already have.

Yanking the state out of welfare would be disasterous.

Instead of taking what others say for granted, do some research yourself. Just because Dr. Paul was coined with the moniker "Dr. No" doesn't mean he has voted No on everything. The fact is, the exact opposite could be argued. Here, let me list just a few things he voted YES on. Then you can go to the link below and look at a bunch of other things he voted YES on. WAKE UP!

Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

OK. Let me clarify. Voting "yes" isn't a plan either. So he's one of 535 legislators who shows up and votes on stuff. WOW.

Obviously the folks who support this nincompoop have no clue what the word "leadership" means. So let me give you a couple of examples. Please note that I am simply providing examples of what leadership is, I'm not necessarily endorsing the individuals or their positions on the issues.

1. John McCain on CFR and "torture". McCain designed (as opposed to wrote) the campaign finance reform legislation in cohort with Russ Feingold. The two of them defined the issue and built a coalition in the Congress to pass their signature legislation. They put together a media campaign to induce the new President to sign the legislation, which he had promised to veto.

On "torture", McCain singlehandedly defined the issue and developed the legislation that was subsequently attached to a defense authorization bill. Again, he put together a media campaign to force the President to sign it.

2. Tom Corbin's campaign against earmarks. It hasn't really borne fruit yet, but he's put together a coalition within the leadership to seriously address the problem - which he pretty much defined as a problem - and they're doing a good job of keeping the issue before the American people and working within the Congress to accomplishing something.

3. Teddy Kennedy on immigration reform (read mass amnesty). He's been in forefront of this fight since 1965. He's built a coalition within the Congress on both sides of the aisle and has passed at least two major pieces of legislation on the issue. He's also playing the death of a thousand cuts with his current group of amendments to virtually everything.

You will note some consistencies in the above few examples. First, the legislator defines the issue. Next, he builds a coalition of other legislators who are interested in the issue. Then he puts together a plan to bring the issue to Amerian people and to sell the rationale for the plan. Then they work together to write the legislation and insure it gets through committee to a final vote. And, along the way, they work the media to keep the plan and the issue on the front burner.

Ron Paul has done none of the above. He simply throws [stuff] against the wall to see if it sticks. It never does, it just smells up the floor when it slides down the wall.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I like that we are seeing a decent discussion and less name calling here than in many areas.

My comment is in regards to 'congressional accomplishments'.

Yes, some in congress seem to 'get more done', but I am not sure that is a good thing, nor am I sure that should be called leadership.

In general most of us probably agree that most have a fairly low opinion of congress. Many even have the perception that congress is more interested in looking out for itself (re-elections, pocket lining, ect) than in actually doing what is good for their constituents.

Given how much of legislation proposals these days are a hodgepodge of back room compromises used to 'buy' congressional votes I am not sure I would call Rep. Paul's lack of "accomplishments" a bad thing.

How much congressional accomplishment comes at the cost of selling out ones principles (if they have any?)

Is a lack of support for his legislative initiatives a fault of Rep. Paul's or is it a fault in the character of those with which he serves?

Does his initiatives not make it out of committee because they are bad or is there other reasons?

Ever listen to or read speeches Rep. Paul has given on the floor on various issues?

No, if those serving in congress have little regard to the constitution and the rule of law then there is little Rep. Paul could do except keep trying to be a voice of dissent against the unconstitutional excess.

Bottom line here is that in looking at Rep. Paul's 'lack of accomplishment' in congress the problem may not be with him or his proposed legislation but with the character or those who are more interested in re-election than upholding their oath of office.

Regards,

Leadership is taking a position on an issue and building a coalition to accomplish something. The lack of support for RP's legislative "initiatives" is exactly and wholly his fault. If he had two brain cells to rub together he'd realize that in order to get something done he needs help from his peers. He obviously hasn't figured that out in the 20 years he's been hanging around the capitol.

The guy has NEVER put together a plan to accomplish ANYTHING (expect maybe feeding earmarks into his district). Yes, I've heard some of his speeches and read some of his stuff. It's generally pretty infantile. No substance. It's a lot like watching Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory, but not nearly so entertaining.

Sorry, he's not qualified to be President. He is qualified to live in a cave with most of his supporters and rail about the government, but not much else.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

So, if he was willing to go out and gain some support for various initiatives by selling his votes to others on their own initiatives that would be Leadership?

In truth I partially agree with you on being able to get support together.

But for me is is equally important how one goes about getting that support.

The ability to buy and sell support based on support for someone else's initiatives or legislation is not leadership, it's back scratching.

I agree that I would like to have seen Ron and others do more to further conservative issues in congress. I just don't want them to have to sell out their principles to get it done which seems to be the trend in DC these days.

Sorry Moe, my patience quota is way down this afternoon.

So, it's more important to get your support "the right way" when the net result of that track is getting absolutely freaking nothing done for 20 years. So what if RP scratched somebody's back and got social security privatized. Hell, I'll buy him a backscratcher.

By the way, what did McCain sell out for to get CFR passed? Or Coburn to make some progress on earmarks? Or Kennedy to make what he thinks is progress on immigration? Sorry, that's a "no sell".

The real reason he's done nothing is because he's a "do nothing". It's really not all that complicated.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

...you know as well as I do that if you have to start by apologizing to a moderator, then maybe you shouldn't be writing it.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Franz bit me right after I hit "Post comment"...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

though I will not reciprocate.

And yes, I do think it is better to do it the 'right way' and not get stuff done. But then, I'm simply of the opinion that if more had that character in congress a lot less would get done and therefore we would have a probability of much less government interference now.

At the same time I realize that it is not how the system currently works and usually to get stuff done does take lots of wheeling and dealing.

You seem to be in favor of comprising a bit in order to make gains in certain areas, and to some degree I sympathize with that position.

But at the same time I think that very thing is a contributing factor to what has gotten us our over sized government.

I'd prefer legislation to simply be passed based on it's merit and not because of wheeling and dealing or some tag on.

But sense you are at the end of your patience I'll bow out of this conversation so as not to provoke any further weariness induced rudeness.

Good day.

and you don't seem to be one of them.

If you're going to play the game, the players don't get to make the rules. They just get to play by them.

Do I like compromise? Hell no. No better than I like apologizing, but sometimes it's necessary. The whole point here is not to just compromise for the sake of compromise, but to have a plan to accomplish something and follow it. Some compromise will be required along the way, but the point is to accomplish the goal not to remain "pure".

Successful businesses have a business plan. It defines their market and how they will approach it. It also defines their competition and notes what differentiates them from that competition. It defines the costs of doing business and projects the profits from doing business.

I expect the same thing from a Presidential candidate. A limited number of goals, how they will be accomplished and who will be involved in accomplishing them. No President can "do everything" or be all things to all people. The candidate has to pick a very limited number of his/her priorities and work on those. I would suggest no more than four or five major items because there's only so much time and energy to go around, not to mention a President has a limited amount of political capital.

