posted
Hello everyone. I'm sure you've all heard enough about Ron Paul lately... BUT... The Ron Paul blimp is actually flying. It's heading towards Columbia, SC, and is currently chugging towards Raleigh, NC.
I've been away from this forum for too long.
Has anyone here noticed Dr.Paul's invoking of the "just war" theory the debates? Seems to me, such a message is well positioned to appeal to a wide variety of votes in the general election, if only he can get past the hurdles of the primaries.
posted
That wasn't a very funny joke Enigmatic, but the way you delivered it had me rolling on the floor laughing. Good on you old boy.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the "Explanation of the Message" page is fine. It's just saying why they had the blimp say what it says; it's not trying to give his positions. And if you Google Ron Paul as the blimp says, the first hit is the Ron Paul 2008 site.
And if you kept seeing signs telling you to Google Ron Paul, wouldn't you do it just to see what the fuss was about?
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not the content I'm commenting on; it's the writing style. I have other issues with the rest of the site, such as this.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
No offense to Ron Paul, but a gimmicky hot air balloon isn't going to get him into the double digits in polling. He might have the money to keep going, due to his insane fundraising abilities (being the only anti-war Republican gives him a fairly unique hold on that part of the electorate), but if he actually wants to get anywhere in the election, he needs, sadly, more advertising, needs to hit the people that are likely to vote for him, and he'll probably want to spend a chunk of that on the types of organizational structure that will actually get his supporters to go out to the polls and vote for him.
Otherwise by February 6th we'll have forgotten about him.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ...he'll probably want to spend a chunk of that on the types of organizational structure that will actually get his supporters to go out to the polls and vote for him.
As Teshi inadvertently pointed out, the RonPaulBlimp.com people are not associated with the campaign. So the money they raised and spent, did not come from Ron Paul, and does not count against the single donor max of $2300, or whatever it is. The campaign is buying up air time in New Hampshire and Iowa, they are getting the message out.
I am optimistic. The people who are energized about Paul, and that includes most of those who plan on voting for him, are going to go out and vote, no matter the weather. Also, I don't think that the methods used by pollsters are meant to obtain accurate data about the standing of the candidates, but rather, to influence public opinion in favor of a select group of candidates. I realize the 8% is small, and that it's not likely, but I hold out hope.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Certain polling data is actually pretty accurate. Your beef is with the media. Pollsters don't get the message out, they just create the base information. It's the media pundits who then take that information and skew it whatever way they want to produce whatever message they want. The more modern form of polling that we have now has been perfected over the last 40 years or so, and depending on the methodology, the people asked, the questions asked, if you pay attention, it can be extremely good a predicting what people actually want.
Paul might actually have more support than the polls show, but I can't imagine it's that much more. Huckabee has a monopoly on the dark horse, come from behind stunner thing at the moment. He just popped ahead to take the lead in South Carolina; a big move.
Paul, Tancredo, Hunter...they aren't going to make it. But the fact that the race is split between four potential contenders at this late in the game is pretty stunning for the Republican primary. Usually it's the Democrats who spend a year squabbling over everything before making a late hearted attempt at unity. It'll be interesting to see how this ends.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron Paul is the true dark horse and wild card this race. I really don't know how to judge his political strength right now. Personally I hope he is doing much better then anticipated.
He dominates the grassroots. His fund raising has grown exponentially (not just a figure of speech). He has around 80,000 meetup members where the next big candidate has 500.
Some of his wins are left off of his advertised polls. I remember seeing two *wont got through my bookmarks now* that he was in 5th and 4rd place, but his name was left off, yet every other candidate's name was on it.
The GOP has actively tried to silence him. When people see all the articles I printed and poll results I printed where Paul was left out, they recognize they have been manipulated.
I was listening to Alan Keyes on Hannity and Keyes was going off how he is the only serious candidate who has a consistent record, is concerned about American sovereignty, and is the only one who sees the income tax as evil. He was shrill, but Hannity treated him like a serious contender..yeah..compare Keyes shrillness with Paul's thoughtfulness, record, fund raising, and support.
I don't know if this is Ron Paul related, but considering how he was treated so far I suspect it is.
I am so happy for the blimp. I am really excited about tomorrow. It is another money bomb (Dec 16th). I hope he breaks five million. I predict he will get somewhere between 5.5-6.5 million dollars. The betting odds are 2:1 that he will bring in more then 10 million--that is too good and unrealistic to hope for. However I thought 12 million in the 4th quarter was way beyond his ability, and he is at 11.4 million today.
He has the money and grass roots support. People who support him will almost all vote. They already have proven that by standing in winter weather holding up homemade signs for hours.
But his polls are low...
He will start of this Monday with at least 15 million raised this quarter, a blimp, and an hour long interview on Glenn Beck. He already has a good interview on Cramer's Mad Money and NOW.
I am thinking we will see big surprises in Iowa and New Hampshire.
I will be donating $234 dollars tomorrow (Sunday the 16th). I donated $100 on the November 5th money bomb. I have got 4 new people to also donate with me this Sunday. They will probably donate around $20, but Paul's campaign is funded by little donations.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
It seems inevitable to me, and good, that there is a candidate who is strongly anti-war, anti-corruption, pro-Constitution in the race. Even though Ron Paul's whole gamut of positions hardly appeal to anybody (many liberals are nervous about his pro-life stance), he has the market cornered on so many great positions that the other candidates won't touch, that a Ron Paul administration would be a much better starting point than any of the other candidates. Whoever takes over the Presidency from Bush is going to inherit the unconstitutionally expanded powers that Bush has asserted. The only candidate I can accept is one who will renounce those powers right off the bat.
Ron Paul's campaign is also a challenge to the big-few media companies who think they have a lockdown on determining who the "real" or "top-tier" candidates are. Fox, et. al. have lied to distort the perception of the news they do report on him and did not report a lot of news about his campaign (for example, all the local straw polls that Ron Paul keeps winning)
Other links on Ron Paul and media suppression of his success:
Edit: and another comment on Ron Paul's appeal: for people who want an end to the war, the Democratic leadership has shown itself to be completely useless and good for nothing other than caving to every single one of Bush's demands.
[ December 15, 2007, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope this encourages all the candidates to become more creative in their campaigning. I expect to see the Giant Head of Hillary Hot Air Balloon floating over northern California come primary time.
Maybe the Barack Obama Eliete Biplane Stunt Team will do a flyby.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whoever takes over the Presidency from Bush is going to inherit the unconstitutionally expanded powers that Bush has asserted. The only candidate I can accept is one who will renounce those powers right off the bat. [/QB]
This is a great point. Right now the "Imperial Presidency" is in full swing. The signing statements, the off the official budget money for the war, the undeclared wars, etc etc. I can't think of a single person, aside from Ron Paul that I would trust to not abuse and widen those powers further.
We need another American Cincinnatus.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nato: It seems inevitable to me, and good, that there is a candidate who is strongly anti-war, anti-corruption, pro-Constitution in the race. Even though Ron Paul's whole gamut of positions hardly appeal to anybody (many liberals are nervous about his pro-life stance)
Paul's pro-life stance is nothing compared to his more extreme views.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been purposefully avoiding the Republican side of candidates, just because that's who I'll *likely* vote for. But this really kinda has me excited for a Republican. If he gets a chance on the main stage, I think he may actually do well.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: If he gets a chance on the main stage, I think he may actually do well.
According to Zogby, a blind bio question poll placed Ron Paul 1st with likely voters nationwide. I think he would do quite well too. I actually think he is the only republican who can beat the democrats.
quote:The blind bio question was also posed to a larger pool of 1,009 likely voters nationwide, including Democrats and independents, and Paul was the big winner among that universe of voters, winning 33%, compared to 19% for Giuliani, 15% for Romney, and 13% for Thompson.
Paul's pro-life stance is nothing compared to his more extreme views. [/QUOTE]What do you think is extreme and why?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Paul's pro-life stance is nothing compared to his more extreme views.
What do you think is extreme and why?
