Ron Paul on the Verge of Going Third Party?

EASY MONEY wrote:

<quoted text>Which is your right, it makes no difference if your dead from the neck up, which you are, it's still your right!

Lmao. It sure is. And you have the right to your opinions, and the first amendment right to voice them.

For now.

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>
Lmao. It sure is. And you have the right to your opinions, and the first amendment right to voice them.
For now.

Living in Thailand there are no first amendment rights. But I get along just fine with out them, along with civil rights.

Bill R wrote:

I know this is heresy on a Ron Paul forum, but I don't regard it as an admirable quality to having
not seen any reason to alter or change a viewpoint
or goal in more than 30 years.

Strange..I tried to look up your intended meaning on thesaurus.com and got the following:

abiding, adamant, allegiance, ardent, bound, changeless, constant, dedicated, dependable, enduring, established, faithful, fast, firm, fixed, immobile, immovable, inexorable, inflexible, intense, intent, liege, never-failing, obdurate, persevering, relentless, reliable, resolute, rigid, single-minded, stable, staunch, stubborn, sure, tried-and-true, true, true-blue, unbending, unfaltering, unflinching, unmovable, unqualified, unquestioning, unswerving, unwavering, unyielding, wholehearted.

We will never get along politically old friend.

In other tidbits of interweb info says non monitored globalization is destroying America, all the while the Paul cries for fed audits and non-interventionism gets ignored. The question is WHY and who has to benefit from this? Certainly NOT the American people!

Example: "if we let China sell us clothes and put people in South Carolina out of work, then maybe we will be able to sell China high end industrial goods. Then sure: China will study our products, reverse engineer them, make their own products in violation of patent laws, and tell us,“Would you like to buy machine tools, IP routers, and cars from us?”((at half the price due to slave labor)) source:(net)

To continue my insightful diatribe..why do we interfere in other countries friggin business. WHY? We are only losing. OOOH might it be the power at be who contribute to both parties accordingly that actually have something to lose if anything REALLY changes under a DR. Ron Paul presidency?

Ron Paul doesn't have to go third party.
He's my man no matter what he does.
He's a good American. Is Obama??????????

Is Rush Limbaugh?

I'll stick with Dr. Paul and his wonderful son.

OOps almost left without providing a solution...

1... Tax breaks for corporations overseas..GONE!

2...Visas for foreign workers with needed skills put on back burner until US corps search US colleges for grads with those skills and determine there are none!

3....Hire an illegal...fine...Hire 2 illegals..NO BUSINESS LICENSE.

4. Tax breaks given for percentage of articles produced WITHIN AMERICA!

5.. To offset benefits offered by corporations that hire AMERICANS WILLING TO WORK = tax break!

6....To offset training standards..college credits, training (on off job) deductible.

7. Benefits deductible for perks..(health, 401, etc)

8..Corporation heads willfully ducking these rules will be fined!!!!

9...Entice corporate ethics while making sure Americans come first.

10..Give preference to other countries who want to relocate THEIR factories here and offer jobs to American ingenuity!

Free/Fair Trade!

Crazy n Nutty Politics wrote:

<quoted text>
Strange..I tried to look up your intended meaning on thesaurus.com and got the following:
abiding, adamant, allegiance, ardent, bound, changeless, constant, dedicated, dependable, enduring, established, faithful, fast, firm, fixed, immobile, immovable, inexorable, inflexible, intense, intent, liege, never-failing, obdurate, persevering, relentless, reliable, resolute, rigid, single-minded, stable, staunch, stubborn, sure, tried-and-true, true, true-blue, unbending, unfaltering, unflinching, unmovable, unqualified, unquestioning, unswerving, unwavering, unyielding, wholehearted.
We will never get along politically old friend.
In other tidbits of interweb info says non monitored globalization is destroying America, all the while the Paul cries for fed audits and non-interventionism gets ignored. The question is WHY and who has to benefit from this? Certainly NOT the American people!
Example: "if we let China sell us clothes and put people in South Carolina out of work, then maybe we will be able to sell China high end industrial goods. Then sure: China will study our products, reverse engineer them, make their own products in violation of patent laws, and tell us,“Would you like to buy machine tools, IP routers, and cars from us?”((at half the price due to slave labor)) source:(net)

CNP - Fact is that probably the majority of those words
your thesaurus produced for you could also apply to those
whom you despise politically.


