login
Ron Paul (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-01-27 1:18 PM in reply to: #4014478 |
Champion  11989      Philly 'burbs |  Subject: RE: Ron Paulspudone - 2012-01-27 1:23 PM Reagan had the Iran-Contra scandal (and whatever his involvement, you better believe George H.W. Bush knew everything -- he was previously the Director of Central Intelligence). And then when he became president he pardoned most of those involved. Clinton had the Lewinsky thing and he made questionable pardons also. George W. Bush had the Iraq WMD garbage and jettisoned a bunch of environmental protections right before he left office in a kickback to big energy. Obama was in charge while our nation's credit rating got downgraded. So how does a downgrade in our credit rating equate to the other question of integrity you brought up? He may have screwed up, but is that a question of integrity or effectiveness? |
| 2012-01-27 1:18 PM in reply to: #4014588 |
Extreme Veteran 732 Omaha, USA | Subject: RE: Ron Paul powerman - 2012-01-27 1:09 PM spudone - 2012-01-27 11:23 AM powerman - 2012-01-27 10:17 AM bzgl40 - 2012-01-27 11:09 AM powerman - 2012-01-27 9:43 AM Sad state of affairs... a man so well respected by both sides for his intelligence and integrity has no hope in hell of being President of this Great Nation. Interesting indeed. Thing is, you can be respected for what you are good at doing while not being able to do something else. I think that is ok. Just because your smart and respected doesn't mean you would make a good president. I see no conflict in that. Well in the WH I feel he would be ineffectual because Congress would refuse to work with him. Not his fault. Curious, what Presidents have we had in the last few decades that make you think of "intelligence and integrity".... or even "adherence to the Constitution" for that matter? How does that differ from any other president, except when his party controls both the House and the Senate? And even then, you have filibusters to contend with. At least with Ron Paul, you'd never have to worry about Congress arguing whether or not he had authorization to send our troops into harm's way. He wouldn't do it in the first place unless someone attacked U.S. soil.
As to your second question -- in my lifetime I'd say many are intelligent, few had integrity. Reagan had the Iran-Contra scandal (and whatever his involvement, you better believe George H.W. Bush knew everything -- he was previously the Director of Central Intelligence). And then when he became president he pardoned most of those involved. Clinton had the Lewinsky thing and he made questionable pardons also. George W. Bush had the Iraq WMD garbage and jettisoned a bunch of environmental protections right before he left office in a kickback to big energy. Obama was in charge while our nation's credit rating got downgraded. Yeah you can argue that's on Congress, but the president has a lot of leverage - he just didn't use it. Wow that was a pretty good wall of text for me Because it is still two patries... and even if you do not have control, you still have some support. both parties would turn their back to him. President No would veto everything that came across his desk, and congress would just collect a pay check for four years. You would have 300 spin masters all pointing their finger at Paul. There would a be a reason he used his veto pen, because the legislation in question would be unconstitutional. Creating Constitutional legislation should transcend both political parties. Having 500 Congressman doing nothing but blaming President Paul for 4 years could possibly be the last 4 prosperous years this county will see for a long time. |
heh | 2012-01-27 1:25 PM in reply to: #4014611 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Ron Paul mrbbrad - 2012-01-27 12:18 PM spudone - 2012-01-27 1:23 PM Reagan had the Iran-Contra scandal (and whatever his involvement, you better believe George H.W. Bush knew everything -- he was previously the Director of Central Intelligence). And then when he became president he pardoned most of those involved. Clinton had the Lewinsky thing and he made questionable pardons also. George W. Bush had the Iraq WMD garbage and jettisoned a bunch of environmental protections right before he left office in a kickback to big energy. Obama was in charge while our nation's credit rating got downgraded. So how does a downgrade in our credit rating equate to the other question of integrity you brought up? He may have screwed up, but is that a question of integrity or effectiveness? Ya... there are much better examples of that for President Obama than that. |
| 2012-01-27 2:06 PM in reply to: #4014623 |
| Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Ron Paul powerman - 2012-01-27 11:25 AM mrbbrad - 2012-01-27 12:18 PM spudone - 2012-01-27 1:23 PM Reagan had the Iran-Contra scandal (and whatever his involvement, you better believe George H.W. Bush knew everything -- he was previously the Director of Central Intelligence). And then when he became president he pardoned most of those involved. Clinton had the Lewinsky thing and he made questionable pardons also. George W. Bush had the Iraq WMD garbage and jettisoned a bunch of environmental protections right before he left office in a kickback to big energy. Obama was in charge while our nation's credit rating got downgraded. So how does a downgrade in our credit rating equate to the other question of integrity you brought up? He may have screwed up, but is that a question of integrity or effectiveness? Ya... there are much better examples of that for President Obama than that. I consider it poor integrity because I believe he had the ability to put a stop to the nonsense, but for political reasons he let Congress squabble so he could avoid looking bad. The rating downgrade is basically us lighting money on fire. Maybe there are better examples, but as a long-term outlook, this one is pretty bad. |
| 2012-01-27 2:41 PM in reply to: #4013502 |
Runner | Subject: RE: Ron Paul While I admire the man's conviction, I cannot square his main political views (both domestic and foreign policy) with mine. Removing all troops from overseas? Not likely. Besides, that's a strategic disadvantage. Eliminate the Fed? Who is going to oversee monetary policy, and take on all the other duties it performs? Congress? |
| 2012-01-27 3:20 PM in reply to: #4014834 |
Extreme Veteran 732 Omaha, USA | Subject: RE: Ron Paul Scout7 - 2012-01-27 2:41 PM While I admire the man's conviction, I cannot square his main political views (both domestic and foreign policy) with mine. Removing all troops from overseas? Not likely. Besides, that's a strategic disadvantage. Eliminate the Fed? Who is going to oversee monetary policy, and take on all the other duties it performs? Congress? Why not close down some of the 900 bases and let other countries pay for their own defense instead of me and the rest of the American tax payers subsidizing it for them? The duties the Fed currently performs are: creating inflation (devaluing the US dollar, which was felony under the first currency act, punishable by death); destruction of savings; bailing out other country's central banks using the US taxpayer as collateral; counterfeiting; creating economic bubbles; buying debt from the US Treasury by printing money (this is called monetizing the debt and it's a clever, but insane concept); I could go on.... |
| 2012-01-27 4:08 PM in reply to: #4014702 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Ron Paul spudone - 2012-01-27 1:06 PM powerman - 2012-01-27 11:25 AM mrbbrad - 2012-01-27 12:18 PM spudone - 2012-01-27 1:23 PM Reagan had the Iran-Contra scandal (and whatever his involvement, you better believe George H.W. Bush knew everything -- he was previously the Director of Central Intelligence). And then when he became president he pardoned most of those involved. Clinton had the Lewinsky thing and he made questionable pardons also. George W. Bush had the Iraq WMD garbage and jettisoned a bunch of environmental protections right before he left office in a kickback to big energy. Obama was in charge while our nation's credit rating got downgraded. So how does a downgrade in our credit rating equate to the other question of integrity you brought up? He may have screwed up, but is that a question of integrity or effectiveness? Ya... there are much better examples of that for President Obama than that. I consider it poor integrity because I believe he had the ability to put a stop to the nonsense, but for political reasons he let Congress squabble so he could avoid looking bad. The rating downgrade is basically us lighting money on fire. Maybe there are better examples, but as a long-term outlook, this one is pretty bad. My favorite was right after the give away to all the campaign supporters... oh I'm sorry, the Stimulus bill... he had the nerve to sign a second round of giveaways in the omnibus bill. A simple budget bill that had something like 16 billion in pork... after he campaigned for two years against such crap... and said... and I loosely quote... That is a very important bill than needs to be passed right now and I know there is some pork in it but I promise to do better next time. First six months in office and he could not swat a soft ball like that... there was no question about his integrity after that. |
| 2012-01-27 6:14 PM in reply to: #4013502 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Ron Paul Fortunately, Ron Paul isn't dropping out of this race any time soon. Honestly, I watch the Republican debates to watch Paul make the other Republican candidates look silly. His answer last night on Cuba was brilliant, and did just that. Ron Paul is the college professor you enjoy going to class to hear. Newt is fun to watch because he's extremely intelligent, knows it, comes off smug, but doesn't give a darn! I love that 'tude! Santorum cracks me up all the time. The poor guy just looks uncomfortable on camera. ...and Mitt, the one who will win the nomination, well, this says it all: http://www.theonion.com/articles/romneymania-sweeps-america,27155/ |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK