Who is, this man??? Why does he want to save, my country?
- Thread starter Diane4145
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
CKHagen,
Take a look at this video. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmPi2GbbUes"]YouTube - Well known Ron Paul Supporter gets arrested for JAYWALKING![/ame]. This is being posted repeatedly on another list I belong too. The big Fred Thompson conspiracy. According to the poster if the complaintant had not been a FT supporter none of this would have happened. This is the sort of nonsense that I think give RP supporters a bad name to many. Just my thoughts.
Take a look at this video. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmPi2GbbUes"]YouTube - Well known Ron Paul Supporter gets arrested for JAYWALKING![/ame]. This is being posted repeatedly on another list I belong too. The big Fred Thompson conspiracy. According to the poster if the complaintant had not been a FT supporter none of this would have happened. This is the sort of nonsense that I think give RP supporters a bad name to many. Just my thoughts.
Sorry, but I don't see what that has to do with anything discussed here.
I don't know that man or why he chose to do what he was doing.
Perhaps it was because Fred decided to monopolize the gun shows by buying the sole rights for candidate presence? That's pretty dirty... to fool people into thinking you're the only candidate that supports their position (I'm sure the attendees don't realize he paid to have SOLE rights, not just to have presence). Sort of like Romney buying the straw poll in St. Pete (which I was present for and extremely saddened by). Those kinds of things give the candidates bad names... not just their supporters.
I think the real question in that situation as to whether or not there was a "conspiracy" is... what *exactly* was he arrested for and charged with? I would venture to say that the vast majority of times that someone is approached by police for doing what he was doing, they're not arrested. So, unless he put up a fight and refused to move and was actually committing some sort of crime, you've got to wonder why they went as far as to arrest him. Now, if he did refuse to move and was in an area that the police deemed unlawful, then that's different. But, there's a ton of unanswered questions on all sides here.
I don't know that man or why he chose to do what he was doing.
Perhaps it was because Fred decided to monopolize the gun shows by buying the sole rights for candidate presence? That's pretty dirty... to fool people into thinking you're the only candidate that supports their position (I'm sure the attendees don't realize he paid to have SOLE rights, not just to have presence). Sort of like Romney buying the straw poll in St. Pete (which I was present for and extremely saddened by). Those kinds of things give the candidates bad names... not just their supporters.
I think the real question in that situation as to whether or not there was a "conspiracy" is... what *exactly* was he arrested for and charged with? I would venture to say that the vast majority of times that someone is approached by police for doing what he was doing, they're not arrested. So, unless he put up a fight and refused to move and was actually committing some sort of crime, you've got to wonder why they went as far as to arrest him. Now, if he did refuse to move and was in an area that the police deemed unlawful, then that's different. But, there's a ton of unanswered questions on all sides here.
I have watched Ron Paul in several of the GOP debates. He does not appear to be a Republican. He is a Libertarian and that is fine, but to run as a Republican is the same as a wolf in sheep's clothing. To do so is dishonest and unfair to bona fide Republicans. If he wants to run as a Libertarian, I'll be more inclined to listen to what he has to say, though so far most of his positions are not ones I could support. Once again, I say, if you're a Libertarian run as one and quit posing as a Republican. Before I draw all Ron Paul supporter's wrath, this is only one person's opinion. If you want to know why I can't support him, thats an entirely different subject.
I sure would like to know what your definition of a Republican is ... if you do not mind sharing ...
Abraham Lincoln, Ike Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon(I know, I know) John McCain...I could go on but you should get the picture by now.
Since when does a list of names define the term Republican ... maybe I should rephrase the question:
What is the platform that you feel is best representative of the Republican Party?
What is the platform that you feel is best representative of the Republican Party?
I think we should get rid of party affiliations and just make it an open race - one national primary to narrow it to 3-4 candidates, the candidate with the most votes wins, no soft money from parties, candidates running just on THEIR stated policy platforms and 5% of all money raised goes to reducing the national debt.
Maybe he doesn't fit today's typical Republican definition of large gov't and extremely hefty spending. I'm not sure that GW Bush fits into the class with any of the Republicans you mentioned except for maybe one, yet you have no problem with GW being labeled a Republican. With the exception of the sending the troops to Afghanistan and Iraq (Wait a minute, Clinton sent troops to battle in Iraq), his actions in the Presidency could almost throw him across the line into the large gov't / hefty spending of the Democratic Party, maybe even beyond that. The traditional Republican Party was swept away after Reagan left the White House. I hear many people talking about wanting to see more conservative spending in the Republican Party. Maybe Ron Paul will represent them, since other candidates won't. I even hear the Democrats talk about the wasteful gov't spending and they want it to stop, too. Personally, I think that too many voters are scared of the freedoms which Ron Paul represents, and I don't think he has a real shot at the White House. I think you will see the US drift toward candidates who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and if you find the person with those qualities, they will win the votes every time.
You ask why Ron Paul shouldn't run in the Libertarian Party. Perhaps it is because the Libertarian Party is shut out of the major TV Network debates which are controlled by the Republican and Democratic Parties. Talk about an unbalanced playing field. I'm really liking Scooterbug's suggestion of having no parties. Why shouldn't the Dems be debating the Republicans, Libertarians, Communists, Socialists, etc? (think I'm kidding about those parties? guess again, they exist in the USA) Throw them all on the stage and get rid of this control by the so-called press. Let C-Span run the debates.
Last edited:
I am so confused. Why, if Ron Paul is a Libertarian, would he be elected into congress in the state of Texas for 10 terms (20 years) as a Republican? I guess we could, using that same logic, also come to the conclusion that:
A. Guliani is a Democrat posing as a Republican.
B. Romney is Pro-Choice posing as a Pro-Lifer.
C. Huckabee is Pro-taxation posing a tax cutter.
D. Guliani, Romney, Huckabee, and McCain are all pro illegal immigration posing as border defenders.
I'm sure I could go on.
What makes his views different than that of Ronald Reagan?