For the Ron Paul Supporters

[AMonger]

However, the thing with both your and LDB's posts, the thing you're leaving out, is that it's not enough that the next guy isn't Obama; he has to be sufficiently different than Obama to effect an actual course change. If the nominee is any of the GOP candidates other than Ron Paul, we still crash into the rocks, just at a lesser angle, so maybe it takes a few more months or maybe even a couple years to wreck. Even if our problems can't be fixed by the next president, even if he's a 2-termer, we have to avoid the rocks and get on the right course. Only Ron Paul is proposing steering the right direction to take us away from the rocks.

If you pick up a load in Omaha destined for Boston and you somehow find yourself in Salt Lake City and heading west, it's not enough that you turn north on I-15. That's not enough of a course correction. That does you absolutely no good. And that's more of a course correction than you get by voting for any candidate not named Ron Paul to replace Obama.

No, the only course correction sufficient to keep us off the rocks is more like 180°, and only Ron Paul is proposing that.

It has been argued in the past, using the wasted vote rationale, that a vote for other than the likely nominee who can likely defeat the Demon-crat is essentially a vote for the Demon-crat. I propose to you that it's the reverse--that a vote for anyone other than Ron Paul is a vote for Obama, because they take us to the same place.

Let's get on the right course. We can argue about the details later. But right now, if the wheel isn't turned 180°, America is over. We'll be in both rags and bonds. And again, only Ron Paul is even PROPOSING that course change. Whether or not he can do it is immaterial at this point.

"We need to do X to save ourselves."
"I don't know if he can pull off X. Guess I'll vote for Y or L."

2012: Ron Paul or not at all.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.

 

[RLENT]

Thanks. Happy I did not disappoint!

You're quite welcome .... the only place that I might have a quibble at all is on the slow and steady part. Agree on the steady - and to some extent agree on the slow ....... on certain things, so as to minimize social disruption.

There will be social disruption however no matter what - so to the extent that it can be avoided that's good - however, there is (IMHO) no way to avoid all of it. It's gonna happen.

As suggested by Amonger - the wheel needs to be given a spin - to bring the ship of state around 180 degrees.

 

[layoutshooter]

You're quite welcome .... the only place that I might have a quibble at all is on the slow and steady part. Agree on the steady - and to some extent agree on the slow ....... on certain things, so as to minimize social disruption.

There will be social disruption however no matter what - so to the extent that it can be avoided that's good - however, there is (IMHO) no way to avoid all of it. It's gonna happen.

As suggested by Amonger - the wheel needs to be given a spin - to bring the ship of state around 180 degrees.

The "slow" part is more on the foreign policy side. Nothing will get us into a real shooting war faster than a rapid destabilization. That is why we have been SLOWLY pulling back since 1970. That pull back continues. Do this TOO quickly and a power vacuum forms. When the balance is tipped, every thing collapses.

Even on the domestic side things cannot be done over night. Contracts must be kept or there is no credibility. Our government is already lacking in credibility.

There is NO way to spin the wheel 180 degrees in one election.

Without the congress on your side, it will not be turned at all.

 

[AMonger]

The "slow" part is more on the foreign policy side. Nothing will get us into a real shooting war faster than a rapid destabilization. That is why we have been SLOWLY pulling back since 1970. That pull back continues. Do this TOO quickly and a power vacuum forms. When the balance is tipped, every thing collapses.

Even on the domestic side things cannot be done over night. Contracts must be kept or there is no credibility. Our government is already lacking in credibility.

There is NO way to spin the wheel 180 degrees in one election.

Without the congress on your side, it will not be turned at all.

Well, here's the problem. Slow ain't an option. A slow course correction may as well be no course correction, because the rocks are right in front of us. It's either 180° or we crash. And with the authoritarianism prevalent in gummint now, a crash means a lot more than just some unpleasantries. It means despotism and destitution.

Ghostbuster reference: I know I said never cross the streams, but it's all we've got left now.

2012: Ron Paul or not at all.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.

 

[LDB]

However, the thing with both your and LDB's posts, the thing you're leaving out, is that it's not enough that the next guy isn't Obama; he has to be sufficiently different than Obama to effect an actual course change. If the nominee is any of the GOP candidates other than Ron Paul, we still crash into the rocks, just at a lesser angle, so maybe it takes a few more months or maybe even a couple years to wreck. Even if our problems can't be fixed by the next president, even if he's a 2-termer, we have to avoid the rocks and get on the right course. Only Ron Paul is proposing steering the right direction to take us away from the rocks.

