ForumGarden

Sad what we have become. I like this guy but he doesn't have a chance.

Ed cetera | Ron Paul Ignored | Seattle Times Newspaper

Scrat;1365718 wrote: Sad what we have become. I like this guy but he doesn't have a chance.

Ed cetera | Ron Paul Ignored | Seattle Times Newspaper


it is sad.......but honestly, I never liked him.

Scrat;1365718 wrote: Sad what we have become. I like this guy but he doesn't have a chance.

Ed cetera | Ron Paul Ignored | Seattle Times Newspaper
It pisses me off that the MSM are so blatantly trying to manipulate the campaign.

Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/15/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

I like some of Paul's positions, but in certain areas such as economics he's a loony conspiracy theorist.

Right or wrong, looney or not he brings new ideas to an atrophied and infantile minded institution. If there's one thing we need it's new ideas.

Scrat;1365759 wrote: Right or wrong, looney or not he brings new ideas to an atrophied and infantile minded institution. If there's one thing we need it's new ideas.I read the article, of which the author goes from "new" ideas to "back" to conservative ideas;That's not to say Paul's candidacy is without meaning. He is a radical in a non-radical party. His job is to take ideas that are off the table and bring them on the table. With Paul, those ideas are an end to foreign wars, a sound currency and a much stricter constitutional order. He has brought these into the tent--back into the tent, really, because they are old Republican ideas from the 1940s, 1930s and earlier.Liberals never wanted us in theses wars but somehow that's Paul's idea?

We have a sound currency if only religious conservatives and Paulies would begin to understand and support it.

There's nothing wrong with our adherence to the Constitution, it's flexible, thankfully.

Merely reading something in a newspaper doesn't make it credible.

Last time I heard someone seeking the republican nomination speak against War, it was leading up to the '64 elections.

Ahso!;1365739 wrote: I like some of Paul's positions, but in certain areas such as economics he's a loony conspiracy theorist.He's said many times that his views on the Fed would never fly today. He speaks about it but is realistic enough to know it's just a pipe dream, much like finding a party-loyal politician who is independent of corporate influence.



Ahso!;1365761 wrote: I read the article, of which the author goes from "new" ideas to "back" to conservative ideas;Liberals never wanted us in theses wars but somehow that's Paul's idea?True - well, at least after voting for them - but it's radical for the Repub side, I think you'll agree.

Ahso!;1365761 wrote: We have a sound currency if only religious conservatives and Paulies would begin to understand and support it.I think you're the loony conspiracy theorist. Has someone said that our faith-based monetary system is against God or something? Paul arguing for a sound currency is different from his argument about ending the Fed. He's talking about not printing so much monopoly money and not borrowing so much.

Ahso!;1365761 wrote: There's nothing wrong with our adherence to the Constitution, it's flexible, thankfully.Sure it's flexible, but lately it's been completely ignored. What do you think about the idea (I forget who raised it initially) of stating in the text of every bill which part of the Constitution it would support, if passed? I think it's a great idea, and I can't believe they didn't do it from Day One.

Accountable;1365853 wrote: I think you're the loony conspiracy theorist.I'm certain you do.

Accountable;1365853 wrote: Has someone said that our faith-based monetary system is against God or something?My reason for conflating religious conservatives with Paul followers is that neither understand what it is they're against. The TEA Party appears to be made up, in large part, of social conservatives who are hopping on an economic bandwagon (similar to Paulies) steered by people who pretend to understand the system and are instead digging the ditch that the economy's been driven into deeper.

Accountable;1365853 wrote: Paul arguing for a sound currency is different from his argument about ending the Fed. He's talking about not printing so much monopoly money and not borrowing so much.We'd all like our deficit to be lower and our borrowing to not be such a high percentage to GDP, however, not one of the republican candidates, including Ron Paul, are talking responsibly about the situation. I understand they may be just appealing to their base, but that's the point - it doesn't say much at all about their base, does it.

A central bank is necessary. Our currency works just fine as it is.

Accountable;1365853 wrote: Sure it's flexible, but lately it's been completely ignored. What do you think about the idea (I forget who raised it initially) of stating in the text of every bill which part of the Constitution it would support, if passed? I think it's a great idea, and I can't believe they didn't do it from Day One.I assume every piece of legislation passed, whether or not I personally agree with it, is believed to be relevant to the preamble in the minds of those who vote for it.

U.S. Constitution wrote: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Ahso!;1365961 wrote: We'd all like our deficit to be lower and our borrowing to not be such a high percentage to GDP, however, not one of the republican candidates, including Ron Paul, are talking responsibly about the situation. I understand they may be just appealing to their base, but that's the point - it doesn't say much at all about their base, does it.Both sides are singing the same song, that both parties are to blame, but they're saying it as if it absolves them of responsibility, as if when saying all are to blame then none are to blame. They're empty words.

Ahso!;1365961 wrote: A central bank is necessary. Our currency works just fine as it is.That's a fine opinion. Cuddle up with it.

Ahso!;1365961 wrote: I assume every piece of legislation passed, whether or not I personally agree with it, is believed to be relevant to the preamble in the minds of those who vote for it.I don't, not anymore. I believe that for many if not most congresspeople, the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of political bunting to be displayed when, um, politic, and promptly ignored all other times. I don't think the Constitution enters their minds at all except during campaign time, and only rarely even then.

Accountable;1366011 wrote: Both sides are singing the same song, that both parties are to blame, but they're saying it as if it absolves them of responsibility, as if when saying all are to blame then none are to blame. They're empty words.They're empty words coming from the right, that's for sure. The democrats are right on this one, it's that simple.



Accountable;1366011 wrote: I don't, not anymore. I believe that for many if not most congresspeople, the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of political bunting to be displayed when, um, politic, and promptly ignored all other times. I don't think the Constitution enters their minds at all except during campaign time, and only rarely even then.You're probably right but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. As much as I disagree with religious conservatives and others, I do think they believe their policy preferences are the best for all. The same goes for liberals.

Ahso!;1366054 wrote: They're empty words coming from the right, that's for sure. The democrats are right on this one, it's that simple.It's simple alright, Partisan.

Accountable;1366063 wrote: It's simple alright, Partisan.And your posts are not?