Republican debate thread - Page 10

Dane S · #91 05-04-2007, 07:26 AM

Ah okay. Does that mean he opposes the war on drugs?

Does he have any conceivable chance in hell? I'm watching some of his speeches on youtube and I am seriously impressed. I didn't know that politicians like this existed.

Nielsio · #92 05-04-2007, 07:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Ah okay. Does that mean he opposes the war on drugs?

Does he have any conceivable chance in hell? I'm watching some of his speeches on youtube and I am seriously impressed. I didn't know that politicians like this existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's a staunch minarchist.

I still think he's pretty naive (in regards to what the function of government is, which is a puppetshow for extortion).

He may be an anarchist at heart, if you'd push him, but that he uses the way he deals himself as a strategy for liberty.

It's gotta be one of those two.

Either way, he's got a good heart.

AlexM · #93 05-04-2007, 08:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Ah okay. Does that mean he opposes the war on drugs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Does he have any conceivable chance in hell?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, but he might get enough publicity to either go for a Senate run in a couple years or run on the LP ticket next year and actually put a dent into the vote rather than a dimple.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm watching some of his speeches on youtube and I am seriously impressed. I didn't know that politicians like this existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's the only one in Congress. So... 1 in 535? [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Jenkins279 · #94 05-04-2007, 09:55 AM

There is even more reason for 2+2 to love Ron Paul:

voted Nay on H.R. 4411 [109th]: Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-363

MrMon · #95 05-04-2007, 10:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm the other way around. I don't think it's immoral, but I think it's immoral for the feds to bar communities from making their own decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should think about that again. If you took your idea to the limit, communities could come up with all sorts of nasty laws, and don't think they wouldn't. The Old South was real good at that.

Roe v. Wade essentially said to government at all levels, "This is not your decision, it is an individual's." Why is lower level government impinging on individual liberty any better or more valid?

mosdef · #96 05-04-2007, 10:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Not really, but he might get enough publicity to either go for a Senate run in a couple years or run on the LP ticket next year and actually put a dent into the vote rather than a dimple.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless the electoral system is changed to proportional representation, he'll just end up sucking votes away from republicans and giving the democrats the lead. I don't think that's what he wants.

ojc02 · #97 05-04-2007, 10:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Okay as a Libertarian-leaning Democrat I'm liking Ron Paul's performance.

Looking him up on vote-smart.org though, I'm disillusioned right off the bat by reading about his abortion stances. Going down the list he looks less and less like a Libertarian. 100% ratings by the conservative union, and 50% by the ACLU.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is pro-life but he disagrees with Roe vs Wade on constitutional grounds. His argument is that there's nothing in the constitution addressing this issue so under the 10th amendment it should be left to the states.

He writes about the issue here.

If you want to find his stance on literally any issue this is a great archive of his articles: link

DVaut1 · #98 05-04-2007, 11:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not really, but he might get enough publicity to either go for a Senate run in a couple years or run on the LP ticket next year and actually put a dent into the vote rather than a dimple.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless the electoral system is changed to proportional representation, he'll just end up sucking votes away from republicans and giving the democrats the lead. I don't think that's what he wants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Texas's Sr. Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, was re-elected in 2006. Texas's Jr. Senator, Republican John Cornyn, is up for re-election in 2008 and is the prohibitive favorite.

Short of unseating a member of his own party in the primary in '08 (something Paul ostensibly couldn't do, even if wanted to -- which he probably doesn't, because he's running for President) -- the next time a Senate seat might open up in Texas that Paul could conceivably win will be in 2012. This is assuming Hutchinson doesn't want her seat and forgoes running again. At that point, Paul will be 77. Unless you guys know something I don't, it's pretty obvious this isn't a publicity play to gear up for a Senate run. 71 year old politicians don't make moves for a hypothetical race that is years in the future.

If anything, his Presidential campaign might be his swan song. He runs now, makes some great speeches, says the important things he feels need to be said, then rides off into the sunset when he's done. See: Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, and John Kasich for examples of this in the past two primary cycles.

Ineedaride2 · #99 05-04-2007, 01:00 PM

I listened to the Glen Beck show this morning while I was running some errands (I don't like him, but I like to listen to opposing viewpoints and make sure they're as stupid as they were yesterday). Anyway, he was bashing Ron Paul on his reply to the "Have you ever made any critical decisions" question. In fact, Beck said it was the WORST answer he'd ever heard in any presidential debate. So I'm assuming that he and others have a hard on for Paul being that he isn't the typical neocon that they're wanting to see proceed to the white house.

I didn't think it was a particularly eloquent answer, but it was clear and honest. I don't think many of the other candidates could've done much better.

They'll probably try to turn this into some big thing, when it wasn't.

Oh yeah: Ron Paul in '08!

Nielsio · #**100** 05-04-2007, 01:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I listened to the Glen Beck show this morning while I was running some errands (I don't like him, but I like to listen to opposing viewpoints and make sure they're as stupid as they were yesterday). Anyway, he was bashing Ron Paul on his reply to the "Have you ever made any critical decisions" question. In fact, Beck said it was the WORST answer he'd ever heard in any presidential debate. So I'm assuming that he and others have a hard on for Paul being that he isn't the typical neocon that they're wanting to see proceed to the white house.

I didn't think it was a particularly eloquent answer, but it was clear and honest. I don't think many of the other candidates could've done much better.

They'll probably try to turn this into some big thing, when it wasn't.

Oh yeah: Ron Paul in '08!

[/ QUOTE ]

What did he answer