100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Ron Paul | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
He is exactly what this country needs. We need more politicians like him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
then can someone explain to me why they think he's bad?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like Paul, but he doesn't articulate his positions very well. If he was a better speaker, he would have garnered many more votes than he did. Actually I agree with you on that, I listened to a couple of his speeches and almost feel asleep. No offense to those that like him, but too bad he didn't have Obama's flare for speeches. I did like what I heard before I dropped out. LOL Actually I wanted to hear what Fanta and Drivin where engaged in in the other topic but here instead of Fanta and Drivin are up to it. I will check back in the morning to see what was said. Thing is i really didn't want to make it a debate. But without attacking anyone, i would like to hear where the problems are in his logic or his teachings. So if Fanta, or anyone doesn't mind, i am up for it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He is exactly what this country needs. We need more politicians like him. Thanks but That doesn't help me at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He is exactly what this country needs. We need more politicians like him. Thanks but That doesn't help me at all. hang tight boo. i'd like to hear the other side as well |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thing is i really didn't want to make it a debate. But without attacking anyone, i would like to hear where the problems are in his logic or his teachings. So if Fanta, or anyone doesn't mind, i am up for it. Yes, yes that is what I want to know also, I can't find anyone making this clear, so yes that is exactly what i wanted to hear. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
then can someone explain to me why they think he's bad? He's exactly what the American PEOPLE need. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Sat 04/04/09 08:31 PM
|
|
I can see where people would have a problem with his extreme nature.
(People panic when they think about drugs and full auto weapons no longer being against the law.) He basically believes we should follow the constitution strictly. Which means: Federal governments job is to defend and secure the country. And enforce the obedience of the constitution on the state officials. That's pretty much it. His focus is to limit the federal government and it's reach. Which means things like drug laws, would be done at state level, not Federal. Firearms should be more or less unrestricted. High explosives, and WMD's are still illegal for obvious reasons. He wants to discourage the states from passing laws that serve as parental guidlines for people. Like seatbelt/ helmet laws, victimless crimes, etc. People need to take mroe responsibility for themselves. He wants to encourage people, however, to take care of eachother, instead of the federal government taking care of them. (discouraging the Nanny state) He wants the U.S. to stop Policing the world and starting preventive wars, or fight any wars that are undeclared. (Iraq, Vietnam, Etc.) His economics are very involved, and offer a lot of explaining in order to understand. But basically no central bank so we can pay off our debt, and he wants our money backed by something (like gold, silver, or inflastructure, etc). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is 'wrong' with him is the fact that he does not ascribe to the 'good ole boy' mentality which is a must in the system he plays in... a must.
There are not enough media people behind him to attain the level of exposure that he needs. Most Americans probably do not even know that he exists. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sat 04/04/09 08:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like Paul, but he doesn't articulate his positions very well. If he was a better speaker, he would have garnered many more votes than he did. Actually I agree with you on that, I listened to a couple of his speeches and almost feel asleep. No offense to those that like him, but too bad he didn't have Obama's flare for speeches. I did like what I heard before I dropped out. LOL Actually I wanted to hear what Fanta and Drivin where engaged in in the other topic but here instead of Fanta and Drivin are up to it. I will check back in the morning to see what was said. Thing is i really didn't want to make it a debate. But without attacking anyone, i would like to hear where the problems are in his logic or his teachings. So if Fanta, or anyone doesn't mind, i am up for it. Driven, Haven't we had this debate before, and agreed to disagree? My reasons and beliefs on Ron Paul haven't changed. Have yours? I dont think you and I have reason to rehash our differences. Esp. not because one of us is called out. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there are some of us that would like to hear the differences. i don't know what is so wrong with Ron Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't know much of him but I heard him briefly one time and did not like what I heard. He fit the average republican to me.