If you pick up a load in Omaha destined for Boston and you somehow find yourself in Salt Lake City and heading west, it's not enough that you turn north on I-15. That's not enough of a course correction. That does you absolutely no good. And that's more of a course correction than you get by voting for any candidate not named Ron Paul to replace Obama.

No, the only course correction sufficient to keep us off the rocks is more like 180°, and only Ron Paul is proposing that.

It has been argued in the past, using the wasted vote rationale, that a vote for other than the likely nominee who can likely defeat the Demon-crat is essentially a vote for the Demon-crat. I propose to you that it's the reverse--that a vote for anyone other than Ron Paul is a vote for Obama, because they take us to the same place.

Let's get on the right course. We can argue about the details later. But right now, if the wheel isn't turned 180°, America is over. We'll be in both rags and bonds. And again, only Ron Paul is even PROPOSING that course change. Whether or not he can do it is immaterial at this point.

"We need to do X to save ourselves."
"I don't know if he can pull off X. Guess I'll vote for Y or L."

2012: Ron Paul or not at all.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.

And the thing you miss is that if your choice is to talk a big game and make a big statement all for show and thereby continue the current course you have done nothing at all. You are the problem not the solution. You are still going due west. You make a 180 by initiating a course change. If you can't make the full 180 you at least can be less off course until the next opportunity to turn more toward the right direction. Your hope to make a 180 and correct things is the correct hope. Your position that it must be RP or nothing is 180 degrees to that. It is the absolute wrong position.

 

[AMonger]

And the thing you miss is that if your choice is to talk a big game and make a big statement all for show and thereby continue the current course you have done nothing at all. You are the problem not the solution. You are still going due west. You make a 180 by initiating a course change. If you can't make the full 180 you at least can be less off course until the next opportunity to turn more toward the right direction. Your hope to make a 180 and correct things is the correct hope. Your position that it must be RP or nothing is 180 degrees to that. It is the absolute wrong position.

The other GOP candidates don't want to go back the other way. They're perfectly happy going west on 80 with the professed goal of getting to Boston. And if we do somehow turn off on 15 and start towards Seattle, we'll be in Puget Sound--dashed on the rocks in the other analogy--before we have another opportunity to turn.

Think about it--if you found yourself in that situation, you'd really go north on 15 instead of flipping around at the next exit and going directly back the way you came? I know it's not a perfect analogy, but we don't have time to make incremental changes. Had we started about 30 years ago, maybe. Had Reagan worked on cleaning up Nixon's and Carter's messes then, maybe we'd be in pretty good shape now. But it's too late for such incrementalism now. We're out of time. It's RP now or we'll be the 4th Reich in 5 years.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

 

[LDB]

If I'm on route X and it's 50 miles to the next U turn spot with no way to reverse 180 until then or it's 5 miles to an exit that puts me on a road going less wrong direction I'm making a partial correction. Then I'm not blindly following that road forever, I'm looking for the next correction. The reason your analogy is failing is because the premise is flawed and fails.

A journey of 1000 miles begins with one step. Rome wasn't built in a day. Take your pick of those or many others. Just don't delude yourself that not voting or writing in or otherwise re-electing Obama by whatever means the Paulbots choose is doing the right thing.

 

[Turtle]

If I'm on route X and it's 50 miles to the next U turn spot with no way to reverse 180 until then or it's 5 miles to an exit that puts me on a road going less wrong direction I'm making a partial correction. Then I'm not blindly following that road forever, I'm looking for the next correction. The reason your analogy is failing is because the premise is flawed and fails.

It's not really failing, because Obama and Not Obama all have the same destination. Different courses to get there still gets you there, to the rocks. Ron Paul is going somewhere else entirely. And that scares a lot of people, especially those who like the status quo. They like the rocks.

 

[AMonger]

It's not really failing, because Obama and Not Obama all have the same destination. Different courses to get there still gets you there, to the rocks. Ron Paul is going somewhere else entirely. And that scares a lot of people, especially those who like the status quo. They like the rocks.

Precisely. Dr. Paul wants to upset apple carts that people like, even though those apple carts are illegal and/or immoral and/or unethical.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

 

[RLENT]

And the thing you miss is that if your choice is to talk a big game and make a big statement all for show and thereby continue the current course you have done nothing at all.