I'll stick to my guns on this one, CNP. It isn't an
admirable trait when, as in the particular case I brought
into the conversation, it is so very clear that Ron Paul
is clueless to the point of being a caricature of almost
being funny.

Out our way many motels, especially the "family-owned"
ones, are operated by Asians. It is not at all unusual to
find a locally owned motel to be owned by a Pakistani or
Indian, complete with the smell of Asian cooking filetering
into the lobby.


I wonder how you would feel if you had driven 500 miles or
more in a day and, due to limited funds, sought out just
a clean bed and hot water in a locally owned motel and
were turned away because you were white. And then have it
happen to you two or three more times before someone
desperate to fill a room tossed you the keys to the room
with air polluted with cigarette smoke and the smell of
pet urine emanating rising from the carpet.

Please don't rationalize, CNP. African Americans tolerated
this crap for decades before someone drew a line in the
sand and your guy would have defended the owner's right to
do what he wished.

And that, in a multi-racial and multi-cultural world,
Ron Paul is totally unfit to serve as President. I'll
give him his space in many economic matters, but his utter
failure to have cataract surgery on this issue makes him
unqualified for the highest office in the land.

I'd want him in a Cabinet position, but nothing more.
And, as a matter of fact, nothing less. My opposition
is really basic .... in an America now surely headed
toward a time when white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants from
Europe are a minority, Paul's position on civil rights
is strictly 18th century nonsense.

Paul and his supporters can accept this or simply become
irrelevant. In 2004 his supporters said, "Wait for 2008."
In 2008 they said, "We'll talk 'freedom' and 'liberty'
and we will get it done in 2012." Now we have those
already forfeiting 2012 and declaring that 2016 will be
their time.

It ain't gonna happen.

Every year that passes by makes it less and less likely
that the multi-racial and multi-cultural context that is
the United States would ever choose a President who would
declare that the rights of a U.S. citizen depends on the whims
and fancies of state legislatures. If you can't figure
that out and admit that Ron Paul is decades behind the curve
on the fundamentally realities of life in America, I can't
help you.

Crazy n Nutty Politics wrote:

OOps almost left without providing a solution...
1... Tax breaks for corporations overseas..GONE!
2...Visas for foreign workers with needed skills put on back burner until US corps search US colleges for grads with those skills and determine there are none!
3....Hire an illegal...fine...Hire 2 illegals..NO BUSINESS LICENSE.
4. Tax breaks given for percentage of articles produced WITHIN AMERICA!
5.. To offset benefits offered by corporations that hire AMERICANS WILLING TO WORK = tax break!
6....To offset training standards..college credits, training (on off job) deductible.
7. Benefits deductible for perks..(health, 401, etc)
8..Corporation heads willfully ducking these rules will be fined!!!!
9...Entice corporate ethics while making sure Americans come first.
10..Give preference to other countries who want to relocate THEIR factories here and offer jobs to American ingenuity!
Free/Fair Trade!

Sorry, but you sound more like Pat Buchanan than Ron Paul,
not to mention the incredible inconsistency with libertarian
principles. As a small business person it seems I am free
(i.e. as in "liberty") as long as I follow your friggin
rules.


In my view I would simply be replacing one fascist for
another.

You may think I am being inconsistent, but the fact is that
I am insisting that some things are givens in the America.
If I can pay the fare I deserve the right to purchase it.
To make the color of my skin or the heavy accent with
which I speak an issue has no play. If you can't play
by the rules of a civil society, take your leisure in the
swamps and bayous and leave the future to those suited
for it.

Simply put, CNP, has an American of color or such any
reason to expect anything less than equal treatment in
America? If not, admit it and give Ron Paul a hug for
giving you an intellectual or philosophical "out." In
such a case I believe you would actually be discrediting
the soul and purpose of a good man. I simply believe his
tactics are painfully wrong. By adhering to Paul's
twisted interpretation of the Constitution and the cir-
cumstances under which the Civil Rights Act came about
you are giving space and place to the underbelly of
American culture. I think you are better than that. In
fact, I believe Ron Paul is better than that but he is
terribly afraid of losing that certain percentage of
voters he has captured on the outer edges of the voting
block.

CNP - Where we differ .... I can't but come
to the sad conclusion that you are using Ron
Paul's interpretation of the Constitution
unwittingly to legally allow some to deny the
rights and pleasures of American freedom and
liberty to some who are "guilty" of being of
a "different" color or culture .... all in the
name of "freedom and liberty."

For me that renders your use of the words
"freedom" and "liberty" as feel good terms used
to justify the denial or, at best, limitation
of the human rights of others whom you suspect
might well disagree with you.

