Ron Paul Needs To Drop Out

[LibertyForAll]

That's his M.O. He posts rediculous claims and when you challenge him he ignores you and then attacks your intelligence or sanity. It's sad really. Sometimes he lies and says he never said something that is right there in black and white in a previous post. He is in denial of his own motivations and cannot accept being wrong no matter what.

 

[Paulie]

If you can vote for Gingrich's big government congressional record, you can vote for Obama. Either of them will grow government bigger by the day. I guess it just feels better when they have the same letter next to their name as what you have on your card.

 

[Paulie]

None of you actually expect Rabbi to debate, do you? The guy has never argued a point in his entire time here. You're all delusional wookie suiters and he is superior because he is not.

That's why the internet is serious business.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Romney would sign NDAA and Newt wants to attack Cuba.....Really? ....Cuba? They are a threat to us now? No thanks.....

 

[Dr.Drock]

None of you actually expect Rabbi to debate, do you? The guy has never argued a point in his entire time here. You're all delusional wookie suiters and he is superior because he is not.

That's why the internet is serious business.

No i don't expect it, but crazier things have happened.

 

[The Rabbi]

None of you actually expect Rabbi to debate, do you? The guy has never argued a point in his entire time here. You're all delusional wookie suiters and he is superior because he is not.

That's why the internet is serious business.

No i don't expect it, but crazier things have happened.

Paulie is an idiot, a point made so often there is no need to repeat it.
You keep trying to deflect discussion of Paul to a discussion of Newt or Mitt. You want to start a thread on those guys, go ahead. But this thread is about Paul.
Paul, the guy who's spent 30 years in Congress and never done anything. Paul, the guy who apologizes for the US. Paul, the guy who wants to turn the country into a bunch of drug-crazed zombies (so they resemble his supporters I guess).
What qualifications does Paul have to be president? How much willingness has he shown to work with others who don't share his (bizarre) views? You know President is not Dictator, right? Even if he were elected he would still have to work with Congress, a body he has been unable to persuade for 30 years.
Remind we why he continues to run when everyone says he doesnt have a chance. TO score points? To run his mouth? WHy doesn't he do talk radio instead if that's all he wants?
Pauls' views have been examined by the GOP faithful and rejected on many occasions.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Nice demogoguery, stereotyping and fallacy. Brought the lulz.

 

[Dr.Drock]

None of you actually expect Rabbi to debate, do you? The guy has never argued a point in his entire time here. You're all delusional wookie suiters and he is superior because he is not.

That's why the internet is serious business.

No i don't expect it, but crazier things have happened.

Paulie is an idiot, a point made so often there is no need to repeat it.
You keep trying to deflect discussion of Paul to a discussion of Newt or Mitt. You want to start a thread on those guys, go ahead. But this thread is about Paul.
Paul, the guy who's spent 30 years in Congress and never done anything. Paul, the guy who apologizes for the US. Paul, the guy who wants to turn the country into a bunch of drug-crazed zombies (so they resemble his supporters I guess).
What qualifications does Paul have to be president? How much willingness has he shown to work with others who don't share his (bizarre) views? You know President is not Dictator, right? Even if he were elected he would still have to work with Congress, a body he has been unable to persuade for 30 years.
Remind we why he continues to run when everyone says he doesnt have a chance. TO score points? To run his mouth? WHy doesn't he do talk radio instead if that's all he wants?
Pauls' views have been examined by the GOP faithful and rejected on many occasions.

It's not a deflection, it's a comparison between who's more fiscally conservative out of Paul, Newt and Mitt.

Whenever I've asked you of those 3 who's the most conservative, you coincidentally vanish from the thread or reply without actually replying to what was said.

Normally you replace an answer with an insult that wouldn't even offend a teenage girl.

Your lie about Paul never doing anything has already been debunked, on your very own thread. I can't help you if you don't listen or prefer lies to truth.

Paul has admitted to mistakes by the gov't in foreign policy, dunno why you neocons are so sensitive about that. You're willing to admit politicians are far from perfect in domestic policy, but if someone even brings up the idea that they aren't anything but perfect in foreign policy, you all throw tantrums.

He's a fiscal conservative who's not willing to do anything that doesn't fall in line with that principle, can't see how that's a bad thing.

Maybe he runs cuz he thinks he has a chance? Maybe he runs to bring a voice to those sick of the same Obama/Bush agenda? I can't answer for him.

The only good point you made in there was that Paul isn't a dictator. Even if Paul were elected president (which there's no chance) it wouldn't fix gov't. Gov't would still be broken, but it would be a big step in the right direction. All the efforts of the democrats and republicans to expand gov't and to pass huge spending budgets would FINALLY have to go up against a big roadblock and an opposing view.

