Ron Paul too old?

[Wicked Jester]

I'll admit that he definitely didn't present his Iran argument very well at that debate.

But knowing the man as well as I do since I've been studying and listening to him for almost 6 years now, I understand the point he was making a little differently than a lot of others do.

What he was saying about them pursuing a nuke was less about LETTING them have one, and more about trying to get people to think more critically about why they would want one.

I understand that some people are 100% convinced it's only because they want to annihilate someone with it and will never change their opinion, but he knows there are people who are open to hearing about it and forming their opinions instead of the media's spoonfed opinions.

You think they want to annihilate someone, he thinks they simply want relevance. If it got people thinking critically, then good.

Paul definitely has good ideas, domestically......Any true conservative agrees with a lot of what he says.......Foreign policy wise, the man is dangerous. And in many ways completely clueless.

It's time to stop getting behind the Pauls and Bachmann's who have zero chance, and get behind those who are not whacky extremist types.

Look, we've got some good conservatives out there whose domestic ideals are spot on, and definitely understand the foreign policy angle.......Those types are Rubio and West. And those are the ones conservatives truly need to get behind.

I don't know enough about Rubio or West. I do know there's a congressman in AZ named Jeff Flake who's running for Kyl's senate seat in 12. He's not perfect but he's still better than any of the other "choices".

But it's ironic that you mention 2 guys not running, while talking about electability.

I'm talking about them because they are the future, and damn sure will be electable....And if they did enter the race against the current field out there, they would definitely be electable. Rubio in particular. The man has it going on....They would not come out with the crazy shit that Paul and Bachmann do, and they don't have the baggage hanging from them that the other candidates do.......The liberal MSM would have a difficult time trying to tear them down....Once again, particularly Rubio.

If I don't start hearing shit from either of the candidates real soon, i'm writing in Rubio. Although, as I've told you before, every vote does count, and it would be hard possibly contributing to another four years of Obama's inept ass. This country cannot afford the rest of this term, let alone another 4 year term by that inept clown.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Which is an oxymoronic term, as you can see from my responses above. Anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists. They're often libertarian, and can be more accurately defined as laissez-faire capitalists.

It's not, because you have an erroneous definition of anarchist. Anarchism is merely opposition to the state itself, not all hierarchical institutions.

The reasons anarchists are against the state in the first place, is because the state is a source of authoritarianism and hierarchical institutions.

Some anarchists are opposed to all hierarchical institutions, but not all anarchists are the same. Like I said, anarchism in and of itself is merely defined as opposition to the existence of the state. So anarcho-capitalists, being opposed to the existence of the state, are definitely anarchists.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Paul definitely has good ideas, domestically......Any true conservative agrees with a lot of what he says.......Foreign policy wise, the man is dangerous. And in many ways completely clueless.

This is the common refrain from modern conservatives (mainstream Republicans) when confronted with Paul views. But it's basically an admission that you have no fucking clue what his views are all about - or what the real freedom and constitutionally limited government entail. Better to just label him a pariah and get it over with. You want authoritarian rule. Embrace it. And quit short-selling libertarianism.

Go away son, the adults are having a conversation.

Fire up the Nintendo, and busy yourself.

 

[Ava]

Here’s one more tidbit from yesterday’s interview: Asked whether his age would be a detriment to getting elected (he turns 76 tomorrow), Paul smiled and dismissed the hypothesis:

“That’s an old-fashioned idea. In this day and age, what really counts are your ideas and my ideas are promoting liberty – and that’s a very young idea and young people love it.”

He went on to challenge anyone worried about his senior-citizen status to a physical competition. “Anytime any other running candidate wants to come to Houston at 12 o’clock noon when the temperature is 100 and the humidity is 102, I’ll ride 20 miles with them on a bicycle.”

Any takers?

Cookies disabled? | Concord Monitor

Gary Johnson might take him up on that challenge being a triathlete, but the rest? I doubt it seriously.

I do think he is too old for the 4 to 8 year job, but if he has a strong VP, like Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan, or a small government minded current or past governor, it would help him.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Here’s one more tidbit from yesterday’s interview: Asked whether his age would be a detriment to getting elected (he turns 76 tomorrow), Paul smiled and dismissed the hypothesis:

“That’s an old-fashioned idea. In this day and age, what really counts are your ideas and my ideas are promoting liberty – and that’s a very young idea and young people love it.”

He went on to challenge anyone worried about his senior-citizen status to a physical competition. “Anytime any other running candidate wants to come to Houston at 12 o’clock noon when the temperature is 100 and the humidity is 102, I’ll ride 20 miles with them on a bicycle.”