For instance, I consider the war on terror to be the #1 priority. Also on my list, in no particular order, are entitlement reform (elimination), tax reform, reduction of the scope of the federal government, judicial nominations at all levels and having a POTUS who will fight the Democrats tooth and nail on a daily basis. I personally don't consider earmarks a big deal and would not want to see POTUS spend time or political capital on their elimination if it degraded his ability to attack one of the things on the "priority" list.

Being President is not the same as being a Member of Congress. It's like the difference between playing in the NBA and playing on a small town HS basketball team. RP isn't successful at getting anything done in Congress so there's no reason to believe that I should give him a long term contract to play with the big boys.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Your analogies are frighteningly accurate, but they're also exactly what's wrong with our government.

Please tell me you didn't deliberately put a toe over the line just so you could prove you're capable of doing something RP can't do.

:)

BTW: Thanks for the defense above. I would have added more but I saw Moe made that kind of pointless.

I agree with you that eventually Paul will have to start proposing plans, and not just ideology. But at this point in the campaign, I'd still say we're in the ideology phase, and by an ideological metric, Ron Paul is the most conservative candidate.

He is consistently pro-life (abortion, capital punishment, war). He is consistently capitalistic (against regulations, welfare, etc)
And he is consistently for small, federated, and sovereign government as outlined in the Consitution.

I fail to see how conservatives could have so much disdain for him at this point in the election cycle.

That said, a good leader ought to be able to present plans, reach across the aisle, compromise etc. And perhaps, if Paul never is able to present a coherent plan as to exactly how we will withdraw from Iraq without leaving a humanitarian crisis and endangering our national security, how we will dismantle social security without leaving those who depend on it on the streets, how we will fix our health system, without losing the votes of the 70% who favor government health care, then perhaps he might not be a good president, and might better be left in the house.

The problem is that nobody is actually asking him about his plans. Here and elsewhere people are more interested in engaging his more "unique" supporters than Ron Paul the candidate and that's a problem no matter where you stand. Some of Paul's supporters are turning of conservative with libertarian leanings by their actions, and some Republicans are losing site of the traditionally Republican viewpoint that Paul holds because they are more interested in the attacking his supporters than engaging him as the candidate.
Everyone is losing by this.

And a final note: I find it very surprising that in a time of HUGE government, we are interested in measuring the qualifications of a candidate based by what they have passed and ADDED to the government.

That was the sound of the whole point going over your head.

Ron Paul has had 20 years as a Member of Congress to put together a plan to do ANYTHING. He has done zip. Nothing. Nada. Bupkis. The guy is an empty suit.

He should have been a college professor. Or maybe an OBGYN in a small town in Texas. About anything but a US Congressman. And absolutely anything but President of the US.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

...but Paul is a Beltway outsider.

If the POTUS can't privative SS how can you expect a far right House Representative to?

Sometimes things that need to be fixed need top down leadership. I am waiting to see if Paul will hint at that ability.

Ron Paul is a "beltway outsider". The guy has been a MEMBER OF THE FREAKING HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE LAST TWENTY FREAKING YEARS.

And, he's not a "far right House Representative" either.

Oh yeah, and the point wasn't that he hasn't privatized SS, it's that he hasn't done A.N.Y.T.H.I.N.G.

Sheesh. I'm gonna go get Franz.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Remember:

For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn? - Mr. Bennett in "Pride and Prejudice"

Ron Pauls' plan is simple and it has been the same plan for over thirty years. The nice thing about the plan is that it is exactly congruent with the oath of office. It's exactly congruent with the oath of service too.

The plan my friend is to follow the Constitution.

Nobody else is doing it. And he's the only guy talking about it in great detail. Or any detail for that matter.

Of course if you believe the Constitution is "just a G-d damned piece of paper" like George Bush. The I could see why this plan is not very appealing to a person like yourself.

Perhaps you just think the Constitution is antiquated and no longer valid.

Actually I have no idea what your problem is.

But it seems that conservative no longer means what it used to. Now it apparently means big government, HUGE spending, runaway inflation, economic decline, massive death counts, perpetual war, welfare/warfare economy and ignoring the Constitution.

None of the above are even remotely close to what American values used to stand for. What happened?

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Wow. Nice to know that you think the presidency is a "game." Something tells me your have a wide open mind.

"When you give up liberty for security you lose both" -RP

It is a game and instead of going directly to jail you rongpaulers will go directly to gitmo!

Fred Thompson is an actor just like Ronald Reagan.

'nuff said.

We don't waste limited space incarcerating people who are a danger only to themselves.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

They encourage people like this - he's also Bill Moore, by the way - to wander through, secure in the knowledge that they are completely undetectable. Why, they're so good that they'd fool themselves.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

In the real world, your philosophy, principles and ideals don't matter if you have no plan to implement them. They really don't matter if you can't get 51% of the people to vote for that plan.

If for one moment, people would stop throwing rocks, insults and assuming that Ron Paul is just another hack, they would hear his message and realize that Congressman Paul really does have an action plan. He's said many times during interviews that he realizes he can't just put the brakes on a lot of government programs overnight, but that'd it have to be a slow and painful process. The people who are already dependant on government will have to stay on the government's teat.

However, those of us who still have a lot of years left in us would like to keep our paychecks and take care of ourselves for once. To me, its an insult that the government feels that I can't take care of my own finances, retirement or my own general welfare. It also insults me further, that they make that job of taking care of myself more difficult by taking more and more of my wages through mandatory taxes, both direct and indirect.

I'm digressing, my original point was to show that Ron Paul does have a plan of action, if elected President. I've already discussed that he knows it will be a long process to change the course that our government is on, but you also have to take into account, the message that Republicans will receive, if Paul does receive a large vote. Perhaps they'll start living by their own rhetoric of limited government and laissez-faire capitalism and a decreate of the welfare state.

When the Congressman from Texas wins, a lot of people will have to stop and think and perhaps change their minds on what the role of government should be in this country.

PFC Shea
Fort Irwin, CA

Extending you the benefit of the doubt for the time being that you're serious...

Congressman Paul really does have an action plan

Sure - well, after 20-years in public office it's about time he came up with one.

He's said many times during interviews that he realizes he can't just put the brakes on a lot of government programs overnight...

He's had 20. Freaking. Years, Private. That's a whoooooooooole lot of overnights, don't you think?

...but that'd it have to be a slow and painful process.

1) Dr. Paul's career has indeed been a "slow and painful process"
2) Good luck selling a "slow and painful process" to 50% + 1 of the electorate

Most of the rest in the middle I believe few of us would find any fault with. But...

...my original point was to show that Ron Paul does have a plan of action, if elected President.

