The Nuclear option: Ron Paul...

[Nevarwinter]

The more I see what Obama and his team of communists do to America, the more we need a politician in the WH that won't care about politics and will instead start destroying 50 years of slowly built up socialism.

We need an excited base, a rabidly excited base. One that can hit back as hard as the biased media.

On this note, i'm abandoning my hope of Jindal or Palin for 2012 and i'm going to back Ron Paul if he decides to run.

Guys, hear me out... I've been pretty biased against RP in the past but the more I look around at our "politician first" moderates and soft willed conservatives, the more I realize that we need a destroyer in office who can cause so much destruction to the entrenched socialism that it'll take another 50 years for them to build it up again.

I held my nose and voted for McCain but I proudly voted for Palin. Unfortunately, she won't get a fair shake because the LMSM hates strong, individualistic women who don't want to kill children.

I don't care for some of RP's thoughts but I didn't care for some of McCain's either. If RP is half the libertarian (Yes, i'm aware that he's a Republican) he makes out to be, then backing him can only be a good thing.

In 2004, when I grew up, I switched to the Republican Party from independent. I'm a fiscal conservative and a social "get the government out of my life".

I may regret saying this one day, but then again, I may not. Just because I am now going to donate my money to RP, doesn't mean i'm going to be rabidly attacking all republicans (like some of them). We in the GOP have a segment who just want to be democrat lite.

That won't do.

[Mustang JEB]

I disagree with this, but you are making a common sense argument.

I respect that.

[WildRose]

The more I see what Obama and his team of communists do to America, the more we need a politician in the WH that won't care about politics and will instead start destroying 50 years of slowly built up socialism.

We need an excited base, a rabidly excited base. One that can hit back as hard as the biased media.

On this note, i'm abandoning my hope of Jindal or Palin for 2012 and i'm going to back Ron Paul if he decides to run.

Guys, hear me out... I've been pretty biased against RP in the past but the more I look around at our "politician first" moderates and soft willed conservatives, the more I realize that we need a destroyer in office who can cause so much destruction to the entrenched socialism that it'll take another 50 years for them to build it up again.

I held my nose and voted for McCain but I proudly voted for Palin. Unfortunately, she won't get a fair shake because the LMSM hates strong, individualistic women who don't want to kill children.

I don't care for some of RP's thoughts but I didn't care for some of McCain's either. If RP is half the libertarian (Yes, i'm aware that he's a Republican) he makes out to be, then backing him can only be a good thing.

In 2004, when I grew up, I switched to the Republican Party from independent. I'm a fiscal conservative and a social "get the government out of my life".

I may regret saying this one day, but then again, I may not. Just because I am now going to donate my money to RP, doesn't mean i'm going to be rabidly attacking all republicans (like some of them). We in the GOP have a segment who just want to be democrat lite.

That won't do.Ron Paul has more chance of flapping his wings and flying to the moon than he does of being president.

Hitching your wagon to a perpetual loser is certainly no solution. The only way anything is going to seriously change is for the Republican Party to run a real conservative giving the people a clear choice.

Like it or not our system has evolved to such a point that only one of two parties is ever going to be "the party of power".

[Mustang JEB]

Ron Paul has more chance of flapping his wings and flying to the moon than he does of being president.

Hitching your wagon to a perpetual loser is certainly no solution. The only way anything is going to seriously change is for the Republican Party to run a real conservative giving the people a clear choice.

Like it or not our system has evolved to such a point that only one of two parties is ever going to be "the party of power".


This is also my opinion on the topic, albeit in more pointed wording.:))

[ChazBedlam]

The more I see what Obama and his team of communists do to America, the more we need a politician in the WH that won't care about politics and will instead start destroying 50 years of slowly built up socialism.

We need an excited base, a rabidly excited base. One that can hit back as hard as the biased media.

On this note, i'm abandoning my hope of Jindal or Palin for 2012 and i'm going to back Ron Paul if he decides to run.

