Say it aint so Ron Paul?

[JJClamdip]

WU Shock will be president before Ron Paul.

[Maggie]

Screw Latin. Paul can win Iowa, but he's irrelevant, cannot win the nomination or the election. Winning Iowa is not as important as losing Iowa is.

Damnant quod non intellegunt. But like I wrote, I think you are right.

[kcshocker11]

WU Shock will be president before Ron Paul.

Now thats someone we can all get behind!

[pinstripers]

Actually, it might be Ron in that outfit?????

[kcshocker11]

Actually, it might be Ron in that outfit?????

What you mean he's not real?

[Maggie]

Actually, it might be Ron in that outfit?????

He is in so many ways a misguided man and in so many ways right minded. If he didn't advocate a foreign policy so naive, so sadly without judgment, and dangerous - I might consider him. But that change in Paul will never happen and he represents a distortion, maybe not a distortion but an aberration (I hope it is a distortion) in libertarianism. And those that cling to him are fools, and have been for 30 years - they are the same fools that latched on to this way of thinking 100 years ago.

It is sad think I think he is your standard bearer, Royal - libertarianism has much more to offer.

[RoyalShock]

I hope you don't think you're going to initiate a dialogue with me on any subject by calling, or at least inferring, me a fool.

[kcshocker11]

Seriously Royal do you think by this coming up at this time the powers to be in the GOP are trying to discredit Dr Paul. It looks very much like the tricks Karl Rove used to play. The timing seems a wee bit suspicious.

[Maggie]

I hope you don't think you're going to initiate a dialogue with me on any subject by calling, or at least inferring, me a fool.

I had no intention to and I hope you were not hoping so - at least in this regard. I wrote the word "fool" because I think Paul's policy is foolish and those that follow are fools as well (look at the historical record). Sorry, not that it matters but at least I defended "your man" - I may disagree with him on some subjects (some enough so I find him uniformed, which is sad - but that steams from his way thinking and I don't agree).

My posts have nothing to do with you; but your post is illuminating. And confirming.

This is to you Royal: I like reading what you write, that's all. Thanks.

[Maggie]

Seriously Royal do you think by this coming up at this time the powers to be in the GOP are trying to discredit Dr Paul. It looks very much like the tricks Karl Rove used to play. The timing seems a wee bit suspicious.

kc it is not just Rove…other forces are at foot. Timing….time……check your time kc - seems strange

Go away, kc. Paul is what he is and that is what has been cultivated. And………everyone and their goldfish, cat, dog, lizard, etc. knew about it. Horror? THE FED! ADVENTURISM! --- Oh I could go on.

So what the heck is your problem? You have nothing to say about Ron Paul, positive or negative…..so go away.

[RoyalShock]

My posts have nothing to do with you; but your post is illuminating. And confirming.

This is to you Royal: I like reading what you write, that's all. Thanks.

I have enjoyed our discussions in the past, but in the past few months you have shown a side I find unbecoming and insulting. There is a point at which fruitful discussion of a topic is no longer possible and I think we have journeyed beyond it.

I happen to believe our current foreign policy is more dangerous to the United States than non-interventionism. Yet only one of us is resorting to calling the other's position foolish. We will agree to disagree on this topic.

And to kc, yes, I do believe the GOP establishment is conspiring to discredit Paul. He is a serious threat to their way of doing business in Washington. They folded up the newsletter story last election and shoved it into their pockets to save for this day, hoping it could be recycled. They were banking on the hope it didn't get enough airplay the last time around. The effect it has will depend on what people want to believe.

[kcshocker11]

As far as not saying anything positive or negative about Dr Paul, well I certainly do agree with some of his positions. Examples are his stance on the Iraq, Afgan wars and his beliefs toward Iran.
As far as his stances on some govt programs no I don't adhear to them. That being said I admire the fact he states what he believes and have yet to see him play dirty politics in a world of dirty politics.

As far as going away, hmmmm, no I think I'll stay. Oh by the way your welcome to stay too.

[shockerofandover0943]

Even though I do think that Dr. Paul's foreign policy is dangerous, it doesn't matter. He may do well in Iowa, but won't in NH, SC, and Florida. His strongest base is in Iowa and some other midwestern states but I don't think he will be a major player for the nomination. He will stay around because he has solid, consistent support, especially from younger people but he won't be the nominee.

Another thing about Paul supporters, why are they so mean (not you Royal)? Ron Paul seems like a good enough guy, but his supporters on social media sites, like Facebook, constantly belittle and attack others. It isn't helpful to Dr. Paul, and undermines his message.

[Maggie]

I have enjoyed our discussions in the past, but in the past few months you have shown a side I find unbecoming and insulting. There is a point at which fruitful discussion of a topic is no longer possible and I think we have journeyed beyond it.

I happen to believe our current foreign policy is more dangerous to the United States than non-interventionism. Yet only one of us is resorting to calling the other's position foolish. We will agree to disagree on this topic.

And to kc, yes, I do believe the GOP establishment is conspiring to discredit Paul. He is a serious threat to their way of doing business in Washington. They folded up the newsletter story last election and shoved it into their pockets to save for this day, hoping it could be recycled. They were banking on the hope it didn't get enough airplay the last time around. The effect it has will depend on what people want to believe.

I understand and I have faults. And I have been insulting and unbecoming. True. Very, very, true. And as you say everyone reaches a point where discussion is pointless and as they perceive it would be pointless – we did as it concerns Rep. Paul more than a year ago. So I didn’t write in hope in or response from you (we settled that long ago in these matters).

I know what you think and I hope you would listen to a different “perspective”. I am done apologizing.

[Kung Wu]

I'll reopen the discussion ...

If he didn't advocate a foreign policy so naive, so sadly without judgment, and dangerous - I might consider him.

I wrote the word "fool" because I think Paul's policy is foolish and those that follow are fools as well (look at the historical record).

I believe you may have exposed yourself somewhat to being subject to group think.

To call Ron Paul "naive" and a "fool" comes across ... well .. naive. Who is more learned in this circus than Ron Paul? Who has spent more time actually thinking and discussing their talking points for election after election than Ron Paul? No really, include Hillary and Obama in the mix too. Who? He has spent more time thinking through his beliefs, arguing them, and honing them than Obama HAS BEEN ALIVE. He doesn't change his policy to suit the crowd like Romney and Gingrich. He doesn't argue topics without knowing the core fundamentals like Bachmann and Cain.

That's not the definition of a naive man or a fool. It may be the definition of a poor politician. His ideas may not be mainstream enough for your liking. But I'll tell you this much ... I'd rather err on the side of freedom than err on the side of what we have now.

When it comes down to it, tell me this. Are ANY of his ideas more dangerous than the ideas of the man we have in office now? Foreign policy included?