 

[LibertyForAll]

A president must:

be a natural born citizen of the United States
be at least thirty-five years old;
have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

He is a natural born citizen and he is over 35 years of age. He has been in congress for 30 years so he has been a resident of the US for at least 14 years.

Looks like he is qualified.

 

[The Rabbi]

Paul has admitted to mistakes by politiicans? As long as they aren't him, I guess. Blaming the US for 9/11 isnt admitting a mistake. It's insane.
This is typical of the apologies the Paul-bots offer for the fact that their leader is grossly unqualified for public office.
So what qualifications does Paul have to be president? I dont mean what are his views. People on here have views I would support. That doesnt make any poster here qualified to be president.

 

[The Rabbi]

A president must:

be a natural born citizen of the United States
be at least thirty-five years old;
have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

He is a natural born citizen and he is over 35 years of age. He has been in congress for 30 years so he has been a resident of the US for at least 14 years.

Looks like he is qualified.

So you're supporting Newt because he is a) qualified, and b) much more likely to win than Paul. Right?

 

[LibertyForAll]

A president must:

be a natural born citizen of the United States
be at least thirty-five years old;
have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

He is a natural born citizen and he is over 35 years of age. He has been in congress for 30 years so he has been a resident of the US for at least 14 years.

Looks like he is qualified.

So you're supporting Newt because he is a) qualified, and b) much more likely to win than Paul. Right?

Anyone is qualified that meets the constitutional requirements. The arbitrary qualifications you place on the job are your own and not necessarily someone else's, although I strongly suspect you got them from someone else. I have never said Newt isn't qualified. I disagree with him on his policies so I rule him out. What does him being more likely to win have to do with anything? (He does not poll better against Obama than Ron Paul by the way so if that's your new tact then its off base.) Just because Newt is more popular doesn't make him more qualified. I am not a lemming that follows along blindly to my death.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Paul has admitted to mistakes by politiicans? As long as they aren't him, I guess. Blaming the US for 9/11 isnt admitting a mistake. It's insane.
This is typical of the apologies the Paul-bots offer for the fact that their leader is grossly unqualified for public office.
So what qualifications does Paul have to be president? I dont mean what are his views. People on here have views I would support. That doesnt make any poster here qualified to be president.

Politicians makes mistakes+those mistakes make foreign people angry+those people act on their anger=blowback.

He talks about blowback, there's never one person you can blame an issue as complicated as 9/11 on. The terrorists deserve most the blame, our politicians deserve a sizeable chunk of blame, exactly as Paul states.

I can provide his list of bills he's authored in attempts to scale down gov't and spending, and your republicans have voted against them. But somehow in that equation, it makes you think less of Paul and more of the republicans who voted against those things.

Why? Because at heart, you're a fiscal liberal.

 

[The Rabbi]

Paul has admitted to mistakes by politiicans? As long as they aren't him, I guess. Blaming the US for 9/11 isnt admitting a mistake. It's insane.
This is typical of the apologies the Paul-bots offer for the fact that their leader is grossly unqualified for public office.
So what qualifications does Paul have to be president? I dont mean what are his views. People on here have views I would support. That doesnt make any poster here qualified to be president.

Politicians makes mistakes+those mistakes make foreign people angry+those people act on their anger=blowback.

He talks about blowback, there's never one person you can blame an issue as complicated as 9/11 on. The terrorists deserve most the blame, our politicians deserve a sizeable chunk of blame, exactly as Paul states.

I can provide his list of bills he's authored in attempts to scale down gov't and spending, and your republicans have voted against them. But somehow in that equation, it makes you think less of Paul and more of the republicans who voted against those things.

Why? Because at heart, you're a fiscal liberal.

Blaming the victim is a fail.

He has authored a bunch of vanity bills with no chance of becoming legislation. That isn't any kind of leadership. That is grandstanding.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Paul has admitted to mistakes by politiicans? As long as they aren't him, I guess. Blaming the US for 9/11 isnt admitting a mistake. It's insane.
This is typical of the apologies the Paul-bots offer for the fact that their leader is grossly unqualified for public office.
So what qualifications does Paul have to be president? I dont mean what are his views. People on here have views I would support. That doesnt make any poster here qualified to be president.

Politicians makes mistakes+those mistakes make foreign people angry+those people act on their anger=blowback.

He talks about blowback, there's never one person you can blame an issue as complicated as 9/11 on. The terrorists deserve most the blame, our politicians deserve a sizeable chunk of blame, exactly as Paul states.