Way too much to type up in one post. Here's a list of topics I'd be willing to debate: - He wants us to stop participating in NATO and the UN. - He wants to abolish the IRS, the Department of Education, Department of Energy, and Department of Homeland Security, and the FBI. (I think he wants to get rid of the FDA as well) - His positions on the Federal Reserve - His "We the People Act" - This statement
quote:The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.
- This statement
quote: Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics. The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.
I think your debatable points do need to be debated. I agree with Paul on some, but not all, points.
I have no problem with your first quote--other then I disagree with him. I do agree with the underlying principal that churches, charity, localized efforts, and even state and local governments can provide safety nets more efficiently then the federal government. I disagree that it will mostly be the Christian churches, but I think they would play their part.
The second quote...hmm...can you link to the quote? Is that a direct quote of Ron Paul or a quote from a news letter he was in charge of? It certainly doesn't sound like Paul, and I have read hundreds of pages of his legislation, opinion, and arguments.
For me, the Federal Government is growing too much in power. I like government. I just like it more local. The benefits versus risks of having more more local power with the Federal government only responsible for national protection and protection of rights, contracts, and property would be a lively healthy debate.
Even tho I have fundamental disagreements with Paul (ie repealing the 14th amendment), He is the only candidate I trust to reign in our wars, bases, growth of Federal Government, and would actually be serious about being fiscally responsible and living within our means.
I see the other candidates as tinkering with our government but not fundamentally changing the road I see America going down.
I think they all will extend the war on terror in an ineffective manor and continue to live off of borrowed Chinese money to finance our poor policy.
Faith in our checks and balances and the integrity of Paul have made me excited to vote for him--an emotion I have never felt for a politician. I see him more as a Statesman.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I hope this encourages all the candidates to become more creative in their campaigning. I expect to see the Giant Head of Hillary Hot Air Balloon floating over northern California come primary time.
Maybe the Barack Obama Eliete Biplane Stunt Team will do a flyby.
I, too, would like to see more fan fare in general. Parades, Fly bys, gift drops, singing telegrams...
The BOEBST is a great idea! A giant Hillary head would surely make me run into the hills, fearing it as a harbinger of the apocalypse. Giant floating heads; I'm sure that's in Revelations somewhere.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Arguably, every President is the equivilant of Cinncinatus. The impressive part of that story is that he willingly gave up supreme dictatorial power and went back to his farm. Presidents have been doing that since Washington. It's not what the next president does when they leave, it's what they choose to do while they are there.
The Imperial Presidency has been around for 100 years. Before it, Presidents weren't completely useless, but had nowhere near the influence they have now, and Congress often ran roughshod over them. I have no problem with some of the powers instrumented by the Roosevelts (especially) and others at the rise of the 20th century.
But I'd say what we need more than a president who will give power back is a Congress with the courage of conviction to do their damned jobs and stop the president when he goes too far. That's what we've been missing lately. I thought it would get better when the Democrats took over, but they roll over like attention starved puppies whenever the President throws a power grab their way.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think we are likely to get a Congress that meets that criteria, given the utter intractability of the current set and the generally high incumbency rate? Furthermore, The President (with the advice and consent of the Senate) controls appointments, and those appointments have been a big problem in the last six year (attorney-firing scandal, widespread nepotism and cronyism, appointments as rewards to Swift Boat donors...)
It's important to get representatives of the people who respect the Constitution in all positions of government.
I recognize the extreme need to recycle Congress. Congress has been hovering at a lower approval rate than Bush has for as long as I can remember. It's dismal. They pass bills as important and Constitutionally questionable as the USA PATRIOT ACT (I and II) without even reading them fully... They give Bush everything he wants as far as unrestricted war funding with no timelines for withdrawal, all the authority he wants and more to wiretap the American people unconstitutionally.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Do you think we are likely to get a Congress that meets that criteria, given the utter intractability of the current set and the generally high incumbency rate? Furthermore, The President (with the advice and consent of the Senate) controls appointments, and those appointments have been a big problem in the last six year (attorney-firing scandal, widespread nepotism and cronyism, appointments as rewards to Swift Boat donors...)