And what, precisely, in Dr. Paul's spectacularly undistinguished 20-year career as a public "servant" gives you even the faintest glimmer of hope that he could possibly ever succeed in implementing this mystical "plan"?

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

But, in fact RP has no plan. None, nada, zip, bupkis. Either that or he's been sitting on it for 20 years waiting for this very moment. Oops, no sale.

The problem isn't so much the message (except for the foreign policy stuff), it's the man. RP is a phony and a fool.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

So basically you people don't like Ron Paul because he isn't a control freak and a sell out like the single effective party's media chosen candidates.

Of all the other candidates, both D and R, I can't think of even one half way decent piece of legislation they've introduced. Sure, Rudy G went after some people who really did nothing wrong to further his own career... but what has he really done? I'm in IL... I can tell you for a fact Obama hasn't done jack shit. Name some accomplishments by the rest of the cast D or R that actually preserved or regained our liberty. I can't think of any. I can't even think of where they even tried.

Ron Paul has tried to accomplish something. Largely it has not gone anywhere because not enough people have shared his beliefs. That's changing from the bottom up as more and more people get fed up and want to be in control of their own lives.

Accomplishments:

Rudy - Kept NYC together after the worst attack against civilians in American history by a foreign power since at least the War of 1812. Before that he cleaned up Gotham enough so that decent people could live there again.

McCain - Served his country honorably in Vietnam and never sold out his any of his countrymen during his entire time as a POW. While a POW served by example and helped other prisoners endure the inhumane treatment they received. And while I disagree with him on the point, given the ramblings in your other post, you ought to be creditting him with leading the fight against "toturing" enemy combatants.

Rommney - Pulled the US Olympic committee's fat out of the fire and ran the first one that didn't require a government bailout after they were done with all their expenses.

As other long term posters here can attest, I'm well aware of the shortcomming of the first two and there's not a chance in Hades of me ever pulling the lever for them. I have my doubts about the third, but if Fred drops out of the race he's my second choice. But that doesn't mean I'm blind to their accomplishments.

Ron Paul has tried to accomplish something. Largely it has not gone anywhere because not enough people have shared his beliefs.

First, let me make one thing perfectly clear: you are a raving lunatic.

Next, RP hasn't "tried" to do anything. He's thrown legislation that has absolutely no support and no chance of ever getting out of committee against the House wall and called it "work". He's been a Member of Congress for 20 years and "not enough people" share his beliefs because, 1-the other members of the caucus recognize the guy is a moonbat, and 2-he can't sell his "beliefs" to those folks who will have to vote on the legislation to implement them. He's had 20 years to try, it's obvious he either didn't try hard enough or he's got nothing to sell.

You can now go back in your cave where you can control your own life.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

let alone Hillary.

-The U.S. Constitutional System is simply controlled revolution-

=== 13 ===

BUt that would be apples to apples. Anti-war candidate vs anti-war candidate.

With 70% of the population wanting us out of Iraq, I think that Ron Paul is indeed the only candidate who can possibly beat a Democrat.

As long as the Republican party talks about new programs and new departments, the conservative base is going to feel abandoned and stay home.

According to Newt 71% favor being "victorious in Iraq." If you ask "Are you happy being at war in Iraq?" you should get close to 100% "No."

idea is completely wrong. But instead of explaining why, I will offer a different repudiation of the idea Paul can win. I believe a large reason why the left supports Paul is because he is trying to screw up Republicans. They like him because we do not. If Paul was ever nominated, the left and MSM would crucify him. The day after they think he can win will come the anti-semmite, racist, uncaring, crazy, etc memes. You will not see this because he is still a 5th tier candidate, but if that ever changed, you would see it.

Molon Labe!

since it's your first time posting, and you're working very hard to be respectful in an uphill battle.

As for the war, I can agree to disagree with you here. I wouldn't vote for Rep. Paul based on that alone, nor do I think he could win the Republican Nomination based on his war and foreign policy stances. But every voter has the right to his own opinion, and that is the foundation for our system of representative government. I simply wouldn't choose Dr. Paul to be my Representative, or President.

I think you will also find here, however, that there are a lot of us who oppose Rep. Paul who are also not apologists for the Republican status quo. The editiors of RedState have worked very hard to work from within to effect change, and I hope their (our) efforts will be fruitful. We can not continue to over spend, squander money for pet pork projects, walk fine ethical lines, nor support those who do. Because of our party's elected officials recent behavior and actions, we're playing a bit of defense in 08. Hopefully, we can get the right messenger with the right message, and find upwardly mobile positions for the Jeff Flakes and Mark Sanfords in the near future.

"Ultimately, just like Communism, Islamofascism is a dead end-- it cannot give people what they want. And in the end, it will collapse under its own contradictions."

It's a mistake to project our values, motivations etc. on other cultures. Just like it was a misjudgment to expect the Iraqi people to embrace freedom with the fall of Saddam, it would be a fatal mistake to think that we can passively wait out Islamofascism and let it collapse on its own.

For sixty years, Palestinians have lived in refugee camps at Israel's doorstep. Their birth rate is several times that of the West. Western Europe may be dominated by Muslims within our lifetime. They are a patient people with a long-term planning horizon. And they (the Islamofascists) hate us with a passion, a deep, religious fervor.

It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins

n/t

...your ignorance to Ron Paul's stances.

pick a piece of "myriad" legislation that he has "penned."

Describe it. Why was it substantive? What was the floor vote?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

H.R.219

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to ensure the integrity of the Social Security trust funds by requiring the Managing Trustee to invest the annual surplus of such trust funds in marketable interest-bearing obligations of the United States and certificates of deposit in depository institutions insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and to protect such trust funds from the public debt limit.

Given the fact that our current system will become insolvent in 2018 because the surpluses have been given back to the treasury for spending elsewhere (which means they're gone),:

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed021705b.cfm

the above sounds like a pretty good idea.

Hasn't reached the floor yet.

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I'd expect nothing more from you based on what I've read so far.

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Probably not, there aren't enough people who are informed and concerned enough to pressure their elected officials about far-sighted matters such as the one proposed by Dr. Paul. So you would tell me that you disagree with the goal of the bill? Why?

Pay special attention to what happens after a bill is dropped in Committee before it becomes a law:

http://www.school-house-rock.com/Bill.html

There's nothing "far sighted" about this bill. And there's no plan behind it either. It's just more [stuff] against the wall.

A proposal that would be far sighted would be to build a coalition in the Congress to privatize SS. Put together a plan that might have partial privatization in steps that leads to a fully private, wholly owned by individuals, retirement planning.

Of course that would require a Representative to actually work with others to accomplish a goal.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Do you really believe that Paul has some special insight that will really make changing SS debt from one form of government debt to another will do anything?

Or do we believe that this is simply a case of his supporters seeing the Emperor's New Clothes.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

So that shouldn't be a reason for precluding his ineffectiveness.

since mid-January.

