Why ron paul should not be president

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
We, as a whole, are too stupid for him.


Reasons Why Dr. Ron Paul Should Not Be President

by Bill Fangio

Recently by Joel Poindexter: Confessions of a Former Gang Member

If it is the case that elected officials reflect the desires of the voters then we are in a world of hurt. Andy Cobb and the Partisans recently appeared at a rally carrying a sign that read, Obama is a Keynesian. Many were outraged and took Cobb to task for suggesting that President Obama was from Kenya. And, there is the American electorate for you – they don't know the difference between a country and an economic system.

These same people populate the comment strings whenever there is a news story regarding Dr. Ron Paul for President. Here are some of their reasons why Paul should not be President.

1) He is an old coot. Now there is a comment that really exercised the gray matter. Of course, coot refers to a kind of bird but can also mean a harmless, simple person. I agree that Paul is harmless, but to suggest he is simple misses the mark by a few light years. No other candidate for office of the President of the United States can meet Paul head on in a debate without coming out looking like a fool. If you don't agree with that statement just read a few of Paul's books, Keep a dictionary handy.

2) He is a nut. I suspect this shallow comment means that Paul is foolish, eccentric, or crazy. No proof is offered. It is just a baseless ad hominem attack.

3) He is an isolationist. This comment is clear evidence that the writer has made no effort at all to understand Paul's foreign policy. It just happens to be identical to that of Thomas Jefferson. "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none." If we had followed that foreign policy throughout our history almost no wars would have been fought. We fought a war in Vietnam during the 1960's. EVERY day in 1968 we brought an average of 80 boys a day home in body bags. Why did we fight that war? Containment? How did that work out? Then we normalized relations with Vietnam in 1979 and began the foreign policy of Paul and Jefferson. Guess what? We have a friend in Vietnam and trade regularly. What we could not do with bombs and bullets we have accomplished with commerce, friendliness, and example. Paul is not an isolationist – he is for non-intervention.

4) He doesn't understand that we are at war with Islam. Really? Is that the express or implied policy of the United States? Shall we ask Congress to formally declare war on 1.5-billion Muslims? Islam may be a problem but any debate should take place in the free market place of ideas. Paul understands this quite well.

5) He is unelectable. This comment comes from watching too much television rather than thinking for oneself. A reporter put that question directly to Paul during one of the debates in 2008 without even realizing he was insulting the voters in Lake Jackson Texas who had consistently elected Paul to Congress multiple times. Did the reporter think that the voters of Lake Jackson were someway not demographically representative of the nation as a whole? More likely the reporter did not think at all.

6) He favors letting Iran have nuclear weapons. No, Paul does not believe in interfering in the internal affairs of other nations. Many nations possess nuclear arsenals. What is special about Iran? Test your memory – when was the last time Iran attacked anyone?

Many other comments are similarly inane. He is not a pure Libertarian, he is pro-life, he doesn't look presidential, his supporters are nuts, etc. So, will Paul be given the opportunity to heal the nation? Probably not. Because as a people we are worse than ignorant, we think government is good.

--

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

johndeereman

Active Expediter
Ron Paul would be real change.The other republican pool is the same old same old.Just as O bama was no change look at his secretary of state choice just more politcs no change
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
We, as a whole, are too stupid for him.


Reasons Why Dr. Ron Paul Should Not Be President

by Bill Fangio

Recently by Joel Poindexter: Confessions of a Former Gang Member

If it is the case that elected officials reflect the desires of the voters then we are in a world of hurt. Andy Cobb and the Partisans recently appeared at a rally carrying a sign that read, Obama is a Keynesian. Many were outraged and took Cobb to task for suggesting that President Obama was from Kenya. And, there is the American electorate for you – they don't know the difference between a country and an economic system.

These same people populate the comment strings whenever there is a news story regarding Dr. Ron Paul for President. Here are some of their reasons why Paul should not be President.

