What are the reasons you would not vote Ron Paul?

[stephen4785]

Learning from a mistake doesn't help solve the mistake that has already been made, it helps to keep you from doing it again. The mistake is done, we have to deal with it. You feel leaving the area will make them happy and content, I feel leaving the area will just embolden them. We can agree to disagree.

Stevo

Agreed. I just think what we are doing isn't working either. Maybe it's time to try something different?

[bcoop]

1.Age
2.He doesn't seem to like Israel
3.He comes across to me as a whinny old man. "grump"
4.The more he talks the more bat shit crazy he seems
5.He wants to "talk" with Iran. Who said that in the last election?
6.He puts pork into bills for his peps then votes against it just to say he voted against pork.
7.He doesn't seem to have the respect of world leaders.
8.He is a career politician.
9.He thinks America caused 9/11
10.He supports Gay marriage.

That's just 10 in no order.

This being said I like and agree with most of his ideas. Just don't like him. But, if he is the nominee I will vote for him.

1. What does age have to do with it? I could see if he was unhealthy. He's quite healthy, and pretty sharp. I see no issue there.
2. I think his stance on Israel is misconstrued as "not liking them". I don't believe that to be the case. That said, Obama doesn't like Israel. Bush nor Clinton had the best relationship with them either.
3. I don't see it that way. It's not whining when you point out facts you've been pointing out for 20+ years, and nobody seems to listen.
4. On the contrary. On the surface it sounds crazy. But if you dig, look for the same topics where he goes further in depth, he clearly explains the reasoning for his statements and views. And it makes sense.
5. None of the current candidates, with the exception of Gingrich are going to want to go to war with Iran. And Gingrich is a dumbass.
6. I'd like to see you back this claim up.
7. Who gives a fuck? The only world leader that respects Obama is pussy ass France.
8. They are ALL career politicians. At least Paul has a long proven history of standing up for his beliefs, that of his constituents, and not selling out to Corporate interests. I'll take that over Obama, Perry and Romney every day of the week.
9. He has a solid point. Or feel free to prove otherwise.
10. First, you're incorrect. Check your facts. Second, I can't believe some of you antiquated people are still hung up on this "issue" when our Constitution is being used as toilet paper, the economy sucks, and we're trillions in the hole. But yeah, let's focus on gay marriage. That's a REAL issue.

If we pull our military presence out of the Persian Gulf, Iran will hold the Straight of Hormuz hostage.

Let them hold it hostage. Fuck em! Lift the ban on drilling in the states and offshore. Lift the ban on refineries. Bring jobs back to America for a change. It's not "oh no the world is going to end" if they do block off the strait. Let them sell their resources to China. We have our own.

I don't disagree with the threat of violence keeping things in check. That's undisputable. But why even bother and risk American lives when we can create American jobs that will help the economy and unemployment rate? America and what it was built on seemed to hit the shitter when it ceased being a manufacturing nation.

[majorownage]

He doesn't support gay marrige; he believes the states have the right to decide how they want to deal with it themselves: its not a federal issue.

[stevo]

I used to think the same way. It's just the fact that I do not want to have to be everywhere all the time. Again with policing the world with my money and our soldiers. Where does it end? DO we build a base in Zimbabwe if Zambia threatens them? Do you think S Korea is worth even one American soldiers life if the North attacked the south? These are hard questions to answer but we have to draw a line somewhere. Do we worry about protecting every other nation or have them all protecting this nation? I dont believe Paul would take every American soldier out from around the world....but the vast majority, yes.

If a country doesn't have something we need or present a danger to our country, I see no need to include ourselves in their problems. The whining tree-huggers and liberals are right, it IS about the oil/resources, since who ever controls the oil/resources controls the world. Our country will break down if we cannot import the oil/resources we need. Simular to the issue about North/South Korea, if the north steam-rolls South Korea, they will control a huge manufacturing industry, and will be in position to then attack Japan. Once they control that, it is much harder to control/combat the threat against the US. It is the domino effect.

Agreed. I just think what we are doing isn't working either. Maybe it's time to try something different?

Are you willing to risk the future of our country on trying something different?

Let them hold it hostage. Fuck em! Lift the ban on drilling in the states and offshore. Lift the ban on refineries. Bring jobs back to America for a change. It's not "oh no the world is going to end" if they do block off the strait. Let them sell their resources to China. We have our own.