Any takers?

Cookies disabled? | Concord Monitor

Gary Johnson might take him up on that challenge being a triathlete, but the rest? I doubt it seriously.

I do think he is too old for the 4 to 8 year job, but if he has a strong VP, like Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan, or a small government minded current or past governor, it would help him.

I wouldn't hold my breath on him asking Rubio or Ryan.

 

[Auxous]

Republicans dismiss Gary Johnson for Paul Ryan and Rubio....lol.

 

[CMike]

I disagree. I think that once people start dropping out of the race he'll still be going strong. He's the only candidate that can pull voters away from Obama. If he runs against Obama, he's the only one that will win.

If it was between obama and paul, I would probably have to go with Obama. Paul is just too dangerous.

He will not recognize outside threats to this country.

False. He just won't see every third-world tinpot dictator as a threat, because, well, they're not.

My comments are in blue

WALLACE: Congressman Paul -- Congressman Paul, you say that President Obama is not too soft on Iran, you say that he is too tough on Iran. I want to put up some of your statements. "Sanctions are not diplomacy," you say. "They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade." As for Iran's nuclear ambitions, you wrote this: "One can understand why they might want to become nuclear capable, if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfull
Is that your policy towards Iran?


PAUL: Well, even our own CIA gives me this information, that they have no evidence that they're working on a weapon. Just think of what we went through in the Cold War. When I was in the Air Force, after I was drafted in the Air Force, all through the '60s, we were -- we were standing up against the Soviets. They had like 30,000 nuclear weapons with intercontinental missiles.

Just think of the agitation and the worrying of a country that might get a nuclear weapon some day. And just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries -- China has nuclear weapons.

Why wouldn't it be natural that they might want a weapon? There'd be -- internationally, they'd be given more respect. Why should we write people off? There was -- you know, in the '50s, we at least talked to them. At least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets.
What's so terribly bad about this?



I mean, this whole idea of sanctions, all these pretend free traders, they're the ones who put on these trade sanctions. This is why we still don't have trade relationships with Cuba. It's about time we talked to Cuba and stopped fighting these wars that are about 30 or 40 years old


Ron "Mad Man" Paul explaining why foreign terrorists should be tried in american civilian courts and given miranda rights.


PAUL: Well, I think she turns our rule of law on its head. She says that the terrorists don't deserve protection under our courts, but, therefore, a judgment has to be made. They're ruled a terrorist. Who rules them a terrorist? I thought our courts recognized that you had to be tried.

And we've -- we've done this. And we've brought individuals back from Pakistan and other places. We've given them a trial in this country, over 300, or at least -- near 300, we tried and put them in prison.

So this idea that we -- we have to turn it on its head and reject the rule of law, we already are at the point where this administration -- please let me finish -- half a second -- this administration -- this administration... (BOOING) ... this administration already has accepted the principle that, when you assume somebody is a terrorist, they can be targeted for assassination, even American citizens. That affects all of us eventually. You don't want to translate our rule of law into a rule of mob rule.


I love this part below. The "Man Man" explains that Iran is deemed a threat because it has "some" militants.

PAUL: You've heard the war propaganda that is liable to lure -- lead us into the sixth war. And I worry about that position. Iran is a threat because they have some militants there. But believe me, they're all around the world and they're...(CROSSTALK)

IMO Paul is far more dangerous than Obama.

He doesn't realize that it's a dangerous world and there are people who wants to destroy us because we exist.

Iran is a chief state sponsor of terrorism. Even though they may not invade the US, if they had a nuke they could give it to a terrorist group, who could use it against the US.

Iran is currently fighting america by proxy.

Paul is even against the raid that killed OBL.

IMO he is mad

 

[Woyzeck]

Which is an oxymoronic term, as you can see from my responses above. Anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists. They're often libertarian, and can be more accurately defined as laissez-faire capitalists.

It's not, because you have an erroneous definition of anarchist. Anarchism is merely opposition to the state itself, not all hierarchical institutions.

No its not. Anarchy has a rich philosophy outside of your nascent understanding.

Lets talk about Egoism vs Natural Rights.
Egoism and Anarchy | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty

And that has to do what with anarchism not being anti-capitalistic?

 

[Woyzeck]

It's not, because you have an erroneous definition of anarchist. Anarchism is merely opposition to the state itself, not all hierarchical institutions.

The reasons anarchists are against the state in the first place, is because the state is a source of authoritarianism and hierarchical institutions.