It will die in committee without action.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

treasury bonds in NOT "given back to the treasury for spending elsewhere".

As near as I can tell, this is just the government writing an IOU to itself.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Yes, the government is just writing an IOU to itself. See the quote I referenced from the article everyone seems to not want to read below for the full explanation of why Paul's bill is important.

How is Ron Paul's idea of using a different kind of bond to loan money to itself going to solve the SS problem?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

And it's not cricket to poke The Dead with sticks, maaaaaaaaaaan...

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

I was really wanting to see the explanation of how changing the lable on the bond made the problem go away.

Oh well. I probably wouldn't have been able to make sense of the reply anyhow.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

a RonPaul myriad = 1?

By the way, we can agree, can't we, that this bill does nothing for Social Security? SS surplus is currently invested in US government securities, albeit ones that cannot be traded and they draw interest, just like Paul's proposal. And they are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government. And isn't Paul against the whole FDIC system as "unconstitutional"?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

How many bills do you expect to cite that you won't read? I've shouldered the burden of argument from fact more than most on here. Give me a break. Also, did you even read the article I linked to? I doubt it, other wise you would've read this:

"That’s where the “trust fund myth” comes in. This myth suggests that all of the Social Security surpluses since 1983 have been saved in a trust fund that will total $5.7 trillion by 2018. In the meantime, Washington is lending this money to investors -- businesses and individuals. In 2018, when the system first falls into deficit, these individuals and businesses will begin repaying this $5.7 trillion back to the federal government, and that money will make up all the program’s shortfalls until 2042. Therefore, the myth continues, taxpayers are off the hook until 2042.

This is wrong in one critical area. Not one cent of Social Security’s surpluses was ever lent to businesses or individuals. Think about it: Has anyone ever heard of getting a loan from Social Security?

The surpluses were actually lent to the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury then spent this money on regular government programs like defense, education and welfare. So it is the Treasury that owes the Social Security trust fund $5.7 trillion.

And where does the Treasury get its money? Taxpayers like you and me.

It is the taxpayers who will have to repay the Social Security trust fund $5.7 trillion beginning in 2018."

I urge you to educate yourself about those things you wish to debate.

And since when is it immoral to dislike a system but find ways to work within it if necessary?

and it doesn't recommend changing government bond A to government bond B. It really doesn't.

"That’s where the “trust fund myth” comes in.

I don't believe that. I didn't say that. But the SS surplus is currently invested in non-negotiable instruments held by the SS Administration.

This is wrong in one critical area. Not one cent of Social Security’s surpluses was ever lent to businesses or individuals.

You are assuming that adding that much government debt into the private sector actually produces a positive result. What do you think the impact on the inflation rate would be by doing that?

The surpluses were actually lent to the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury then spent this money on regular government programs like defense, education and welfare.

And.... Where did that money go? In a mason jar? Or did it end up in banks who loan the money? I vote for option number 2.

And where does the Treasury get its money?

Which is the same place the Ron Paul plan gets money.

I urge you to educate yourself about those things you wish to debate.

And likewise I encourage you to do the same because it is pretty obvious you really don't know what you are talking about.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

"You are assuming that adding that much government debt into the private sector actually produces a positive result. What do you think the impact on the inflation rate would be by doing that?"

The money all ends up in the same place whether the government spends it or you spend it. The difference is that they don't have the right to spend your money which you payed for the purposes of SS.

"And.... Where did that money go? In a mason jar? Or did it end up in banks who loan the money? I vote for option number 2."

You just refuted your above statement. This reply was so riddled with terrible contradictions its almost difficult to know where to start.

"Which is the same place the Ron Paul plan gets money."

Ron Paul's plan doesn't ask for anymore money from the people, it simply asks that the money that's already wrongly usurped from them actually gets saved in a way that makes sense. Not spent on whatever the government sees fit.

It appears you are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Coming back after you got banned, that is.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I would say I don't agree with any of them. If they don't have enough substance to get out of committee why should I care one little teeny whit about them.

RonPaul™ legislating is nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

So you've read all of them and disagree with them substantively, or simply because they haven't made it out of committee (those bills that every constituent wants because its going to give them some "free" stuff) you don't like them? Great argument...

When RonPaul™ produces something that has the chance of a snowball in hell of passing, I'll pay attention. Until then, he's just a nusiance.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

The fact that Dr. Paul earmarks bills (like everyone else, hey something you can get behind!) to try to recoup some of the taxes unfairly apportioned from his constituents is the biggest dig you can up with is all too telling. Next!

"play along" with the rest of the Congress when it suits his needs. Gosh. And the smarmy "recoup some..." comment is exactly what I would expect from somebody building bridges to nowhere or putting in mass transit that will cost $50 a trip.

Just simply stupid.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Don't abscond with unnecessary amounts of tax-payer money, and you won't have any for pork barrel spending. Just simply brilliant.

You haven't earned the right to have it here, and it doesn't amuse me.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

You haven't earned the right to have me lose my attitude.

As a matter of fact, Moe HAS earned the right to have you lose your attitude by the fact that he happens to be a site moderator.

I'll be the first to note that you won't be missed, but if you plan on staying around it would be good to apologize to Moe.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I have a feeling this one's gonna leave a mark.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

As Above, So Below.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Hehe, this topic is like a bug zapper.

Or I suppose a bug 'blammer' in the case of Moe's method. :)

Enjoy the zapping.

Mr. Becker,

I can take only so much of any one person's immature ranting before commenting myself (of course, I subjected myself to it, so what is that saying?). You must be fairly young and under-educated, because it is apparent that you have never risen beyond that high school, "I really don't know what I'm talking about, so I'll just call you names until you go away...." And the funny thing is, about 90% (guesstimate, but not far off either way) of the "substantive" things you've said or agreed to are incorrect. And if you want to blithely question my education or intellect, I have a Juris Doctorate and a MBA, and am currently working on a Ph.D. I will be happy to debate you on any subject, if you can keep it civil.

So, let's first look at your one main, ranting non-stop point: Dr. Paul being a "do-nothing." For "short" (there are hundreds)-

I guess having 11 co-sponsors to this current bill of RP's shows no one wants to work with him?: H.R.190 : To amend title II of the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide prospectively that wages earned, and self-employment income derived, by individuals who are not citizens or nationals of the United States shall not be credited for coverage under the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program under such title, and to provide the President with authority to enter into agreements with other nations taking into account such limitation on crediting of wages and self-employment income.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (11)
Committees: House Ways and Means
Latest Major Action: 1/18/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Social Security.

Sponsored: H.AMDT.663 to H.R.1776 Amendment prohibits the use of Community Development Block Grant funding for the acquisition of church property unless the consent of the governing body of the church is obtained.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 4/6/2000) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 4/6/2000 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Paul amendment (A009) Agreed to by voice vote.