Republican idealogy that is not productive for this country is what has caused them to be voted out and I see that trend staying put for a while because they DO NOT HAVE THE AVERAGE AMERICAN'S WELL BEING AT HEART AT ANY LEVEL. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there are some of us that would like to hear the differences. i don't know what is so wrong with Ron Paul You'll just have to trust that my opinion of Ron Paul is about the same as his election results! About 2%,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Sat 04/04/09 09:12 PM
|
|
I like Paul, but he doesn't articulate his positions very well. If he was a better speaker, he would have garnered many more votes than he did. Actually I agree with you on that, I listened to a couple of his speeches and almost feel asleep. No offense to those that like him, but too bad he didn't have Obama's flare for speeches. I did like what I heard before I dropped out. LOL Actually I wanted to hear what Fanta and Drivin where engaged in in the other topic but here instead of Fanta and Drivin are up to it. I will check back in the morning to see what was said. Thing is i really didn't want to make it a debate. But without attacking anyone, i would like to hear where the problems are in his logic or his teachings. So if Fanta, or anyone doesn't mind, i am up for it. Driven, Haven't we had this debate before, and agreed to disagree? My reasons and beliefs on Ron Paul haven't changed. Have yours? I dont think you and I have reason to rehash our differences. Esp. not because one of us is called out. I know bro, i know. I guess what i was trying to do is explore the other side to the coin some more. I just want to find out where his logic failed. I believe you brought up the Depression of 1857 or 1890, or something like that right? How that caused a need for a Federal Reserve. Just not quite sure i guess how the federal reserve solved that problem. Unless, maybe you account inflation as a redistribution of wealth method... But why a national Bank? Why should we have to increase our national debt every time we print money? So i guess my questions aren't so much about Dr. Paul, but more about my own understanding of the system... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Sat 04/04/09 09:04 PM
|
|
Don't know much of him but I heard him briefly one time and did not like what I heard. He fit the average republican to me. Republican idealogy that is not productive for this country is what has caused them to be voted out and I see that trend staying put for a while because they DO NOT HAVE THE AVERAGE AMERICAN'S WELL BEING AT HEART AT ANY LEVEL. Why do you say that? What went against the average american? And if he fit the typical republican profile, why does he disagree with the majority of republicans, and refuse to endorse their electy party nominee? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't know much of him but I heard him briefly one time and did not like what I heard. He fit the average republican to me. Republican idealogy that is not productive for this country is what has caused them to be voted out and I see that trend staying put for a while because they DO NOT HAVE THE AVERAGE AMERICAN'S WELL BEING AT HEART AT ANY LEVEL. Why do you say that? What went against the average american? And if he fit the typical republican profile, why does he disagree with the majority of republicans, and refuse to endorse their electy party nominee? Their ideology is too far right ( for lack of a better way of describing it). Republicans for the most part have a stuck ideology that is out dated. Their ideology does not allow for the changing environment of man. One example: Religion in politics. Republicans believe that religion should have a large active role in politics. This no longer fits the way the population believes. Ron Paul believes this same philosophy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't know much of him but I heard him briefly one time and did not like what I heard. He fit the average republican to me. Republican idealogy that is not productive for this country is what has caused them to be voted out and I see that trend staying put for a while because they DO NOT HAVE THE AVERAGE AMERICAN'S WELL BEING AT HEART AT ANY LEVEL. Why do you say that? What went against the average american? And if he fit the typical republican profile, why does he disagree with the majority of republicans, and refuse to endorse their electy party nominee? Their ideology is too far right ( for lack of a better way of describing it). Republicans for the most part have a stuck ideology that is out dated. Their ideology does not allow for the changing environment of man. One example: Religion in politics. Republicans believe that religion should have a large active role in politics. This no longer fits the way the population believes. Ron Paul believes this same philosophy. Where does he mention any religion in his arguments? Where does he want to push ANY of his personal beliefs on people? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like Paul, but he doesn't articulate his positions very well. If he was a better speaker, he would have garnered many more votes than he did. Actually I agree with you on that, I listened to a couple of his speeches and almost feel asleep. No offense to those that like him, but too bad he didn't have Obama's flare for speeches. I did like what I heard before I dropped out. LOL Actually I wanted to hear what Fanta and Drivin where engaged in in the other topic but here instead of Fanta and Drivin are up to it. I will check back in the morning to see what was said. Thing is i really didn't want to make it a debate. But without attacking anyone, i would like to hear where the problems are in his logic or his teachings. So if Fanta, or anyone doesn't mind, i am up for it. Driven, Haven't we had this debate before, and agreed to disagree? My reasons and beliefs on Ron Paul haven't changed. Have yours? I dont think you and I have reason to rehash our differences. Esp. not because one of us is called out. I know bro, i know. I guess what i was trying to do is explore the other side to the coin some more. I just want to find out where his logic failed. I believe you brought up the Depression of 1857 or 1890, or something like that right? How that caused a need for a Federal Reserve. Just not quite sure i guess how the federal reserve solved that problem. Unless, maybe you account inflation as a redistribution of wealth method... But why a national Bank? Why should we have to increase our national debt every time we print money? So i guess my questions aren't so much about Dr. Paul, but more about my own understanding of the system... This isn't about me against you. But you do have much more logical arguments than most. And i like your skeptical approach. If you want to avoid this for fear of offending eachother i will, no questions asked... Im sure we will debate in other threads, Brother, but I refuse to do it just for entertainment. Follow Me! |
|
|
|
|