Guys, hear me out... I've been pretty biased against RP in the past but the more I look around at our "politician first" moderates and soft willed conservatives, the more I realize that we need a destroyer in office who can cause so much destruction to the entrenched socialism that it'll take another 50 years for them to build it up again.

I held my nose and voted for McCain but I proudly voted for Palin. Unfortunately, she won't get a fair shake because the LMSM hates strong, individualistic women who don't want to kill children.

I don't care for some of RP's thoughts but I didn't care for some of McCain's either. If RP is half the libertarian (Yes, i'm aware that he's a Republican) he makes out to be, then backing him can only be a good thing.

In 2004, when I grew up, I switched to the Republican Party from independent. I'm a fiscal conservative and a social "get the government out of my life".

I may regret saying this one day, but then again, I may not. Just because I am now going to donate my money to RP, doesn't mean i'm going to be rabidly attacking all republicans (like some of them). We in the GOP have a segment who just want to be democrat lite.

That won't do.

Good for you. I am a recovering Republican, and while I don't agree with RP on all the issues, I'll stand with anyone who wants smaller government ACCROSS THE BOARD. RP seems to be that guy.

[sironin]

Ron Paul has more chance of flapping his wings and flying to the moon than he does of being president.

Hitching your wagon to a perpetual loser is certainly no solution. The only way anything is going to seriously change is for the Republican Party to run a real conservative giving the people a clear choice.

Like it or not our system has evolved to such a point that only one of two parties is ever going to be "the party of power".

He had more chance than McCain did as the Republican candidate. Especially because it ultimately came down to the economy, which Paul is strong on compared to Obama or McCain.

A Paul vs Obama campaign would have had me voting for the R, rather than the McCain vs Obama campaign that had me voting for the D as being narrowly better on economics.

Also, if you think a "real conservative" is one of the social liberals the Republican party has been foisting on us over the last few decades, you're not going to get real conservative votes.

[ChazBedlam]

Real "conservatives" don't support social fascism, as is the norm among the base Republican neo-conservatives.

Real "liberals" don't support economic socialism, as is the norm among the base Democrat collectivist liberals.

So, when voting for (R) or (D), we have to make the choice between social authoritarianism or economic authoritarianism. This isn't even a freaking choice at all.

I choose whatever candidate supports the most social and economic liberty. In the "mainstream" (if RP is such) the choice seems to be RP. But, he's not even a Libertarian. He's a Republican with some Libertarian views on certain issues.

[ChazBedlam]

Ron Paul has more chance of flapping his wings and flying to the moon than he does of being president.

Hitching your wagon to a perpetual loser is certainly no solution. The only way anything is going to seriously change is for the Republican Party to run a real conservative giving the people a clear choice.

Like it or not our system has evolved to such a point that only one of two parties is ever going to be "the party of power".

As far as "wagons" go.....

The only thing the GOP has managed to do lately is circle the wagons and, instead of shooting the Democrat Indians on the attack, shoot any cowboy on the inside who doesn't have a neo-conservative hat on.

I'd rather hitch my wagon to a "loser" and fight for my survival and my freedom than get shot in the back by people who are politically identical in all but a few key issues.

But, hey, that's just me.

[PaleoPaul]

Ron Paul has more chance of flapping his wings and flying to the moon than he does of being president.

Hitching your wagon to a perpetual loser is certainly no solution. The only way anything is going to seriously change is for the Republican Party to run a real conservative giving the people a clear choice.

Like it or not our system has evolved to such a point that only one of two parties is ever going to be "the party of power".
Speaker of the House...should there be a "Republican Revolution" next fall.

[NightTrain]

Real "conservatives" don't support social fascism, as is the norm among the base Republican neo-conservatives.

O geez, CheezyBedlam....

Not this "real conservatives" **** again...:rolleyes:

[ChazBedlam]

O geez, CheezyBedlam....

Not this "real conservatives" **** again...:rolleyes:

Yes, NightTranny, this "real conservatives" **** again. Is there a problem? :whistle:

[OIVORY]

None of the current names being circulated will ever be President.

I include RP in that group.

I would look for a new face to emerge late in 2010, or early in 2011. Limbaugh and Hannity will bless that new face, and the media will try to trash it. If the media fails to gain traction, you will be seeing the next president of the U.S. If the media succeeds, 4 more years of Obama.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

The more I see what Obama and his team of communists do to America, the more we need a politician in the WH that won't care about politics and will instead start destroying 50 years of slowly built up socialism.

We need an excited base, a rabidly excited base. One that can hit back as hard as the biased media.

On this note, i'm abandoning my hope of Jindal or Palin for 2012 and i'm going to back Ron Paul if he decides to run.

Guys, hear me out... I've been pretty biased against RP in the past but the more I look around at our "politician first" moderates and soft willed conservatives, the more I realize that we need a destroyer in office who can cause so much destruction to the entrenched socialism that it'll take another 50 years for them to build it up again.

I held my nose and voted for McCain but I proudly voted for Palin. Unfortunately, she won't get a fair shake because the LMSM hates strong, individualistic women who don't want to kill children.

I don't care for some of RP's thoughts but I didn't care for some of McCain's either. If RP is half the libertarian (Yes, i'm aware that he's a Republican) he makes out to be, then backing him can only be a good thing.

In 2004, when I grew up, I switched to the Republican Party from independent. I'm a fiscal conservative and a social "get the government out of my life".

I may regret saying this one day, but then again, I may not. Just because I am now going to donate my money to RP, doesn't mean i'm going to be rabidly attacking all republicans (like some of them). We in the GOP have a segment who just want to be democrat lite.

That won't do.

You're going to be called a whole bunch of names here now.

[Droog]

Ron Paul has more chance of flapping his wings and flying to the moon than he does of being president.

Hitching your wagon to a perpetual loser is certainly no solution. The only way anything is going to seriously change is for the Republican Party to run a real conservative giving the people a clear choice.

Like it or not our system has evolved to such a point that only one of two parties is ever going to be "the party of power".Ron Paul is a republican. Pretty much the only real conservative they have.

What was your point again?

Anyway, I'm afraid that Ron Paul would be shot before he ever got near the White House. I worry for his life now with his audit and end the Fed bills, which are gaining serious traction. These people are criminals and they are not messing around.

[ChazBedlam]

None of the current names being circulated will ever be President.

I include RP in that group.

I would look for a new face to emerge late in 2010, or early in 2011. Limbaugh and Hannity will bless that new face, and the media will try to trash it. If the media fails to gain traction, you will be seeing the next president of the U.S. If the media succeeds, 4 more years of Obama.

I agree. I don't think RP, Palin, Jindal, or anyone who is prevalent in the GOP has a snowball's chance in hell of beating Obama's media monopoly. If the Feds sucessfully gain control of the web, small government minded people are going to have to send smoke signals or send morse code to communicate with each other.

[Nevarwinter]

You're going to be called a whole bunch of names here now.

That's fine. At least i'm not in the middle. :))

My decision has not been made lightly. I've made fun of RP in the past, but I always look at substance even if I don't like you. As it stands, I dont' see one leader emerging from the GOP and the more I thought about it, the more the Nuclear Option seems like the best course.

[ChaosControl]

Welcome to the dark side... well I guess it is actually the light side.

[ChazBedlam]

Welcome to the dark side... well I guess it is actually the light side.

We have cookies!


Demons to some, Angels to others.


- Pinhead

[McCoyFan]

[quote=Nevarwinter;55216041

On this note, i'm abandoning my hope of Jindal or Palin for 2012 and i'm going to back Ron Paul if he decides to run.
[/quote]



Paul told Bob Schieffer he will "probably" not run again for president.


Asked by Schiffer he will make another run for the presidency, Paul wouldn't rule it out entirely.