And the thing you miss is that for some of us it isn't about making a "big statement" - it's about the war of ideas, changing the political discourse, and about changing hearts and minds .....

You are the problem not the solution.

No - you are the problem - because it is you and your ilk that have repeatedly given us the dreck that we've been putting up with ..... and will happily continue to do the same, in quite blissful ignorance, on into the future.

Take it from me, I know - I used to be one of you - and then I woke up and came to my senses .....

Your hope to make a 180 and correct things is the correct hope.

**** right it is ...

Your position that it must be RP or nothing is 180 degrees to that. It is the absolute wrong position.

It doesn't have to be Dr. Paul - but it can't be one of the others currently in the race.

To believe that could be ..... is simply delusional.

 

[RLENT]

And then there were four ..... Perry is set to hold a press conference in a couple of minutes to announce he's withdrawing from the race.

 

[witness23]

And then there were four ..... Perry is set to hold a press conference in a couple of minutes to announce he's withdrawing from the race.

'bout friggen' time I hope your assumption is correct.

 

[pelicn]

The "anyone but Obama" crowd is part of the problem. If McCain would have won last time, we'd have been in the same place we are now. We have to have a dramatic shake up! I doubt that any of us will like it much, but it has to happen if we are to restore our country. Personally, I will vote for Ron Paul, I believe he is the best candidate and I am no longer going to "settle". If Obama wins, we'll just collapse a little faster than we would with Newt, or Mitt...or Santorum..
We are so far from what the framers of the Constitution wanted for our country it may or may not ever be restored, but we have to start somewhere and Ron Paul could be the start.

 

[LDB]

Yes, it is failing because your analogy uses a compass with only two points. A ship doesn't do a 180 like the spinner for Twister. Sure, it would be great to do the 180 and be on the right track. That would be the ideal. It isn't that way. There are more than two specific outcomes.

There's voting Obama and staying exactly on the same course.

There's voting for M(r/s). X which makes a turn of xx degrees in the correct direction.

There's your desired option of a 180 with Ron Paul, in itself questionable since what he wants and what he gets from Congress etc. are not guaranteed identical.


We know what option 1 does since we're already on that disaster course.

Option 2 turns us away from disaster to some degree. It isn't enough but it's a start. It slows the disaster. It gives us more time to work for more change in the right direction.

Then there's your option which is option 1 running under another name. It produces the same result and it keeps us headed directly toward disaster with the least time available to create change and find a positive resolution.

The whole all or nothing thing is the I'm taking my ball and going home since we can't play the game I want thing. Writing in, not voting, whatever other than voting for the best, most likely option to defeat Obama is all the same.

 

[greg334]

Hey Leo not to dimish your intelligence but with the two so call front runners, the idea that they would consider changing the course set by Obama is more or less wishful thinking.

Did you do know that ships have bow thrusters?

Ships can turn 180

 

[LDB]

I would much rather have Ron Paul than Obama. I'm not sure but what RuPaul would be better than Obama. It just must not be Obama and contrary to semi popular belief 3/4 or 2/3 is not equal to 1.

 

[LDB]

Did you do know that ships have bow thrusters?

Ships can turn 180

Bow thrusters are great and so are those new pods that are replacing propeller shafts and propellers. Show me the video of the ship headed for the rocks at flank speed doing the instant 180 rather than taking miles and miles covering hundreds of square miles of ocean to get it done and I'll change my mind.

 

[RLENT]

Hey Leo not to dimish your intelligence but with the two so call front runners, the idea that they would consider changing the course set by Obama is more or less wishful thinking.

Having intelligence is no guarantee against getting fooled ... or even misleading oneself (ask me how I know )

Did you do know that ships have bow thrusters?

Ships can turn 180

Jeez .... you're quick .....

I was going to make the same point ..... having crewed on a vessel that had one ..... along with a stern thruster as well

 

[greg334]

Well I think Paul would better than Obama part II or Gingrich who seems to lack some ethics. I would give him more of a chance that what we have now or what we could have with what's there in the GOP.

 

[davekc]

If Ron Paul was to win the nomination, I would vote for him. But I think most will go with just replacing Obama with whomever is left standing. A vote for "hermit the frog" may make a personal statement but will have little value outside of that.