If they did, they would control a large percentage of the worlds oil, which means they would have direct control and influence of a large percentage of the world. I may be wrong, but have a radical fundamentalist theocracy-controlled Iran as a major world power doesn't sound like a great idea to me or our future.

I don't disagree with the threat of violence keeping things in check. That's undisputable. But why even bother and risk American lives when we can create American jobs that will help the economy and unemployment rate? America and what it was built on seemed to hit the shitter when it ceased being a manufacturing nation.

I doubt we would be able to create jobs when our economy is in the shitter due to our energy costs being insanely high due to the oil markets being increasingly controlled by a rogue state such as Iran. Even if we started drilling today, it would be 10-20 years before we would see the increased domestic supply. What happens to our country during that time when the populace cannot afford to get to work, when our goods cost an insane amount, when we cannot export anything due to insane manufacturing costs in the US not being able to compete in the global market? It would be bad news for our country.

Stevo

[Tyron Shulaces]

Protection of our best interests give us the right to be where we are and do what we do. If we pulled our military presence out of South Korea, the north would overrun them in a month, and then be threatening Japan like they threaten Seoul right now. If we pull our military presence out of the Persian Gulf, Iran will hold the Straight of Hormuz hostage. Threat of force is what keeps these things in check, it is what keeps all these threats from those countries 'all talk' instead of action.

Stevo

This exactly. We are the world police, that's part of American exceptionalism. We do in fact run the world. That's not arrogance, it's just a fact. We don't get to turn a blind eye to the worlds actions. With great power comes great responsibility, right?

[Denny]

economic/gold standard beliefs

Taking away the advantage of some?

[stephen4785]

This exactly. We are the world police, that's part of American exceptionalism. We do in fact run the world. That's not arrogance, it's just a fact. We don't get to turn a blind eye to the worlds actions. With great power comes great responsibility, right?

America's people is why we are exceptional. We can help needy countries by individuals choosing to send aid etc. not the government forcing us to. This is where we differ, I believe we should 1st protect America. We are about to go down in flames with this debt and something has to give. We HAVE to stop giving our money away to others even if they do need it. We have to get our house in order and then we can worry about helping others. If we go down...they will be in the same predicament anyway.

[Tyron Shulaces]

America's people is why we are exceptional. We can help needy countries by individuals choosing to send aid etc. not the government forcing us to. This is where we differ, I believe we should 1st protect America. We are about to go down in flames with this debt and something has to give. We HAVE to stop giving our money away to others even if they do need it. We have to get our house in order and then we can worry about helping others. If we go down...they will be in the same predicament anyway.

Of course. America first always. I'm speaking more militarily as opposed to humanitarian aid. Not a fan of that spending at all either.

[sig239]

Agreed. I just think what we are doing isn't working either. Maybe it's time to try something different?

That thought worked so well three years ago.

[Up0n0ne]

1. What does age have to do with it? I could see if he was unhealthy. He's quite healthy, and pretty sharp. I see no issue there.
2. I think his stance on Israel is misconstrued as "not liking them". I don't believe that to be the case. That said, Obama doesn't like Israel. Bush nor Clinton had the best relationship with them either.
3. I don't see it that way. It's not whining when you point out facts you've been pointing out for 20+ years, and nobody seems to listen.
4. On the contrary. On the surface it sounds crazy. But if you dig, look for the same topics where he goes further in depth, he clearly explains the reasoning for his statements and views. And it makes sense.
5. None of the current candidates, with the exception of Gingrich are going to want to go to war with Iran. And Gingrich is a dumbass.
6. I'd like to see you back this claim up.
7. Who gives a fuck? The only world leader that respects Obama is pussy ass France.
8. They are ALL career politicians. At least Paul has a long proven history of standing up for his beliefs, that of his constituents, and not selling out to Corporate interests. I'll take that over Obama, Perry and Romney every day of the week.
9. He has a solid point. Or feel free to prove otherwise.
10. First, you're incorrect. Check your facts. Second, I can't believe some of you antiquated people are still hung up on this "issue" when our Constitution is being used as toilet paper, the economy sucks, and we're trillions in the hole. But yeah, let's focus on gay marriage. That's a REAL issue.

Excellent!

[Woods Racing Transmission]

1. What does age have to do with it? I could see if he was unhealthy. He's quite healthy, and pretty sharp. I see no issue there.
2. I think his stance on Israel is misconstrued as "not liking them". I don't believe that to be the case. That said, Obama doesn't like Israel. Bush nor Clinton had the best relationship with them either.
3. I don't see it that way. It's not whining when you point out facts you've been pointing out for 20+ years, and nobody seems to listen.
4. On the contrary. On the surface it sounds crazy. But if you dig, look for the same topics where he goes further in depth, he clearly explains the reasoning for his statements and views. And it makes sense.
5. None of the current candidates, with the exception of Gingrich are going to want to go to war with Iran. And Gingrich is a dumbass.
6. I'd like to see you back this claim up.
7. Who gives a fuck? The only world leader that respects Obama is pussy ass France.
8. They are ALL career politicians. At least Paul has a long proven history of standing up for his beliefs, that of his constituents, and not selling out to Corporate interests. I'll take that over Obama, Perry and Romney every day of the week.
9. He has a solid point. Or feel free to prove otherwise.
10. First, you're incorrect. Check your facts. Second, I can't believe some of you antiquated people are still hung up on this "issue" when our Constitution is being used as toilet paper, the economy sucks, and we're trillions in the hole. But yeah, let's focus on gay marriage. That's a REAL issue.

.

1. He would be 77 when he could take office. At that age a man health can deteriorate fast.
2. Israel is our ally and I think we should stand with them.
3. Good God man hes been saying the same shit for decades now and when people ask him to repeat it or maybe clarify something he get all wound up and goes into grump mode. If he can't take scrutiny how can he be the President? We have one like that now.
4. I actually got this one from my wife. This is coming from the debates. She says he has great ideas "some of them" but the longer he runs his mouth the more he seems "bat shit crazy", and I agree.
5. Our current policy on Iran sucks, and his plan to just ignore Iran. I just don't see how thats going to work out very good. Do you really think Gingrich is a dumb ass?
6.Just check his voting records. Example: These local projects illustrate a central irony of Ron Paul's career: Even as the 12-term congressman has become the Cassandra of governmental overreach, he has enabled a deepening dependence on the federal government at home. Paul, who last week announced that he will retire at the end of 2012, will on one hand be remembered as "Dr. No," the politician who always voted "nay" on new spending, and on the other, as "a politician like all the rest," as Galveston GOP precinct chair Josh Daniels described him to me last week, noting that Paul's Janus-faced approach to federal spending "just doesn't sit well with me."

For better or worse, Paul has always cauterized his anti-government views with old-fashioned cronyism. Knowing that most appropriations bills will pass despite his nay vote, he often loads them with earmarks. In this way, he has managed to please both small-government conservatives and pork-loving constituents. From 2008 through 2010, Paul won nearly $125 million in earmarks, most of them for spending in his district. Last year, he was one of just four House Republicans who refused to abide by their party's voluntary earmarks ban. Trying to justify his projects in a 2009 Fox News interview, Paul said, "If they are going to allot the money, I have a responsibility to represent my people." Asked to elaborate on Paul's position, his spokeswoman pointed to a statement on Paul's website arguing that eliminating earmarks "would further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny."
7.I give a fuck I don't want another Obama.
8.Really, dig deeper into his Bills and voting record he very often puts stuff in bills for his "cronies" just to vote NO so he can say he voted against it. WTF is that about. All the time he has spent in Congress has he really accomplished much other than voting NO.
9.WOW, he has a solid point. He runs around saying America cause 9/11 or somehow deserved it for our actions in the Middle East. If thats true or not I don't want my president saying any such thing.
10. I really just thru that in there to make a round 10. I don't care if you fuck your sister, dog or your best beer drinking buddy. But, I don't support your right to marry your gay lover, and Paul does. John Stossel: Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?

Ron Paul: Sure.

[Woods Racing Transmission]

http://youtu.be/dFrMXMLJA5M

Here is a good one.

[VETTKLR]

The only reason I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul is if he doesn't win the primary.


If I'm not mistaken, he said that America's actions in the Middle East were to blame for 9/11. It just so happens that the nut job 9/11 Truther group that think GWB and Dick Cheney fabricated the whole thing, heavily support Ron Paul's platform. The two opinions were intermingled and all of a sudden, RP is the leader of the conspiracy theory group.

At least, that's what I would tell RP to say if I was his handler. If it ever comes out that he actually believes that the previous administration attacked its own cities to begin a war for oil, he's done for.

[line-em-up]

[line-em-up]

...

creepy