"Probably not, it's not on my agenda," said Paul.


http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4833479.shtml

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

I think Ron Paul is a terrible candidate, he doesn't have the look or the speaking ability, but I'll tell you what, he pulled in a ****load of money while never polling at more than four percent nationally, so if you guys could find your Ron Paul "Reagan" or "Obama" you might make some headway.

[sironin]

Paul told Bob Schieffer he will "probably" not run again for president.


Asked by Schiffer he will make another run for the presidency, Paul wouldn't rule it out entirely.


"Probably not, it's not on my agenda," said Paul.


http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4833479.shtml




McCain said he wouldn't run again waaaay back in the 2000 election. Paul is no McCain, but still...

[PaleoPaul]

A better candidate is needed.

Like Tommy said, a charismatic "Ron Paul" would be taken more seriously.

[WildRose]

Well let's see. RP is going to have to improve his appeal to the general voting public by just over about 100,000% to go from less than 1% to at least 50.1%. Yep, that's certainly likely to happen!

RP has some good ideas, but he also is so far out to lunch on many others he hasn't a snow ball's chance in hell of ever taking more than 10% of the vote. Sorry to all you Paulies but that's simply a fact.

There are some good conservatives out there that can genrate a broad appeal amongst voters. RP isn't now, nor will he ever be amongst them.

[Kermit McDermitt]

Real "conservatives" don't support social fascism, as is the norm among the base Republican neo-conservatives.

Real "liberals" don't support economic socialism, as is the norm among the base Democrat collectivist liberals.

So, when voting for (R) or (D), we have to make the choice between social authoritarianism or economic authoritarianism. This isn't even a freaking choice at all.

I choose whatever candidate supports the most social and economic liberty. In the "mainstream" (if RP is such) the choice seems to be RP. But, he's not even a Libertarian. He's a Republican with some Libertarian views on certain issues.

A real libertarian or anarchist would never make the ludicrous appeal to authority fallacy that ron paul and followers make toward the US Constitution.

[Kentucky Thinker]

Ron Paul has more chance of flapping his wings and flying to the moon than he does of being president.

Hitching your wagon to a perpetual loser is certainly no solution. The only way anything is going to seriously change is for the Republican Party to run a real conservative giving the people a clear choice.

Like it or not our system has evolved to such a point that only one of two parties is ever going to be "the party of power".

And you have more of a chance of flapping your wings and flying to the moon than the Republicans running a real conservative.

[Hoobeedoo Bejesus]

Paul vs Kucinich was my dream ticket.

Those men were both passionate and did not bow to the powers that be.

[Late2TheParty]

Even if Paul won the Presidency, all that would likely do would be to stem the tide for 4/8 years.

We need consistently good people in all levels of government.

[johnjay1788]

Ron Paul has more chance of flapping his wings and flying to the moon than he does of being president.

Hitching your wagon to a perpetual loser is certainly no solution. The only way anything is going to seriously change is for the Republican Party to run a real conservative giving the people a clear choice.

Like it or not our system has evolved to such a point that only one of two parties is ever going to be "the party of power".

I agree.

Ron Paul... he's an odd one. He believes in term limits, but he's on his what? Tenth term? Paul says he's against pork... but sneaks it in. Back in 1988, I believe, he wanted to abolish public schools... dissolve the FBI and CIA. To me, he's incredibly naive on foreign issues. Though, he does have valid points on fiscal issues. I've mentioned it before... the best interview done was with Tim Russert. Russert didn't hold back and had valid points which rattled Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmhkbIDwK50

You might be able to find the full interview on youtube. I think it was conducted on 12.23.07.

Updated: Found the various parts...

Part I -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8RsAroH6Pw (Naivety on foreign policy)
Paul overlooks the fact we have bases in Germany, Japan, etc. for mobilization issues. Paul states, "they don't want us there."