Sponsored: H.AMDT.787 to H.R.4577 Amendment prohibits funds in the bill from being used to promulgate or adopt any final standard establishing a universal medical identifier.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 6/13/2000) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 6/13/2000 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Paul amendment (A029) Agreed to by voice vote.

Sponsored : H.AMDT.480 to H.R.4546 An amendment numbered 9 printed in part A of House Report 107-450 to prohibit funds authorized in the bill from being used to assist, cooperate with, or provide any support to the International Criminal Court.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 5/9/2002) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/10/2002 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Paul amendment (A010) Agreed to by recorded vote: 264 - 152 (Roll no. 155).

Co-sponsor: H.RES.62 : Recognizing the courage and sacrifice of those members of the United States Armed Forces who were held as prisoners of war during the Vietnam conflict and calling for a full accounting of the 1,902 members of the Armed Forces who remain unaccounted for from the Vietnam conflict.
Sponsor: Rep DeLay, Tom [TX-22] (introduced 2/11/2003) Cosponsors (80)
Committees: House Armed Services
Latest Major Action: 2/12/2003 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 424 - 0 (Roll no. 25).

Co-sponsor: H.RES.728 : Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the actions of terrorists will never cause the date of any Presidential election to be postponed and that no single individual or agency should be given the authority to postpone the date of a Presidential election.
Sponsor: Rep Ney, Robert W. [OH-18] (introduced 7/20/2004) Cosponsors (81)
Committees: House Administration
Latest Major Action: 7/22/2004 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): 419 - 2 (Roll No. 409).

Co-sponsor: H.R.49 : To permanently extend the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Cox, Christopher [CA-48] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (134)
Committees: House Judiciary
House Reports: 108-234
Latest Major Action: 9/18/2003 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 283.
Note: For further action, see S.150, which became Public Law 108-435 on 12/3/2004.

Co-Sponsor: H.R.218 : To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns.
Sponsor: Rep Cunningham, Randy (Duke) [CA-50] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (297)
Committees: House Judiciary
House Reports: 108-560
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 108-277

These, and many more, are easily found on the Library of Congress' web site, if you take the time. But I am sure that you will not. And whether you like or agree with any of these (and the hundreds more), they are legislation that he has sponsored or co-sponsored. What RP doesn't do, is sponsor, co-sponsor, or vote for unconstitutional leglislation. But that doesn't matter to you, so long as the policitician DOES something. You're an asshat.

Another point; your constant, "but he's been there for 20 years!!!" No, he hasn't. He was in the 96th-98th Congress, in the late 70's-early 80's (3 years), then voluntarily left to pursue his medical career, and returned in 1997 - present. Another of your shrill whines are incorrect.

As for ideology, the point that your limited intellect fails to grasp; what has he REALLY done for this Republic? For starters, for his entire life he has refused to bow to the party line and special interests, and has steadfastly determined to give his constituents what is guaranteed them by the law of the land (a mere piece of paper, I am sure, to you) - liberty and security. Freedom from the tyranny of the minority AS WELL as the majority. And for this you castigate him? You are a small-minded, evil, ignorant little troll.

What else has he accomplished? Well, how about kicking the hell out of every other Republican candidate in just about every straw poll held to date? https://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

How about solidly trouncing every other Republican candidate in the wildly popular Fox News debate (to the abject consternation of pretty much every Republican pundit), according to the polls?

Getting rising campaign contributions by 114% to the tune of over $5 million last quarter, while pretty much every other candidate's contributions fell by 20-50%? At least the American citizens that don't have their head firmly up their ass are listening.

Serving honorably in the military as a flight surgeon? Delivering over 4,000 lives into this world? Standing by the woman he married over 40 years ago, and raising a strong family? But I guess Republicans don't stand for family values anymore?!?! Show me one other candidate with a better showing of family values, hell, MORAL record, than Paul.

Mr. Becker, in short, you suck. And you're an idiot to boot. So quit yakking and SHUT THE HELL UP.

Not worthy of comment, other than to note that a Juris Doctorate, an MBA and a Ph.D. certainly don't teach you how to process thought rationally or to understand the basic concept of an "accomplishment".

Bye now.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

If that candidate was supported by some unsavory characters, as surely they will be, does that mean you would look elsewhere for the mythical presidential candidate with all saints, angels, and quantum physicists for supports?

I also take offense to the idea that if you believe that our support for Israel, which is perfectly capable of taking care of itself at this point, is a bad foreign policy, that you're a jew-hater. Such unthoughtful reductionism is yields phrases like, "they hate us for our freedoms".

That's so flipping illogical that I should know better than reply to it.

It's the lack of support for Israel that draws the Jew-haters, see? That doesn't make every Paullist a Jew-hater, now does it?

Israel is a strip of sand and rock that is about 12 miles wide. Yes, Israel "...is perfectly capable of taking care of itself at this point" (guess which ones are the operative words?) with a couple of dozen well-placed nukes. Who knows what the future holds, if Bashar Assad get a "Kim Jong-Il"-brand nuclear bomb and wakes up with his panties in a wad some morning?...

Seems to me that the world would be a better place if nuclear war could be avoided. But that's just me.

By the way here's some thoughtful reductionism for ya:
1) They hate us (the West/Christianity) because we're polytheists.
2) They hate us because we ended the Caliphate.
3) They hate us because we've been weak and self-loathing for a couple of generations. There has been no price to pay for hating us.
4) Oh, and they hate us for our freedoms, too.

Do you seriously think that if we take our ball and go home that they will stop hating us?

It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins

than so is not supporting a candidate because someone you don't like does.

"Who knows what the future holds, if Bashar Assad get a "Kim Jong-Il"-brand nuclear bomb and wakes up with his panties in a wad some morning?..."

Exactly, who knows what the future holds. Do you live your life in a bunker? Because who knows, man, the world might end tomorrow. That also sounds like a classic beginning to an "ends justify the means" argument (they might get nukes so we need to kill'em now), which if your fond of those, I urge you to check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

Consequentialism is the philosophical name for the argument you love. Its been refuted ad nauseum to the degree that no one of any ethical knowledge or moral persuasion would use it as in an argument.

Those reductions were not thoughtful (I hope). Calling them such will not make them so.

Do you seriously think that we can kill them all, and that staying makes them less angry? I though you guys were against making decisions based on the feelings, thoughts, or words of the islamofascists. If so, that question is profoundly absurd coming from your fingers.

in causation? Like Pricip shooting Archduke Franz Ferdinand? Because unless that is your point, in which case you'd simply be stupid, your post doesn't address Vladimir's points which are all based on what the various jihadis have told us in their own words.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

but technically, you're confusing non-interventionism with isolationism. Non-interventionism is a component of isolationism, but trade is the other, arguable more important, component.