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but you sound more like Pat Buchanan than Ron Paul,
not to mention the incredible inconsistency with libertarian
principles. As a small business person it seems I am free
(i.e. as in "liberty") as long as I follow your friggin
rules.
In my view I would simply be replacing one fascist for
another.
You may think I am being inconsistent, but the fact is that
I am insisting that some things are givens in the America.
If I can pay the fare I deserve the right to purchase it.
To make the color of my skin or the heavy accent with
which I speak an issue has no play. If you can't play
by the rules of a civil society, take your leisure in the
swamps and bayous and leave the future to those suited
for it.
Simply put, CNP, has an American of color or such any
reason to expect anything less than equal treatment in
America? If not, admit it and give Ron Paul a hug for
giving you an intellectual or philosophical "out." In
such a case I believe you would actually be discrediting
the soul and purpose of a good man. I simply believe his
tactics are painfully wrong. By adhering to Paul's
twisted interpretation of the Constitution and the cir-
cumstances under which the Civil Rights Act came about
you are giving space and place to the underbelly of
American culture. I think you are better than that. In
fact, I believe Ron Paul is better than that but he is
terribly afraid of losing that certain percentage of
voters he has captured on the outer edges of the voting
block.

And yet you support the war on drugs -- consistent?

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
CNP - Fact is that probably the majority of those words
your thesaurus produced for you could also apply to those
whom you despise politically.
I'll stick to my guns on this one, CNP. It isn't an
admirable trait when, as in the particular case I brought
into the conversation, it is so very clear that Ron Paul
is clueless to the point of being a caricature of almost
being funny.
Out our way many motels, especially the "family-owned"
ones, are operated by Asians. It is not at all unusual to
find a locally owned motel to be owned by a Pakistani or
Indian, complete with the smell of Asian cooking filetering
into the lobby.
I wonder how you would feel if you had driven 500 miles or
more in a day and, due to limited funds, sought out just
a clean bed and hot water in a locally owned motel and
were turned away because you were white. And then have it
happen to you two or three more times before someone
desperate to fill a room tossed you the keys to the room
with air polluted with cigarette smoke and the smell of
pet urine emanating rising from the carpet.
Please don't rationalize, CNP. African Americans tolerated
this crap for decades before someone drew a line in the
sand and your guy would have defended the owner's right to
do what he wished.
And that, in a multi-racial and multi-cultural world,
Ron Paul is totally unfit to serve as President. I'll
give him his space in many economic matters, but his utter
failure to have cataract surgery on this issue makes him
unqualified for the highest office in the land.
I'd want him in a Cabinet position, but nothing more.
And, as a matter of fact, nothing less. My opposition
is really basic .... in an America now surely headed
toward a time when white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants from
Europe are a minority, Paul's position on civil rights
is strictly 18th century nonsense.
Paul and his supporters can accept this or simply become
irrelevant. In 2004 his supporters said, "Wait for 2008."
In 2008 they said, "We'll talk 'freedom' and 'liberty'
and we will get it done in 2012." Now we have those
already forfeiting 2012 and declaring that 2016 will be
their time.
It ain't gonna happen.
Every year that passes by makes it less and less likely
that the multi-racial and multi-cultural context that is
the United States would ever choose a President who would
declare that the rights of a U.S. citizen depends on the whims
and fancies of state legislatures. If you can't figure
that out and admit that Ron Paul is decades behind the curve
on the fundamentally realities of life in America, I can't
help you.

I agree with you that Paul dropped the ball on civil rights. It should be noted, however, that civil rights, which are commendable, and necessary ARE different than the family destructive socialist welfare state, ie the Great Society programs.

Tragically, the liberals, thru their control of the MSM, Hollywood and Academua, have been able to give civil rights virtue to socialistic governmental programs.

Now IRONOCALLY, Paul finds himself in the same position as Martin Luther King on the issue of Internet Freedom with the downtrodden middle-class fighting to keep its voice heard AND Obama taking the place of Bull Connor, ie, trying to shut down free speech.

The Civil Rights Act is Unconstitutional, and Ron Paul would be right if he voted against it. It has absolutely nothing to do with "rights", but has everything to do with turning nice, orderly societies into cesspools. In 1964 when it was passed, America did a 180 and cried out in pain. Before the ink was even dry on the act itself, lefties were busy planning behind-the-scenes race quotas.

