Originally posted by Robtard
If that were true, you wouldn't have responded at all.
My bad. I always thought that saying, "I don't even know where to start" was just "fluff" because they didn't know where they wanted to start or if it was pointless to even start.
How should I be using that in the future?
Originally posted by Bardock42
3. He seems like he wouldn't do much harm.
2. He wants to end the Iraq War.
1. He's not Hillary.
2. Yea, but I want a complete overhaul on the Iraq War and foreign policy in general. Just ending the Iraq War isn't enough. Understanding the key flaw in our policy is what matters. Not to mention, he is fine with having bases and an embassy there. So that is bothersome as well.
1. On that point, I shall agree.
Originally posted by Bardock42
3. He seems like he wouldn't do much harm.
2. He wants to end the Iraq War.
1. He's not Hillary.
Your point #3...
I think that it what I was trying to get at earlier. He doesn't seem like he would make big changes...for bad or good. He did mention passing a law about requiring every car to have a MPG rating of 40...liberating us of the evil OPEC's money....now THAT is a great idea. If Ron Paul does not win the Republican Nomination, I may vote for Obama....strangely because of the three points you have outlines, Bardock42.
Originally posted by dadudemonIf Ron Paul runs third party....vote for him. Third parties have a chance, even in the US. I think I'd take Obama over any of the other Republicans though. Wait, I remember, I don't have a vote hmm
Your point #3...I think that it what I was trying to get at earlier. He doesn't seem like he would make big changes...for bad or good. He did mention passing a law about requiring every car to have a MPG rating of 40...liberating us of the evil OPEC's money....now THAT is a great idea. If Ron Paul does not win the Republican Nomination, I may vote for Obama....strangely because of the three points you have outlines, Bardock42.
Originally posted by Bardock42
If Ron Paul runs third party....vote for him. Third parties have a chance, even in the US. I think I'd take Obama over any of the other Republicans though. Wait, I remember, I don't have a vote hmm
This is what I said a while ago. A lot of people are weary of the little (R) next to his name. And given the response he's gotten and the opinion's expressed, I have yet to figure out why he hasn't broken from the Republicans; while at the same time knowing if he did, both parties would go after him and he'd end up a punchline.
Originally posted by Devil King
This is what I said a while ago. A lot of people are weary of the little (R) next to his name. And given the response he's gotten and the opinion's expressed, I have yet to figure out why he hasn't broken from the Republicans; while at the same time knowing if he did, both parties would go after him and he'd end up a punchline.
He's already treated little better than Ross Perot.
Originally posted by Devil KingWell...he is what Republicans used to stand for.
This is what I said a while ago. A lot of people are weary of the little (R) next to his name. And given the response he's gotten and the opinion's expressed, I have yet to figure out why he hasn't broken from the Republicans; while at the same time knowing if he did, both parties would go after him and he'd end up a punchline.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well...he is what Republicans used to stand for.
That's what I hear all the time. But, for a party that boasts Lincoln as a member, they sure don't seem to have many past leaders that have aimed their sights on smaller government. In fact, in the last 40 years I can't think of many Republicans that have done anything towards that end. I even have a hard time believing that Barry Goldwater would have been able to get there.
Originally posted by Devil KingWell, that's a probem of the candidates though. What the Republican Party stands for and what it voted in for whatever reason are two different things. I don't see why Ron Paul should be the one giving up the party that at least used to stand for his ideals. Besides, he is representative as Republican...and, there is an extreme bias in the US towards the big two, so you either have to be in there or you have no chance whatsoever.
That's what I hear all the time. But, for a party that boasts Lincoln as a member, they sure don't seem to have many past leaders that have aimed their sights on smaller government. In fact, in the last 40 years I can't think of many Republicans that have done anything towards that end. I even have a hard time believing that Barry Goldwater would have been able to get there.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, that's a probem of the candidates though.
Look, I get that there's no way in hell you're ever going to speak poorly of the man. But, there should be no difference between a Republican, and what a Republican stands for. If the party has abandoned their principles, then Ron Paul isn't the standard bearer for anything except what he believes. At this point, it's easier for 99.9% of the members to change the definition of a Republican, than it is for one man to change the definition of Republican.
Originally posted by Devil KingNah, I would when it comes to Immigration. He's wrong about that. Also about Abortion. I don't like his strong state ideas too much either.
Look, I get that there's no way in hell you're ever going to speak poorly of the man. But, there should be no difference between a Republican, and what a Republican stands for. If the party has abandoned their principles, then Ron Paul isn't the standard bearer for anything except what he believes. At this point, it's easier for 99.9% of the members to change the definition of a Republican, than it is for one man to change the definition of Republican.
He's just the best available with any sort of support.
Also, at least in Iowa there are still 10% that fully support Paul and who knows how many that support those principles. And I find it smart to take advantage of the media bias towards Republicans and Democrats, that is some serious bullshit anyways...