Congressman Paul will trade with just about anybody. That's how he wants to win friends and spread freedom.

for your third party run because RonPaulRonPaulRonPaul is not going to win anything other than a straw poll that can be bought.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Explain to me how Dr. No is going to win an election when, just to quote the penultimate paragraph of the article...

Three-quarters of the population is worried about growing income inequality, Pew found, while two-thirds favor government-funded health care for all. Support for a government safety net for the poor is at its highest level since 1987...

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

The paragraph doesn't state those facts and then say, "and those are the only things people care about and will vote accordingly". Because if it did, this blog would be pointless as no Republican could win.

Look nick, far from arguing that the country is ready for a full-blown libertarian surge, this article was written to imply that the country - as well as certain nominally Repubican constituencies - is looking to have huge piles of Other Peoples' Money™ dumped on them - be it for new roads and bridges, new "environmental" industry subsidies, new "government funded" healthcare mandates, etc. etc. etc.

In fact, the entire gist of the article seems to be "well, if we could just jettison those icky so-cons we could get back to the business of What's Good For Big Business is Good For America!". And I don't really see how much of that (other than the open-borders and jettisoning the icky so-cons stuff) fits well into Dr. No's sweet spot.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Molon Labe!

Adversus Solem Ne Loquitor Ron Paul 2008

The recent deluge of Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! mentions have come from: a, individual blogs written by readers - most of whom are n00bs wanting to berate us all into voting for the man, with the remainder from the regulars reacting to said n00bs; and b, extraneous comments made by Ronulans on posts that have the temerity not to be about Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!

So you'll understand why we're snickering at your promise not to come 'round here any more. We got what you want, baby: a feed to Google News. I'd sooner expect a junkie to give up smack.

Moe

PS: As to 30-40 times the traffic... who said that we want to be dKos? Shoot, I like winning policy fights.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

By my count, we've won three, they've won none.

What's that you say? 2006? Hm. Musta missed it, what with the complete state of status quo ante.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

...we've been having a great year, thanks to our guy Senator Mitch McConnell. Now there's somebody who knows how to shut down Congress until it gives him what he wants. A pity Representative Paul doesn't have the mother-wit to learn from the man...

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Your boy McConnell has submitted Amendment 1170 which would require voters to present a government-issued photo ID in order to vote in federal elections. Sounds a lot like the poll taxes and literacy tests of the good old days to me...then again, he is from Kentucky.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

One is left to wonder when, oh when, the Angel of Mercy shall finally arrive...

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

...to see how quickly the quote-unquote "True Conservatives" start sounding like the Moonbat Left. And they wonder why we look at them funny...

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

and the lingering odor of ganja.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

medication. And counseling. Or maybe just burial.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

to cash a check. Why shouldn't you have to have one to decide who runs the country?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

to the National ID, not any ID in general.

Remembering that no proof of citizenship or legal residency will be required if Spitzer get his way.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

What's the point of having a Google News Feed?

...who are, ah, very enthusiastic in their commentary. I'm pretty sure we didn't sign up for it.

*In this particular case, I am using 'people' in the generic sense. No specific comparison is intended.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Your opening sentence was enough to get Polar Lime Seltzer into my nasal cavity.

Were you even remotely amusing it would have managed a prompt escape but, alas, not so much.

Adios.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Use of "neoconservatives" except to mean the technical definition of "neoconservative" is a signal that you'd like your account disabled.

Hence, it's done.

P.S. We have one moderator and one other front-pager who are neocons. The rest of us are various shades of non-neo-con. I'm a medievalist theocrat.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

WOW. I have new found respect for you Sir Thomas. Or should that be Bishop Thomas?

Cool.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

You've been here a grand total of 14-minutes. Unless you're a re-tread - in which case you'd better have some lye soap handy.

Bye.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

And thanks for the dog whistle.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

You do realize that Barry Goldwater, Jr. has endorsed Ron Paul, right? Just checking.

Your point?

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Or should that be "It's a pity..."? We haven't had one of those in a while.

Shoo.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Your very valid point is wasted... because you use a disrespectful and belittling moniker like 'Ronulan'

The worst part about doing that is it utterly short circuits the debate and seems to imply that your mind is closed to any changing of your opinions.

The worst part? I think you have a valid point that needs to be addressed by supporters of Ron Paul, it's just you might as well wave a big red flag in front of them with the 'Ronulan' crack.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

And it means that it's a valid point that should be addressed:

From Wikipedia: "Nevertheless, he has been named one of the "50 Most Effective Members of Congress" by Congressional Quarterly." this was in 1999.

Sorry about not detailing specific bills and legislation, but having CQ recognize you is certainly a start.

...so I'll give you a legit answer:

We don't care.

The last quarter in general - heck, the last two weeks - has been a disaster for the Ron Paul campaign, PR-wise. Websites, online polls, talk forums, you name it - they've been subjected to what feels like a concerted campaign to browbeat the universe into voting for Ron Paul. This campaign has been humorless, annoying, and worst of all, repetitive - so when you're walking in at this point you're walking into a situation where we've gone past engaging, or even ignoring. The well of our sympathy is dry. It's now just a matter of amusing our readers with our gacking acrobatics - because, really, that's what's left.

We're not counting on Ron Paul and his supporters. We're not including them in our calculations. We could care less what they think of us. We do not even look on them and see 'us' in the first place. And we do not care if this causes people to leave, because we weren't counting them as being 'here' in the first place.

Refer to this if a serious answer is required, because I'm going to go back to amusing myself and the regulars now.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Really I do,

but please try to understand that there are some of us who feel that Ron Paul has some very valid points that we desperately do not want to see get lost in the noise of some of his more... zealous... supporters.

Yes, they're damaging the candidate the love, but they're doing it out of a sense of frustration. Which is a shame, because they're just as guilty of the same crimes that they think the MSM and the Republicans are, which is closing their minds to the idea that there is more than one opinion and that Ron Paul is not the reincarnation of whichever founding father is out there.

The Deification of Ron Paul is the one thing that makes me want to hit my head on the table in frustration, because if we had a respectful debate where we didn't have a few Ron Paul Nut cases to ruin everyone's perception of people who can and do support Ron Paul, I honestly thing that more people would be receptive to his ideas.

As it is, I understand and respect your disgust at the actions of some of the Ron Paul supporters. And on behalf of the Ron Paul supporters who understand the importance of debate and respectful discussion, I am sorry you've had to put up with them.

I know you say you don't care, but you took the time to give me an honest answer, and I am grateful for it. So thank you for talking to me and taking the time to listen.

---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI

And usually neither are the people who link to it. The ones who are usually appologize that they weren't able to find a better link.

Actually,

Me being the non-proof reading impatient type, I went to wiki, looked up the citation, then went over to cq, found it was account restricted then went to google and found other references to it from a Press Release from 1999 (which is where I found the date, which isn't on wikipedia). then didn't bother to edit my post to reflect that it wasn't a direct citation from wiki.