Not according to the Germans... for example...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/22/world/proposed-us-base-closings-send-a-shiver-through-a-german-town.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/16/world/german-city-tries-to-persuade-pentagon-to-keep-bases-open.html

Part II -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI_r9nf2joo (His response to abolishing public schools, the CIA, and FBI priceless -- "it's not part of my platform this time."... He also dodges his pork record.)

Part III -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5lP5RVGkq0 (Dodges his stance on term limits, etc.)

Part IV -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx5CGwtB4MQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx5CGwtB4MQ)
(Russert really takes it to him on invoking Reagan's image, his comment on Huckabee's ad, etc.)

[WildRose]

And you have more of a chance of flapping your wings and flying to the moon than the Republicans running a real conservative.Either they will or they will marginalize themselves into history as a completely extinct species.

If they haven't learned anything in the last three national elections they flat don't deserve to exist as a party any longer; and probably won't.

[free2B]

Either they will or they will marginalize themselves into history as a completely extinct species.

If they haven't learned anything in the last three national elections they flat don't deserve to exist as a party any longer; and probably won't.

the alternative is what we have now rose

[Vaard]

ron paul is not marketable enough to win the middle ground where style and charisma are more important than substance........

the republican party does all they can to marginalize ron paul.. even running other republicans in his primary to try and get him out of congress.... there is no way they would ever back him for a preidential candidancy......


gold water was as close as america got to electing an actual, dollars to donuts conservative and the republican party will never do that again......


the time of actual conservative values (fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, small non intrusive government) ended with goldwaters run and i dont see any chance of it returning......

[Charlie A]

I'm sorry but isolationism has been a disaster in the past. No doubt Dr. Paul would make an outstanding Sec'y of the Treasury, but his ideas on foreign policy are about 100 years out of date.

[Malikstein]

As far as "wagons" go.....

The only thing the GOP has managed to do lately is circle the wagons and, instead of shooting the Democrat Indians on the attack, shoot any cowboy on the inside who doesn't have a neo-conservative hat on.

I'd rather hitch my wagon to a "loser" and fight for my survival and my freedom than get shot in the back by people who are politically identical in all but a few key issues.

But, hey, that's just me.

your conviction is admirable, but to hitched to a loser dont usually attracts followers. not me anyway ...

[samurai7]

Ron Paul is a left wing loon, who pretends that having the same left wing arguments about National Defense makes him a "real conservative."

You are wasting your time with Ron Paul.

And "Real destroyer?"

That suuuuuuuuure explains why he goes along with politics as usual when it comes to Earmarks.

Ron Paul is not a destroyer. He doesn't practice what he preaches.

He just tells the faithful what they want to hear.

In that respect, he's no different than Obama.

:rolleyes:

[ChaosControl]

I'm sorry but isolationism has been a disaster in the past. No doubt Dr. Paul would make an outstanding Sec'y of the Treasury, but his ideas on foreign policy are about 100 years out of date.

You can't really agree with him on fiscal policy if you disagree on foreign policy, they are linked together when we spend so much on foreign policy that in no way actually benefits us.

[TCUFan]

I'm sorry but isolationism has been a disaster in the past. No doubt Dr. Paul would make an outstanding Sec'y of the Treasury, but his ideas on foreign policy are about 100 years out of date.

Agreed. Isolationism works every time it's tried. Unfortunately, it works for guys like Hitler, Stalin, and Tojo.

TCUFan

[Droog]

Paul vs Kucinich was my dream ticket.

Those men were both passionate and did not bow to the powers that be.They both oppose the Fed. That issue alone wins my vote. I wouldn't care what their other positions were...so much of what is wrong with our country is rooted in the Federal Reserve system. Abolish the Fed and we would experience freedom unparalleled in any of our lifetimes.

[johnrocks]

A better candidate is needed.

Like Tommy said, a charismatic "Ron Paul" would be taken more seriously.

Gary Johnson? Mark Sanford? Anyway welcome aboard Nevarwinter.:razz: