What do you think about the NWO, jrodefeld?
[Mod Hat]Galileo Galilei, I’ll assume the stuff you coped and pasted from the Ron Paul site is your own material; otherwise you’re spamming here. And enough with the cutting and pasting. We can all google “war of 1812.”[/Mod Hat]
If either of you has any pull with Ron Paul, please get him to adopt this as his slogan.
Sheesh, I take a little break and we wind up with 107 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities and a re-enactment of the Battle of Put-In-Bay.
Come to think of it, if we elect a President whose ultimate goal is to return us to the glory days of 1812, that’ll pretty much solve the terrorism problem. Maybe they’ll try to blow up one of our paddle-wheel steamers once in awhile, but for the most part they’ll be too busy laughing.
No celebration for the Battle of Queenston Heights? 
I don’t think you can extrapolate anything from a Kentucky primary. Kentucky is an odd electoral duck in that it’s a deeply red state (McCain won 57-41) and yet registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 3-2. (It’s crazier when you break it down by county; my own county is 80% Democrat and McCain got 65%.)
This means that our average Democrat is considerably to the right of center, and our average Republican is slightly to the right of Vlad the Impaler. So both primaries tend to be battles over who can be the most conservative.
Trey Grayson, Paul’s main opponent, is largely seen as a RINO. He’s a former Democrat, and was a delegate for Bill Clinton in 1992. As such, he has had to run as a solid establishment Republican, trumpeting endorsements from the likes of Dick Cheney, Rick Santorum, and Mitch McConnell. This isn’t a great plan in a year when establishment Republicans are out of fashion, but I don’t think he has any choice–he can’t win the primary if he can’t shake off the RINO image.
This created a big opening for Rand Paul to appeal to the Tea Partiers, and he did so from the very beginning. He has no real political past to run from like Grayson does, so he’s been able to build his image from scratch.
So he’s found the perfect situation in the perfect political setting, and he’ll take the primary easily. But we’ll see how he holds up in the stronger light of a general election, and in any event I don’t think you can extrapolate anything from Kentucky to the nation as a whole.
That was the campaign slogan of Richard Mentor Johnson in 1836, when he ran with Martin van Buren, and won, beating William Henry Harison.
“Tippecanoe and Tyler, too” was a response to it in 1840 when Harrison won.
I think we lost that one, but what the heck, why not throw it into the festivities.
You’ve stated many times throughout this thread that Ron Paul is a supporter of Civil Rights and that he likes Rosa Parks a lot. Perhaps before you made these claims, you should have investigated whether they were true. Let me present a few facts that you’ve apparently missed.
In 1999, the House of Representatives voted to give the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. 434 members of the House voted in favor of giving here the Gold Medal. One member voted against giving her the Gold Medal.
In 2004, the House voted on HR. 676, commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. 434 members of the House voted in favor of HR. 676. One member of the House voted against HR. 676. Oddly enough, it was the same member who voted against the medal for Rosa Parks.
And who was that lone member who voted against honoring Rosa Parks and against celebrating the Civil Rights Act? I’ll give you a hint. His name rhymes with “Don Paul”. But that’s your ony hint. Other than that, you have to guess for yourself.
So the claims that you put forward to shoot down the charge of racism are not just untrue, but are the exact opposite of the truth. He has carefully, deliberately made it clear that he is the only elected official in Washington who disdains the civil rights movement. Moreover his reasons for doing so are obvious. In order to get those two percent vote totals in the Republican primaries that he’s so proud of, he has to have the support of white supremacists; they’re a sizable portion of his coalition. What better way to wrap up their support than by badmouthing Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights Act?
(Of course the Paul campaign has an excuse. They say he only opposed the Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks because the Constitution does not authorize Congress to give awards. Unfortunately for them, Ron Paul has voted in favor of Congressional awards for white people many times. He only views such awards as unconstitutional when they’re given to black people. Ron Paul is a racist and the more facts one knows, the more obvious it becomes.)
We had much worse dangers in 1812 than today, yet president James Madison was able to follow the Constitution:
**Mr. Madison’s War Versus Mr. Bush’s War **
A comparison of James Madison and his war to George Bush and his war
[[[[DELETED]]]]
I am sorry for my historical inaccuracy, as we did not have paddle-wheel steamers in the War of 1812.
Here’s a more accurate representation of the kind of vessel we would have been using (maybe Ron Paul could adopt this image for a revised Great Seal of the republic).
I’m confused. Are you arguing that Madison was a better wartime president than Bush and that this somehow leads to Paul being a better presidential candidate than Obama?
What, exactly, is the connection?
I know. If you can convince Ron Paul to adopt a variation as a campaign slogan, I might have to reevaluate his chances. Something like “Rumpsey Dumpsey, Rumpsey Dumpsey, Ron Paul wants to audit the Federal Reserve, see?” or “Rumpsey Dumpsey, Rumpsey Dumpsey, Ron Paul is the candidate for liberty.” Then in 2016 we can do “Tippecanoe and Rand Paul, too.”
I don’t want to spend the time required to break down your list point by point, but Kentucky is not representative of the entire U.S. (and Rand Paul is not his father). The 14th district of Texas is even less representative of the whole country.
He’s a seven-term incumbent who has been in Congress for most of the last 35 years. He’s supposed to win the primary by that much.
But outside of Texas and the web sites of his supporters, he won’t grab very many. He’ll be one of about 435 House members elected in November, and even in a backlash year incumbents are almost always re-elected.
Again with this crap about the media. The greatest enemy to Ron Paul is that his positions on a lot of issues are different from the Republican base.
And she has far stronger credentials with them than he does. She’s much better with religious conservatives, has a much higher profile, and is way better at raising money. She’s probably done more to build support for other candidates.
Newspapers weren’t doing very well in 2008 either.
The book came out in September. It’s old news, and that will be even more the case by the time presidential primaries start.
As noted, if the media hates him, they wouldn’t put him on TV.
Of course he’s not too old. There is no age limit for running for president. However his age would be a hindrance in getting elected.
But he still didn’t win a single state against a weak field.
Romney is extremely wealthy, so this is unlikely. Despite his many shortcomings as a candiadte, he’s also able to set up more of an infrastructure.
They were sick of them in 2007 and 2008, and Obama is pulling soldiers out of Iraq.
[quote]
18) A lot of people are getting sick of the war on drugs.
[/quote
This has been true for many years.
Constitution.
You’re a bit behind here. And views on the bill will be more positive in a few years.
So was Howard Dean.
Meaningless.
So he was only 75 perecnt short of a majority?
No they won’t.
And yet he didn’t win any states in 2008.
Why didn’t he win last time?
Same question.
Yes, if Madison can follow the Constitution despite great danger, then modern presidents can follow the Constitution when we have much less danger.
What Ron says can be done, it has already been done.
Galileo Galilei:
You ignored me the last time, and I’m not going to tell you a third time: stop the cut and paste jobs immediately. You also posted the “30 reasons” on Ron Paul’s site, and this comparison was also posted on the Paul site, the Kevin Barrett for Congress site, James Randi’s web site, and (for some reason) a San Antonio Spurs page. If you continue to do this, the posts will be deleted and your account will be banned. This is spam and we don’t allow it here.
This may be the first time I’ve seen the Chewbacca Defense used so successfully on the Straight Dope.
“Look at me. I’m a lawyer defending a major record company and I’m talking about Chewbacca. Does that make sense?”
Proof here that we can follow the Constitution:
I made changes before I pasted anything. The other site had 25 reasons and many changes were made. Here it is 30 reasons.
I don’t believe Paul’s explanation of this incident. Even if he is telling the truth, it shows him as being unfit for office.
No, your post on the Ron Paul forums had 30 reasons. But now that you say there’s another list, I see you put a shorter list on a lot of sites, too. My point stands: no more copy and paste jobs, period. If you want to show off a long list you put together, briefly tell us the gist of it and link to the rest.
Of all the pro-Paul arguments I’ve seen here, the idea that young people will persuade older people to vote for him is the most ludicrous.
As a practical matter, there is one issue that trumps all others for senior citizens, and that’s Social Security. Even the most socially conservative senior citizen thinks of Social Security as an entitlement, and will turn quickly against any candidate who’s perceived as wanting to reduce (or even just reduce INCREASES in) Social Security spending.
Ron Paul is a libertarian, which means he opposes the entire Social Security system. That may appeal to a segment of young voters, but that will make him POISON to senior citizens in any election.