In MLK's "I have a dream" speech, he said nothing about race quotas, hand-outs and affirmative action. Our government judges people based on their skin color, and not on the content of their character.

Paul did not drop any ball on civil rights- he was and is spot on- mainstream America is too busy double dribbling!

Zachary_ wrote:

The Civil Rights Act is Unconstitutional, and Ron Paul would be right if he voted against it. It has absolutely nothing to do with "rights", but has everything to do with turning nice, orderly societies into cesspools. In 1964 when it was passed, America did a 180 and cried out in pain. Before the ink was even dry on the act itself, lefties were busy planning behind-the-scenes race quotas.
In MLK's "I have a dream" speech, he said nothing about race quotas, hand-outs and affirmative action. Our government judges people based on their skin color, and not on the content of their character.
Paul did not drop any ball on civil rights- he was and is spot on- mainstream America is too busy double dribbling!

Racial quotas and affirmative action are not only unconstitutional, they are BLATANTLY RASCIST. The Civil Rights Bill did not advocate or legalize either of those nefarious activites which caused so much havoc.

Handouts unconstitutional??? I'm not sure about that, but the Civil Rights Bill was not about handouts.

What caused so much misery, destruction and pain was the welfare system, which despite TRILLIONS being spent has actually done nothing for eradicating poverty.

As for Paul, he is one of the countries greatest heroes for his battle against the Federal Reserve and NOW for his battle to preserve Internet Freedom; in both cases, the outcome hangs in the balance.

LORAX wrote:

<quoted text>
And yet you support the war on drugs -- consistent?

I support the purported goals of the so-called
War on Drugs. That is not the same as being
supportive of the manner in which the government
has waged that war, especially in its inability
to see the difference between marijuana and
hard drugs like cocaine or heroin. Add to that
the corruption and complicity of those involved
in this War on Drugs and the best laid plans
have been deeply compromised. I have been con-
sistent on this and, considering the degree to
which American culture has been debased by its
preoccupation with and the use of hard drugs,
I believe that the cause is just and easily
falls under the general welfare clause.

Have you any examples of countries that have
flourished culturally by making hard drugs
easily accessible to its population?

bottlecap wrote:

<quoted text>
Racial quotas and affirmative action are not only unconstitutional, they are BLATANTLY RASCIST. The Civil Rights Bill did not advocate or legalize either of those nefarious activites which caused so much havoc.
Handouts unconstitutional??? I'm not sure about that, but the Civil Rights Bill was not about handouts.
What caused so much misery, destruction and pain was the welfare system, which despite TRILLIONS being spent has actually done nothing for eradicating poverty.
As for Paul, he is one of the countries greatest heroes for his battle against the Federal Reserve and NOW for his battle to preserve Internet Freedom; in both cases, the outcome hangs in the balance.

B-cap, I find it intriguing how often people justify their
opposition to the Civil Rights Act by pointing out the
failures of those measures, laws, and programs that weren't
even a part of Civil Rights Act. I don't believe that the
attempt to link them together is unintentional.

USA is going down and it tries unfortunatelly to take the rest of the world together to the bottom.
And this Ron Paul, who is good politician, who is real American and who as the only US politician has hopeful program for USA and for US people, he is the only hope. People must think, it will be no more such chances like Ron Paul.

Bjorn wrote:

USA is going down and it tries unfortunatelly to take the rest of the world together to the bottom.
And this Ron Paul, who is good politician, who is real American and who as the only US politician has hopeful program for USA and for US people, he is the only hope. People must think, it will be no more such chances like Ron Paul.

True.

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
I support the purported goals of the so-called
War on Drugs. That is not the same as being
supportive of the manner in which the government
has waged that war, especially in its inability
to see the difference between marijuana and
hard drugs like cocaine or heroin. Add to that
the corruption and complicity of those involved
in this War on Drugs and the best laid plans
have been deeply compromised. I have been con-
sistent on this and, considering the degree to
which American culture has been debased by its
preoccupation with and the use of hard drugs,
I believe that the cause is just and easily
falls under the general welfare clause.
Have you any examples of countries that have
flourished culturally by making hard drugs
easily accessible to its population?

Not easily accessible but returned to the medical model. I will use Great Britain and Heroin. The history is that GB has a small population of chronic heroin users. They tried the draconian approach and adopted very strict criminal sanctions. Their small population turned to a huge population and literally crippled the criminal justice system. They placed problem in a medical model and now they have one of the lowest use rates and by far one of the highest reform/recovery rates in the world.