Some anarchists are opposed to all hierarchical institutions, but not all anarchists are the same. Like I said, anarchism in and of itself is merely defined as opposition to the existence of the state. So anarcho-capitalists, being opposed to the existence of the state, are definitely anarchists.

Why don't anarchists like the state?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If it was between obama and paul, I would probably have to go with Obama. Paul is just too dangerous.

He will not recognize outside threats to this country.

False. He just won't see every third-world tinpot dictator as a threat, because, well, they're not.

My comments are in blue

WALLACE: Congressman Paul -- Congressman Paul, you say that President Obama is not too soft on Iran, you say that he is too tough on Iran. I want to put up some of your statements. "Sanctions are not diplomacy," you say. "They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade." As for Iran's nuclear ambitions, you wrote this: "One can understand why they might want to become nuclear capable, if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfull
Is that your policy towards Iran?


PAUL: Well, even our own CIA gives me this information, that they have no evidence that they're working on a weapon. Just think of what we went through in the Cold War. When I was in the Air Force, after I was drafted in the Air Force, all through the '60s, we were -- we were standing up against the Soviets. They had like 30,000 nuclear weapons with intercontinental missiles.

Just think of the agitation and the worrying of a country that might get a nuclear weapon some day. And just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries -- China has nuclear weapons.

Why wouldn't it be natural that they might want a weapon? There'd be -- internationally, they'd be given more respect. Why should we write people off? There was -- you know, in the '50s, we at least talked to them. At least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets.
What's so terribly bad about this?



I mean, this whole idea of sanctions, all these pretend free traders, they're the ones who put on these trade sanctions. This is why we still don't have trade relationships with Cuba. It's about time we talked to Cuba and stopped fighting these wars that are about 30 or 40 years old


Ron "Mad Man" Paul explaining why foreign terrorists should be tried in american civilian courts and given miranda rights.


PAUL: Well, I think she turns our rule of law on its head. She says that the terrorists don't deserve protection under our courts, but, therefore, a judgment has to be made. They're ruled a terrorist. Who rules them a terrorist? I thought our courts recognized that you had to be tried.

And we've -- we've done this. And we've brought individuals back from Pakistan and other places. We've given them a trial in this country, over 300, or at least -- near 300, we tried and put them in prison.

So this idea that we -- we have to turn it on its head and reject the rule of law, we already are at the point where this administration -- please let me finish -- half a second -- this administration -- this administration... (BOOING) ... this administration already has accepted the principle that, when you assume somebody is a terrorist, they can be targeted for assassination, even American citizens. That affects all of us eventually. You don't want to translate our rule of law into a rule of mob rule.


I love this part below. The "Man Man" explains that Iran is deemed a threat because it has "some" militants.

PAUL: You've heard the war propaganda that is liable to lure -- lead us into the sixth war. And I worry about that position. Iran is a threat because they have some militants there. But believe me, they're all around the world and they're...(CROSSTALK)

IMO Paul is far more dangerous than Obama.

He doesn't realize that it's a dangerous world and there are people who wants to destroy us because we exist.

Iran is a chief state sponsor of terrorism. Even though they may not invade the US, if they had a nuke they could give it to a terrorist group, who could use it against the US.

Iran is currently fighting america by proxy.

Paul is even against the raid that killed OBL.

IMO he is mad

No, it's because he realizes that the reason they want to attack us is because we've been meddling in their affairs for decades. There's a reason nobody attacks Switzerland. That being said the Iranian government is absolutely no threat whatsoever to the U.S. Like I said, a third-world tinpot dictator poses no threat to the world's preeminent military power.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Cookies disabled? | Concord Monitor

Gary Johnson might take him up on that challenge being a triathlete, but the rest? I doubt it seriously.

I do think he is too old for the 4 to 8 year job, but if he has a strong VP, like Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan, or a small government minded current or past governor, it would help him.

I wouldn't hold my breath on him asking Rubio or Ryan.

He should.....Help balance out his nuttiness, and smack him back to reality when necessary.......Maybe teach him something about foreign policy while they are at it.

 

[Auxous]

Ron Paul is MAD for defending habeas corpus. - what utter bullshit.

Habeas Corpus is a radical idea...lmaorotf.

 

[dblack]

IMO he is mad

The emperor wears no clothes.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The reasons anarchists are against the state in the first place, is because the state is a source of authoritarianism and hierarchical institutions.