1) He is an old coot. Now there is a comment that really exercised the gray matter. Of course, coot refers to a kind of bird but can also mean a harmless, simple person. I agree that Paul is harmless, but to suggest he is simple misses the mark by a few light years. No other candidate for office of the President of the United States can meet Paul head on in a debate without coming out looking like a fool. If you don't agree with that statement just read a few of Paul's books, Keep a dictionary handy.

2) He is a nut. I suspect this shallow comment means that Paul is foolish, eccentric, or crazy. No proof is offered. It is just a baseless ad hominem attack.

3) He is an isolationist. This comment is clear evidence that the writer has made no effort at all to understand Paul's foreign policy. It just happens to be identical to that of Thomas Jefferson. "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none." If we had followed that foreign policy throughout our history almost no wars would have been fought. We fought a war in Vietnam during the 1960's. EVERY day in 1968 we brought an average of 80 boys a day home in body bags. Why did we fight that war? Containment? How did that work out? Then we normalized relations with Vietnam in 1979 and began the foreign policy of Paul and Jefferson. Guess what? We have a friend in Vietnam and trade regularly. What we could not do with bombs and bullets we have accomplished with commerce, friendliness, and example. Paul is not an isolationist – he is for non-intervention.

4) He doesn't understand that we are at war with Islam. Really? Is that the express or implied policy of the United States? Shall we ask Congress to formally declare war on 1.5-billion Muslims? Islam may be a problem but any debate should take place in the free market place of ideas. Paul understands this quite well.

5) He is unelectable. This comment comes from watching too much television rather than thinking for oneself. A reporter put that question directly to Paul during one of the debates in 2008 without even realizing he was insulting the voters in Lake Jackson Texas who had consistently elected Paul to Congress multiple times. Did the reporter think that the voters of Lake Jackson were someway not demographically representative of the nation as a whole? More likely the reporter did not think at all.

6) He favors letting Iran have nuclear weapons. No, Paul does not believe in interfering in the internal affairs of other nations. Many nations possess nuclear arsenals. What is special about Iran? Test your memory – when was the last time Iran attacked anyone?

Many other comments are similarly inane. He is not a pure Libertarian, he is pro-life, he doesn't look presidential, his supporters are nuts, etc. So, will Paul be given the opportunity to heal the nation? Probably not. Because as a people we are worse than ignorant, we think government is good.



--

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


Does kind of some it up except maybe your #5. That same argument could be used for Perry as he has been elected numerous times to governor, but I don't see him winning the nominee either sitting there at single digits.
 

MCGohio1985

Active Expediter
Any think is better then what we have now but the one we needed the one that jest left (cain) he was the one that had a clue to fix the problem in the USA not to fix the world. Thay sat build it that will come so let's build and fix the economy here and the rest will fall in to place we need a leader now more then ever


Sent from my PC36100 using EO Forums
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
A good article that nicely sums up Paul's foreign policy shortcomings, providing a good example of the main reason why he's not qualified to be POTUS.

November 11, 2011
Ron Paul Ignores Iran's Treachery

By
Reza Kahlili

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is demonstrating an appalling ignorance on the Iranian nuclear issue and the threat it poses to world security. In fact, several times during the recent GOP debates he blamed the animosity against the U.S. in the Middle East on America's foreign policy.
Paul recently argued on "Fox News Sunday" that sanctions should be removed altogether to get Iran to act differently and that the U.S. response to Iran's nuclear pursuit was an "overreaction." He added that Iran does not pose a threat to either the U.S. or the region.
The congressman from Texas insists that a better art of persuasion would be to offer friendship, the way the U.S. approached the Soviets and Chinese in the 1970s and 1980s.
So Paul not only has shown that he has no understanding of the murderous radicals who rule Iran but has a dangerous lapse of memory. President Obama at first tried to do exactly what Paul argues now should be done -- and failed miserably...

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards have been publicly cheering Ron Paul's statements, for they know that this complicity is needed for them to push on with the conquest of Islam worldwide.