Wiki is a good starting place but not always a good ending place, you certainly are correct about that.

---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI

My real name appears somewhere in the Wikipedia, and right after the existence of God, the next thing I'm sure of is that I'm not important enough to be mentioned by name in Wikipedia.

just like it does in your every day life.

Aren't we all adults now?

Here. Lemme fix that for ya.

Moe

PS: "We?" Tsk, tsk, tsk.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

A lot of 'em among Ron Paul supporters.

Kids? We're pretty clear when we ban people. Hell, I think that we've spawned a particularly strange sexual fetish from our banning practices.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

It really is a pity redstate doesn't have a slashdot method of moderation.

So you think some Ron Paul supporters have a... foot to the rear fetish? ;)

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

supporters on RS, but Fred is the favorite here. Not that there's anything wrong with that :>)

The new political continuum:

Better Red than Hillary,
Better Fred than Hillary,
So Move On from Ron!

...at least get your professional wrestlers straight.

I think you mean Gov. Jesse "the Body" Ventura.

It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins

You are correct. I only watch the movies, not the WWF or WWE (or whatever it is they are using these days) events, so Hogan is the one I'm most apt to remember.

So your suggestion is to allow the Media to dictate to the American people who should be President of the United States huh?

People getting together with meetup groups, sign distribution and "get out the vote" campaigns is multi level marketing?

You don't want passionate Republicans is what I hear you saying...

the Media select the President? Huh!

Passionate Republicans? Yes! Passionate anti-war liberal trolls? NO!

Reagan DID pull out the Marines and explained that we just don't understand the radical thinking of those wackos. Get your history right.

Patrick Wilber
Libertarian
former Democrat to unseat Bush
Republican now for Ron Paul
former Army Captain
small business owner

I SAID that his pulling the Marines out of Beirut was his greatest mistake. He did not recognize the Islamofascist threat at that time for what it is. TODAY he would not back down from the terrorists.

Don't get snarky with me, sparky!

Patrick Wilber
Libertarian
former Democrat to unseat Bush
Republican now for Ron Paul
former Army Captain
small business owner

I have been totally courteous to this poster, and you walk into the conversation and take a big dump on the rug!

YOU are an IDIOT! Don't come to a battle of wits unarmed A**HOLE!

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

And Rightly So!

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

OBL has noted that the US is weak and can be beaten and has used the pull out of Marines from Lebanon as one of his examples. FWIW, I've met Marines who were there. They wanted to pursue their attackers. They were removed virtually at gun point.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Before I answer, I'm interested in hearing more about your theories of the media.

Is it your claim that the press bias works against, say, Kucinich and Paul, but in favor of Clinton, Obama, Thompson, and Giuliani equally?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Are you naive to think they don't?

If so then just look at the Fox News Republican debates.

Giuliani received almost double the talking time of Ron Paul and twice as many questions.

Ron Paul was provided one sided, unique questions engineered to make him look foolish.

Or maybe ABC and the fact that they removed thousands of comments from forums submitted by Ron Paul supporters.

Or maybe most recently the Ron Paul family walk in New Hampshire. The ABC affiliate refused to provide even one reporter to document the thousands that showed up for a Presidential Candidate.

What about the harsh comments and statements from Fox News correspondents, Hannity and Colmes.

If that's not enough, What about the College professor Paul Levinson, PhD. Professor and Chair Department of Communication and Media Studies who will be teaching of the media blackout attempts of ABC this coming semester...

http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2007/08/abcs-abuse-of-american-electora...

What possible motivation would they have for backing Fred and Hillary but not Ron?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Special interests

I'm like a cat you're hanging a string in front of; I'm batting at it, batting at it, but you just won't let me have your answer!

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Why are you ignoring the fact that they ignore Ron Paul?

I'm not dangling a string in front of you either. I posted a response, you asked me a question. I answered that question and you asked me another question.

So I'm not dangling anything in front of you. I answered your original question about the media. Now your turn.

Who are the special interests in control of ALL the major press outlets and blacking out Ron Paul's campaign?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Jooooooooooos who run the CFR?

[and Neil, we discussed this over Matzo soup at our last meeting with folks from CBS, etal]
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Yes, I was throwing him batting practice pitches, but still, I didn't come out and SAY it :-)

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

And to be honest.. I have no idea why they support Hillary. Obama I might can understand, but Hillary?

Haven't we had enough of the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton era?

I know you guys agree.

Was Ed Brown there?? You know, the guy who's been convicted of tax evasion in federal court and is holed up in his house just daring the feds to come and get him. The one RP had nothing but good words for in a recent interview.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Actually Ron Paul encourages peaceful dissent against 'bad' laws but he also says there must be consequences to pay for such actions.

Flat out, your wrong. He didn't have all good words for Ed and Elane Brown.

I've pulled the clip for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZnzGredcIs

I think the media blackouts are well documented.

Just look at the way the media used physiology to help lead the current front runners into the top spots.

Before the election season even started the media referred to candidates as 1st Tier and 2nd Tier candidates.

Fred Thompson hadn't even announced his decision to run and the media was already calling him a 1st tier candidate.

Just who exactly decides if someone if 1st tier or not? The Media?

It's an article of faith that you don't go for electability. I'm going to break that rule.

From where I sit, the country is in grave danger of putting Hillary Clinton in the White House. The consequences of such an outcome would be total disaster for the competitive position of the United States, in almost every meaningful dimension: economics, foreign policy, security, you name it.

The reason for this is not Herself's mendacity or wrong-headedness, which are in fact no worse than those of any other politician. The problem is that she is a competent, capable and disciplined individual. She honestly believes that this country must have the things she wants to do, and (together with a Democratic Congress) she can make them happen.

This is the proximate danger we face next year. The supporters of Ron Paul are on a campaign to radically change the terms of our political debate, that might be welcome in any other context.

By insisting on having the debate on their terms, the Libertarians are quixotically and annoyingly ignoring the real problem. And willfully so, as plenty of them have said they would be happy to see Hillary in the White House just to show everyone how bad things can really get!

I already know how bad things can get. And I'm going to do everything I possibly can to keep that woman out of the Presidency. Including shouting down the distraction that Ron Paul represents.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Yes, because the people at RedState (and you guys aren't alone.. there are many of you) only see 2 sides to American politics. Republican and Democrat. There is nothing else. Politics are not individualized, they are categorized.

I don't think anyone needs to worry. If Ron Paul receives the nomination people here at RedState WILL vote for him.

It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Let me know when you figure out how to do it in a cogent and cohesive way that makes any sense, 'cause this mess ain't it.

1. RP a unifier. So far the only people he's "unified" would be the Troofers and the CFR conspiracy theorists, along with some cave dwellers and former mental patients. He's been in Congress for 20 years and hasn't been able to unify a single other Congressman to his POV. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.