Some anarchists are opposed to all hierarchical institutions, but not all anarchists are the same. Like I said, anarchism in and of itself is merely defined as opposition to the existence of the state. So anarcho-capitalists, being opposed to the existence of the state, are definitely anarchists.

Why don't anarchists like the state?

Depends on the type of anarchist we're discussing. Most, if not all, anarchists would answer that the state has proven itself to be one of the greatest mass-murdering entities in the history of the world. Which is valid. An anarcho-capitalist might respond that the state is institutionalized aggression, and that everything it does constitutes force which the anarcho-capitalist sees as illegitimate. Anarcho-communists might respond that the state props up capitalism, and that minus the state capitalism's inherent flaws would cause its collapse and bring about some kind of communist utopia.

 

[Wicked Jester]

False. He just won't see every third-world tinpot dictator as a threat, because, well, they're not.

My comments are in blue

WALLACE: Congressman Paul -- Congressman Paul, you say that President Obama is not too soft on Iran, you say that he is too tough on Iran. I want to put up some of your statements. "Sanctions are not diplomacy," you say. "They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade." As for Iran's nuclear ambitions, you wrote this: "One can understand why they might want to become nuclear capable, if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfull
Is that your policy towards Iran?


PAUL: Well, even our own CIA gives me this information, that they have no evidence that they're working on a weapon. Just think of what we went through in the Cold War. When I was in the Air Force, after I was drafted in the Air Force, all through the '60s, we were -- we were standing up against the Soviets. They had like 30,000 nuclear weapons with intercontinental missiles.

Just think of the agitation and the worrying of a country that might get a nuclear weapon some day. And just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries -- China has nuclear weapons.

Why wouldn't it be natural that they might want a weapon? There'd be -- internationally, they'd be given more respect. Why should we write people off? There was -- you know, in the '50s, we at least talked to them. At least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets.
What's so terribly bad about this?



I mean, this whole idea of sanctions, all these pretend free traders, they're the ones who put on these trade sanctions. This is why we still don't have trade relationships with Cuba. It's about time we talked to Cuba and stopped fighting these wars that are about 30 or 40 years old


Ron "Mad Man" Paul explaining why foreign terrorists should be tried in american civilian courts and given miranda rights.


PAUL: Well, I think she turns our rule of law on its head. She says that the terrorists don't deserve protection under our courts, but, therefore, a judgment has to be made. They're ruled a terrorist. Who rules them a terrorist? I thought our courts recognized that you had to be tried.

And we've -- we've done this. And we've brought individuals back from Pakistan and other places. We've given them a trial in this country, over 300, or at least -- near 300, we tried and put them in prison.

So this idea that we -- we have to turn it on its head and reject the rule of law, we already are at the point where this administration -- please let me finish -- half a second -- this administration -- this administration... (BOOING) ... this administration already has accepted the principle that, when you assume somebody is a terrorist, they can be targeted for assassination, even American citizens. That affects all of us eventually. You don't want to translate our rule of law into a rule of mob rule.


I love this part below. The "Man Man" explains that Iran is deemed a threat because it has "some" militants.

PAUL: You've heard the war propaganda that is liable to lure -- lead us into the sixth war. And I worry about that position. Iran is a threat because they have some militants there. But believe me, they're all around the world and they're...(CROSSTALK)

IMO Paul is far more dangerous than Obama.

He doesn't realize that it's a dangerous world and there are people who wants to destroy us because we exist.

Iran is a chief state sponsor of terrorism. Even though they may not invade the US, if they had a nuke they could give it to a terrorist group, who could use it against the US.

Iran is currently fighting america by proxy.

Paul is even against the raid that killed OBL.

IMO he is mad

No, it's because he realizes that the reason they want to attack us is because we've been meddling in their affairs for decades. There's a reason nobody attacks Switzerland. That being said the Iranian government is absolutely no threat whatsoever to the U.S. Like I said, a third-world tinpot dictator poses no threat to the world's preeminent military power.

Go tell that to Israel, and get back to me.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I do think he is too old for the 4 to 8 year job, but if he has a strong VP, like Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan, or a small government minded current or past governor, it would help him.

I wouldn't hold my breath on him asking Rubio or Ryan.

He should.....Help balance out his nuttiness, and smack him back to reality when necessary.......Maybe teach him something about foreign policy while they are at it.

 

[Modbert]

Here's the $64,000 question, why is Paul still a Republican? If Ron Paul is so vastly different from the rest of the candidates, why does he not simply go the third party route?