 

moose

Veteran Expediter
; when was the last time Iran attacked anyone?.
7 days ago. 4 Iranian made rockets fired from Southern Lebanon into northern Israel, by Iranian trained soldiers.
1998, 2 American Embassy's, 266 Dead.
just 2 examples, Google it, You'ed fine many more in between.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Danger, Danger Will Robinson ..... Warmonger Alert !!!

I see the walls and ceiling around me starting to shimmer ....

..... they're starting to become translucent and disappear ......

OMIGAWD ..... Nooooooooo .... not that ............

[Cue Voiceover:]

"There is a fifth dimension, well beyond that which is known to sane and rational man. It is a dimension as vast as unlimited strawmen and as timeless as a logical fallacy. It is the middle ground between perpetual intellectual darkness and the endless grey shadows of confused thinking, between delusion and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the absolute summit of his stupidity. This is the dimension of complete and utter hallucination.

Welcome to the area which we call ...

.....The Neo-con Twilight Zone ....."
 

Attachments

  • Con Rod.jpg
    Con Rod.jpg
    26.1 KB · Views: 10
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The "Greatest" "warmonger" of all times. This "warmonger" is responsible for millions of deaths all over the world. He is alive, well and as dangerous as always.
 

Attachments

  • ostrich-head-in-sand.jpg
    ostrich-head-in-sand.jpg
    49.2 KB · Views: 10

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
The neo-con cheering section admits they've been lying all along:

AEI Admits: Iran Threat Isn't That It Will Launch Nuclear Attack:

"The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it's Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don't do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you that Iran wasn't getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately..." And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem."

Yeah .... perish the thought ......
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Another "Great warmonger. Neville Chamberlain. Peace in our time through appeasement. Yep, worked great!
 

Attachments

  • Ostrich man-head in sand.jpg
    Ostrich man-head in sand.jpg
    18 KB · Views: 9

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
The "Greatest" "warmonger" of all times. This "warmonger" is responsible for millions of deaths all over the world. He is alive, well and as dangerous as always.
Uh-huh ...... but why include a pic of yourself right after you read my post here ?
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Uh-huh ...... but why did you include a pic of yourself right after you read my post here ?

I did not post a picture of myself in this forum.

I posted a picture of a bird and a man, Neville Chamberlain, acting like a bird.

I doubt you intend to make a post in these forums personal.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I did not post a picture of myself in this forum.

I posted a picture of a bird and a man, Neville Chamberlain, acting like a bird.

I doubt you intend to make a post in these forums personal.
And I doubt that you didn't respond to my post in the other referenced thread because you didn't have a good, reasoned, and rational response .... you probably just "missed" it .... :rolleyes:
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
And I doubt that you didn't respond to my post in the other referenced thread because you didn't have a good, reasoned, and rational response .... you probably just "missed" it .... :rolleyes:

What referenced post? :confused: Your eyes must be pretty flat from rolling them so much.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I am comparing Mr. Paul to Chamberlain.
No, actually it wasn't a comparison - it was statement essentially alleging that they are the same.

A true comparison - at least one that was somewhat intellectually honest - would require you to actually lay out (funny) something more than merely just a simplistic statement how they are actually the same (as well as how they are different)

FWIW, using such intellectually bankrupt simplicity would allow someone to label Robert Taft - "Mr. Republican" - as an appeaser ..... something he certainly was not.

He did however believe in following the Constitution .... something that some folks seem to give a lot of lipservice to .... but then have a lot of trouble following thru on ......
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
All am I saying is that Mr. Paul, like Chamberlain, has a very "child like" view of the world. I was not commenting on his views, or Mr. Taft's, of the Constitution.

I understand that Mr. Paul believes he is correct. I just don't believe that he is in many cases.

Just as those who agree with his ideas, those of us who do not are equally entitled to our opinions.

As I said. I will vote for Mr. Paul, or most anyone one else who is running against Obama. I have NO idea who I intend to vote for in the primary. I have little use for any of them at this point in time.

I have many problems with Mr. Paul. I honestly believe that he is not capable of doing the job. Better than Obama for sure, but not a "prime" candidate.
 
Top