Getting tired of Ron Paul

[stevo]

There are going to be a bunch of disillusioned people when (if) Ron Paul gets into office and he turns into the usual politician that only cares about his bottom line.

Stevo

[fordracer2]

“I'm willing to say that history hasn't been kind to interventionism. Interventionism is what caused our situation today.

We overthrow Mosaddegh in '53 on the request of Britain, and install the Shah into power. The Iranians are furious that we overthrow their elected leader, and this leads to the Iranian revolution in '79 that puts the Ayatollah in power.

Saddam Hussein is afraid of this revolution spilling over in this country, and since he's anti-Iran, we help out Saddam by giving him intelligence and weapons in the Iraq-Iran War.

At this time, we're financing and giving weapons to the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, including a young man named Osama Bin Laden, in their fight against the Soviets.

Saddam invades Kuwait in 1990, which made us feel nervous that he could also invade Saudi Arabia. In response, we station troops in Saudi Arabia. This angers Osama Bin Laden and his off-shoot organization of the Mujahedeen, known as Al-Qaeda. As a result of this, they include the United States in their jihad against foreign troops in their holy land, which leads us to where we are today with many in the middle east hating is.

This all began with us intervening in Iran with the overthrow of Mosaddegh, which led to the chain reaction that resulted in the birth of Al-Qaeda and their hatred for the United States. If that doesn't happen, we might be living in peace right now.

---Holy shit--- What a fuckin eye opener i was already in the opinion that we involve are selves to much but this is history that we can not repeat! Thank you for posting that even though i should already know all of it i never put it all together from that far back.

[Slowhand]

There are going to be a bunch of disillusioned people when (if) Ron Paul gets into office and he turns into the usual politician that only cares about his bottom line.

Stevo

He has a congressional record that says you're speaking out of your ass. There's certifiable, indisputable evidence that Gingrich and Romney have used their power to bolster their own bottom lines; find me the evidence that Ron Paul has done the same, because I've yet to find it.

[stevo]

I like that the man has been consistent with his views/voting record since the 80's that I'm aware of. He can run on his record rather than from it.

Yeah, kinda like who he was a stolid backer of Reagan, then decided that Reagan was too liberal, wanting to "totally disassociate" himself with Reagan, and then some 20 years later is claiming to be a Reagan supporter again. Kinda like being a Republican, deciding that being a Republican was against his beliefs and becoming a Libertarian, then deciding to become a Republican again. Very consistent.

Stevo

[stevo]

He has a congressional record that says you're speaking out of your ass. There's certifiable, indisputable evidence that Gingrich and Romney have used their power to bolster their own bottom lines; find me the evidence that Ron Paul has done the same, because I've yet to find it.

I wasn't aware that I mentioned Gingrich or Romney in my post, could you please quote it?

As far as you other comments, see the previous post.

Stevo

[Slowhand]

Yeah, kinda like who he was a stolid backer of Reagan, then decided that Reagan was too liberal, wanting to "totally disassociate" himself with Reagan, and then some 20 years later is claiming to be a Reagan supporter again. Kinda like being a Republican, deciding that being a Republican was against his beliefs and becoming a Libertarian, then deciding to become a Republican again. Very consistent.

Stevo

So your argument is that he's gone from right to center right and that's inconsistent? Paul only runs on the Republican ticket these days because party line voters, old farts, and the Dem/Repub brainwashed have determined that we should be the only government in the developed world with a two-party system; it's a strategic move, I don't see the ethics behind it being suspect. Grinchrich and Robney have both done worse, far worse.

[davbrucas]

Yeah, kinda like who he was a stolid backer of Reagan, then decided that Reagan was too liberal, wanting to "totally disassociate" himself with Reagan, and then some 20 years later is claiming to be a Reagan supporter again. Kinda like being a Republican, deciding that being a Republican was against his beliefs and becoming a Libertarian, then deciding to become a Republican again. Very consistent.

Stevo

This is all you could come up with?

[Slowhand]

I wasn't aware that I mentioned Gingrich or Romney in my post, could you please quote it?

As far as you other comments, see the previous post.

Stevo

Those are the proposed alternatives on the GOP side. Since the GOP has determined that we must deal with voting for the lesser of two evils, it's about finding the least evil of the three.

[Slowhand]

And the whole new-found Reagan shit for Paul stems from one ad as far as I know; I'm much more concerned with the substance of what he says and what his voting record says than what a stray ad represents.

Oh, and his assertion of Reaganomics as "warmed-over Keynesianism"? Spot the fuck on, coming from someone who used to drink a lot of the Reagan koolaide.

[red95gts]

As mentioned by the Doc, a vote against RP is simply unamerican.

[stevo]

So your argument is that he's gone from right to center right and that's inconsistent? Paul only runs on the Republican ticket these days because party line voters, old farts, and the Dem/Repub brainwashed have determined that we should be the only government in the developed world with a two-party system; it's a strategic move,

So, you are saying he only runs as a Republican because that is the only way he can get votes? He is only a republican to get party-line votes? Strategic move? You are right, doesn't sound like is doing anything to further his bottom line (getting votes).

I don't see the ethics behind it being suspect. Grinchrich and Robney have both done worse, far worse.

Did you really just resort to that?

This is all you could come up with?

It is enough to show that he isn't as single-minded as everyone believes? Hell, he is using his supposed support of Reagan in his mud-slinging ads against Perry...

Stevo

[stevo]

As mentioned by the Doc, a vote against RP is simply unamerican.

And a vote for RP if he has no chance in hell of winning is a vote FOR 0bama.

Stevo

[stevo]

And the whole new-found Reagan shit for Paul stems from one ad as far as I know; I'm much more concerned with the substance of what he says and what his voting record says than what a stray ad represents.

Oh, and his assertion of Reaganomics as "warmed-over Keynesianism"? Spot the fuck on, coming from someone who used to drink a lot of the Reagan koolaide.

Were you even out of diapers while Reagan was president? Even alive?

Stevo

[Slowhand]

Were you even out of diapers while Reagan was president? Even alive?

Stevo

I was not. On one hand I can't speak for the state of the country during his Presidency, but I also don't have 8 years of voting and support bias in my way either. From a statistical standpoint, Reaganomics was largely a wash.

[Slowhand]

So, you are saying he only runs as a Republican because that is the only way he can get votes? He is only a republican to get party-line votes? Strategic move? You are right, doesn't sound like is doing anything to further his bottom line (getting votes).

I'd call that a much better tradeoff against Newt's bottom line of financial gain.