If I ran for office and the same position three times, never getting over 10%, I'd have second thoughts about what I'm doing. By the second time mind you, I would have come to the conclusion that either I have to change my views to gain more of the party's support in the primary, or leave the party.

From Ron Paul himself:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV_oFQJ1VZY]Ron Paul Sells Out The Liberty Movement - January 15, 2010 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

My comments are in blue

WALLACE: Congressman Paul -- Congressman Paul, you say that President Obama is not too soft on Iran, you say that he is too tough on Iran. I want to put up some of your statements. "Sanctions are not diplomacy," you say. "They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade." As for Iran's nuclear ambitions, you wrote this: "One can understand why they might want to become nuclear capable, if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfull
Is that your policy towards Iran?


PAUL: Well, even our own CIA gives me this information, that they have no evidence that they're working on a weapon. Just think of what we went through in the Cold War. When I was in the Air Force, after I was drafted in the Air Force, all through the '60s, we were -- we were standing up against the Soviets. They had like 30,000 nuclear weapons with intercontinental missiles.

Just think of the agitation and the worrying of a country that might get a nuclear weapon some day. And just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries -- China has nuclear weapons.

Why wouldn't it be natural that they might want a weapon? There'd be -- internationally, they'd be given more respect. Why should we write people off? There was -- you know, in the '50s, we at least talked to them. At least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets.
What's so terribly bad about this?



I mean, this whole idea of sanctions, all these pretend free traders, they're the ones who put on these trade sanctions. This is why we still don't have trade relationships with Cuba. It's about time we talked to Cuba and stopped fighting these wars that are about 30 or 40 years old


Ron "Mad Man" Paul explaining why foreign terrorists should be tried in american civilian courts and given miranda rights.


PAUL: Well, I think she turns our rule of law on its head. She says that the terrorists don't deserve protection under our courts, but, therefore, a judgment has to be made. They're ruled a terrorist. Who rules them a terrorist? I thought our courts recognized that you had to be tried.

And we've -- we've done this. And we've brought individuals back from Pakistan and other places. We've given them a trial in this country, over 300, or at least -- near 300, we tried and put them in prison.

So this idea that we -- we have to turn it on its head and reject the rule of law, we already are at the point where this administration -- please let me finish -- half a second -- this administration -- this administration... (BOOING) ... this administration already has accepted the principle that, when you assume somebody is a terrorist, they can be targeted for assassination, even American citizens. That affects all of us eventually. You don't want to translate our rule of law into a rule of mob rule.


I love this part below. The "Man Man" explains that Iran is deemed a threat because it has "some" militants.

PAUL: You've heard the war propaganda that is liable to lure -- lead us into the sixth war. And I worry about that position. Iran is a threat because they have some militants there. But believe me, they're all around the world and they're...(CROSSTALK)

IMO Paul is far more dangerous than Obama.

He doesn't realize that it's a dangerous world and there are people who wants to destroy us because we exist.

Iran is a chief state sponsor of terrorism. Even though they may not invade the US, if they had a nuke they could give it to a terrorist group, who could use it against the US.

Iran is currently fighting america by proxy.

Paul is even against the raid that killed OBL.

IMO he is mad

No, it's because he realizes that the reason they want to attack us is because we've been meddling in their affairs for decades. There's a reason nobody attacks Switzerland. That being said the Iranian government is absolutely no threat whatsoever to the U.S. Like I said, a third-world tinpot dictator poses no threat to the world's preeminent military power.

Go tell that to Israel, and get back to me.

Israel has plenty of nuclear weapons itself, and is economically superior to Iran. Israel is perfectly capable of defending themselves from a third-world tinpot dictator as well.

 

[Stashman]

Ron Paul too old?

Nope.

They tried to write him off as a nutcase 4 years ago. He is still here. The detractors long gone. Who were they anyway?

He was so nuts four years ago that candidates are tripping over each other to steal his ideas. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich talking about the Fed? Michele Bachmann talking about reading Ludwig von Mises at the beach? Mitt Romney talking about getting troops out of Afghanistan? Of course they're all pale imitations, but the fact remains that Ron Paul has clearly made a mark on the Republican Party.

Did Mr. Paul invent any of those ideas or concerns? That's sort of silly.

And I'd like a link to Romney on getting out of Afghanistan, please.

No his ideas weren't invented by him they come from a document called the U.S. Constitution. If you haven't read it than I suggest you do.

 

[Auxous]

Going third party does not pay off. Plus, Paul is from the OLD RIGHT, not a modern day conservative.

He is restoring the Republican Party, not dismantling it.