I can provide his list of bills he's authored in attempts to scale down gov't and spending, and your republicans have voted against them. But somehow in that equation, it makes you think less of Paul and more of the republicans who voted against those things.

Why? Because at heart, you're a fiscal liberal.

Blaming the victim is a fail.

He has authored a bunch of vanity bills with no chance of becoming legislation. That isn't any kind of leadership. That is grandstanding.

He didn't blame 9/11 victims for 9/11, that's just a bleeding heart type of lie. He blamed politicians for making mistakes in their jobs.

Again you blame Paul for republicans not voting for his bills to decrease spending and decrease gov't. Like I've always said, partisanship is stronger than common sense.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Paul has admitted to mistakes by politiicans? As long as they aren't him, I guess. Blaming the US for 9/11 isnt admitting a mistake. It's insane.
This is typical of the apologies the Paul-bots offer for the fact that their leader is grossly unqualified for public office.
So what qualifications does Paul have to be president? I dont mean what are his views. People on here have views I would support. That doesnt make any poster here qualified to be president.

Politicians makes mistakes+those mistakes make foreign people angry+those people act on their anger=blowback.

He talks about blowback, there's never one person you can blame an issue as complicated as 9/11 on. The terrorists deserve most the blame, our politicians deserve a sizeable chunk of blame, exactly as Paul states.

I can provide his list of bills he's authored in attempts to scale down gov't and spending, and your republicans have voted against them. But somehow in that equation, it makes you think less of Paul and more of the republicans who voted against those things.

Why? Because at heart, you're a fiscal liberal.

Blaming the victim is a fail.

He has authored a bunch of vanity bills with no chance of becoming legislation. That isn't any kind of leadership. That is grandstanding.

The people who compromise get nothing done, as evidenced by the fact that nothing gets passed that limits government. The only thing that does get done is expansion of government because that is the one thing most of them agree on but for different reasons. I think it's obvious you side with big government too.

 

[The Rabbi]

Politicians makes mistakes+those mistakes make foreign people angry+those people act on their anger=blowback.

He talks about blowback, there's never one person you can blame an issue as complicated as 9/11 on. The terrorists deserve most the blame, our politicians deserve a sizeable chunk of blame, exactly as Paul states.

I can provide his list of bills he's authored in attempts to scale down gov't and spending, and your republicans have voted against them. But somehow in that equation, it makes you think less of Paul and more of the republicans who voted against those things.

Why? Because at heart, you're a fiscal liberal.

Blaming the victim is a fail.

He has authored a bunch of vanity bills with no chance of becoming legislation. That isn't any kind of leadership. That is grandstanding.

The people who compromise get nothing done, as evidenced by the fact that nothing gets passed that limits government. The only thing that does get done is expansion of government because that is the one thing most of them agree on but for different reasons. I think it's obvious you side with big government too.

So you're saying Ron Paul will get nothing done as president? Why would anyone want that?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Blaming the victim is a fail.

He has authored a bunch of vanity bills with no chance of becoming legislation. That isn't any kind of leadership. That is grandstanding.

The people who compromise get nothing done, as evidenced by the fact that nothing gets passed that limits government. The only thing that does get done is expansion of government because that is the one thing most of them agree on but for different reasons. I think it's obvious you side with big government too.

So you're saying Ron Paul will get nothing done as president? Why would anyone want that?

Getting nothing done would be a revolutionary improvement over the things the 2 parties have gotten done this millenium.

 

[dblack]

Blaming the victim is a fail.

Heh... we're not blaming the victim, no matter how incessantly you chant it. We're blaming the inept leaders and policies that YOU support.

 

[truthsaga]

Blaming the victim is a fail.

He has authored a bunch of vanity bills with no chance of becoming legislation. That isn't any kind of leadership. That is grandstanding.

The people who compromise get nothing done, as evidenced by the fact that nothing gets passed that limits government. The only thing that does get done is expansion of government because that is the one thing most of them agree on but for different reasons. I think it's obvious you side with big government too.

So you're saying Ron Paul will get nothing done as president? Why would anyone want that?

The role of government is not to get things done like universal healthcare, prescription drug coverage, no child left behind, allow regulators to run wild, SOPA, and be bought off by the highest bidder. The role of the government is to protect our liberties, freedom, and enforce contract laws.

Obama got a lot done and so will Romney, Newt, or Santorum they are plastic men that laugh at us believing there is any real difference between them. You could easily give them wrestler names because they don't care what side of the aisle they are on.