2. OBL's strategy. Hate to tell you, it started before 9/11. He is long on record that we are weak and will run from protracted conflict. He cites Vietnam, Tehran, Lebanon, Mogadishu, the USS Cole, the Embassy bombings in Africa and the first WTC bombing as proof that we are weak and toothless. RP fits right into his strategy. Let's back up to the borders and wait for them to attack us. Let's fight terrorists in Topeka's shopping malls with security guards in ill fitting uniforms rather than in the Middle East with the US military. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.

3. OBL's achieved goals. Gee, I must have missed the US being brought to our knees by the war. And 3,800 KIA in a five year war is nothing. And don't get worked up about that statement, my son is a former Marine and I've been to more military funerals than I care to discuss. At the end of the day, my son was right when he called me and said "we're trained to fight, you're old". Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.

4. 12B/month, etc. Huh? But, if that's the cost, it's money well spent. I own about two ounces of gold. My wedding ring. And I have no desire to own any more. I like fiat money alot, although I prefer ferrari money.

5. Can I understand you? God no. And I hope I never will. You're seriously off your meds and should go back for a check up. Feel free to take that comment personally. Oh, and bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.

6. Your last four paragraphs of disconnected trash. Shows that you haven't a clue about anything else I stand for with respect to welfare, or immigration, or entitlements, or anything else.

I must admit you don't come even close to the dumbest comment I read from an RP supporter, but it's close. You can feel free to go back in your cave and discuss the evil corporations and the CFR with your little friends. And here's something you can use to stimulate your conversation: don't you wonder why the Senate named McCain's "campaign finance reform" after the "council on foreign relations"? Hmmmm.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

of meaning in this statement, but

John McCain, Rudy Guiliani, Fred Thompson, Becker, Moe, me, and a whole bunch of other people here have a simple plan for defeating the terrorists: Find them where they live and kill them first. I probably part company with most of the above in that I wouldn't be shy about using tactical nukes to do it.

The terrorists can't be reasoned with, and they can't be bought. They can only be killed. Even the Sunni's in southern Iraq have come to understand this, which is part of why they are now working with us to regain control of "their part" of the country.

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

You won't like my explanation, but then again, you've more than demonstrated in your short time here that you have no clue what a "conservative" might be.

The only thing you have to worry about is making sure you take your meds.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

when I could have waited a couple minutes and just let you summarize my feelings precisely. ">)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

but I just wanted to burn him to the ground. He can't say he wasn't warned now, can he?

mbecker,

Why do you think we need to spend $10 billion a month rebuilding Iraq? That seems a fair question and I hope I am not banned for asking it.

It just doesn't sound conservative and I thought being a republican meant being conservative. Is there a different type of conservative that I am unaware of?

Don't just dismiss the question, if you want to change someone's mind you need to open it up.

If you say I am a wing-nut I will offer up my educational and professional credentials for review.

If you call me a chickenhawk I will offer you my service record. If you agree that Janis was correct stating that I was being sanctimonious and condescending - I will just ask you to explain why she doesnt answer my question to her. Is being PRO-WAR the only way to be patriotic on redstate?

If you explain why and how we should rebuild Iraq and why it is in our best interest, I will listen to your point of view and try to understand where you are coming from. If you resort to childish name-calling or don't want to answer the question then I suppose my point is getting across.

Because you dunderhead, it is in our national interest to have a strong ally in the Middle East. It gives us leverage over places like Syria and Iran (two other countries in the ME that support terrorism and would like to kill you). But hey, neither of those countries border the US so why worry, right?

You won't get chickenhawked by any regular poster here. Ever. And I could care less about your service record or lack thereof. What I care about is a cogent argument on some side or another of an issue. And that you haven't delivered. You've just done the RonPaulWhine™ about $10B/ month. And no, you don't have to be pro-war to be patriotic, but you do have to be logical and cogent. You are neither. But given the rest of the cave dwellers who came out with you, you're in good company.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

As mbecker908 notes, Iraq is a key geographical location that splits Syria and Iran.

And Rightly So!

I appreciate your detailed response. I wanted to get your point of view on record. I was not making any arguments or trying to debate anything, I simply registered to find out your reasoning behind the comments.

Since your reply revealed your enthusiasm to debate I look forward to taking a stand on some issues with you in the future.

I agree this post is spent but if I do provide a cogent argument at some point could you provide a link to the rules about being banned beforehand? Is there a RS rulebook? Can we embed links?

Thx - and good night

Posting Rules...

Also note that for the most part one has to work at having your account disabled. Stupid comments won't do it, I'd have been gone long ago. I will also note that "new" posters like the ones this blog has attracted get away with less than people with posting histories. Probably not fair but neither is life.

I'm also just a member, not a moderator so the only person who's account I can disable is mine.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Lying isn't a good way to make a good impression around here. Becker did answer your question, you just aren't willing to accept that it was an answer.

Regarding professional credentials, I don't give a d*mn. Your credentials are the arguments you make in this forum, their basis in fact, not theology (although if you want to talk theology we can do that in a different forum, and many here are better at it than me), their connection to logic, your sense of history, and culture, and how they blend to project probable and possible future paths. Red tried to start the discussion correctly, but with only a few exceptions, the Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! posters on this thread have demonstrated very little understanding of combination of science and art that are the politic basis of politics.

...you come up with that! Brilliant!

What are you doing, like, after...?

It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins

though it may be, I didn't put up a diary that attracted this stuff. One of them showed up on the diary that I DID write begging for a ceasefire from this kind of stuff. Ticked me off so much that I called off the ceasefire--can you tell?

It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins

Stop beating around the bush and tell brettix how you really feel. You'll feel so much better once you get it all out of your system. :)

Well at least I feel much better hearing you express what I haven't been able to articulate hitherto.

a href="http://andrightlyso.com/index.php">And Rightly So!

Apparently I am not so constrained. :-)

Jesus, listening to you two makes me feel exactly like singing that. You two are truly childish, and nowhere NEARLY as intelligent as either of you think yourselves.

To sum up both or your arguments, "I don't like Ron Paul, so nyah! A million times infinity!" (lolly lolly lolly lolly - with hands over ears)

Do you really think you are making intellectual arguments by saying, "so-and-so's foreign policy sucks," "the gold-standard thingy is retarded," "he doesn't know what he's doing?" My 6 year old niece can reason better than that.

And what cracks me up the most, is that you two claim the RON PAUL POSTERS are failing to use logic? Damn, you guys really are stupid. People there is no point in speaking to the monkeys any further.

And Moe, yes, this is my second post. Ban me if you'd like. But the truth is the truth.

Just for grins (and I've got a couple of free minutes), why in the world would you post something begging to get banned when you posit that you want to engage in debate?

Oh, right. You're a JD, and MBA, soon to be a PhD. And an idiot. I remember now.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.