It's important to get representatives of the people who respect the Constitution in all positions of government.
I recognize the extreme need to recycle Congress. Congress has been hovering at a lower approval rate than Bush has for as long as I can remember. It's dismal. They pass bills as important and Constitutionally questionable as the USA PATRIOT ACT (I and II) without even reading them fully... They give Bush everything he wants as far as unrestricted war funding with no timelines for withdrawal, all the authority he wants and more to wiretap the American people unconstitutionally.
Well it's gotten a LITTLE better since the Democrats took over. They at least are vocal about their reservations instead of just signing over to whatever he wants. But by and large they roll over at the end of the day. You ARE seeing more investigations since they took over. That Alberto Gonzalez thing and whatever else they've done, that kind of oversight wasn't taking place under Republican control. I think if Democrats had a filibuster proof majority you'd see even more pushing, but a numerical majority is useless in the Senate unless you have a filibuster proof majority.
Democrats, if they wanted to, could stonewall to the end and deny laws and deny funding to Pres. Bush if he refuses to play ball, but it'd almost certainly lead to a government shutdown, and in the 90's the public blamed the Congressional Republicans for that. That legacy isn't gone yet. They don't want to rock the boat before the 08 elections, but I think if Democrats retain the Congress (which they will, and will probably gain seats), and lose the White House, you'll see them playing a lot more hardball. They want to try and win the White House so they can run the table. But things are still better than they were a year and a half ago, just not by much.
I wonder how much of this has to do with incumbency rates. It never used to be this way. People weren't elected to the House and Senate for life. I think it's a combination of overlong incumbency, and ridiculous election practices. It costs far too much in time and money to get elected, and that distracts too much from governance. And it won't change so long as an apathetic public thinks the status quo is unchangeable.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Are you telling me that there is a republican presidential hopeful who:
Believes the theory of evolution is a....theory?!!! *Gasp*
Believes in a Creator?!! *shudder*
Doesn't personally believe that we evolved from apes but admits he doesn't understand the methods God would use? *the horror*
Does not think that one's personal belief should be part of the debate on presidential policy, mimicking what he said in Romney's defense ? *clutches hair--it's too much!*
I better abandon my man and look either at the Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, or other Christians who probably have much more rational personal beliefs and would stand for my vision of what peace, economic prosperity, and individual liberty should look like.
This dirt is just too shocking!
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Way too much to type up in one post. Here's a list of topics I'd be willing to debate:
Thanks for the post. That helps clear up whether or not I'd ever consider voting for Ron Paul. I'll just put a big red "Hell NO" next to his name.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess borrowing $3 billion a day from China, paying high taxes, and printing more money when those two options don't cover the bills is far less extreme then removing additional layers of government, focusing on individual liberty and localized responsibility, and reviewing the necessity of departments that have become fiscal behemoths.
It takes extreme to get our government to live within it's budget.
Paul speaks with more clarity then all the other candidates combined, draws more enthusiasm, and has the greatest amount of integrity in our political world.
Join the scoffing. It is easy enough. 6 weeks after raising 4.2 million dollars in one day the grassroots movement independently raised another $6 million, and yet it is not mentioned on Fox News or MSNBC and is just a footnote on CNN.
Image if Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney, or McCain raised that amount on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. It would be plastered everywhere. You wouldn't be able to get Rush or Hannity to shut up about it.
It doesn't matter. The momentum is only building and the serious canvassing is starting.
This election is going to be a fun ride.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lem: Woah...stop the presses.
Are you telling me that there is a republican presidential hopeful who:
Believes the theory of evolution is a....theory?!!! *Gasp*
To be fair, I was a little surprised to hear that. I can understand a lay person confusing the scientific definition of "theory" with the colloquial definition, but anyone with a medical degree really should know better.
However, I agree with his statement that the question doesn't matter much in a presidential debate. Any practical application of that issue will be decided by the courts, and I don't see Paul going to a great deal of trouble to stack the federal courts with pro-ID judges, so I think I can let it slide.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Speed: However, I agree with his statement that the question doesn't matter much in a presidential debate. Any practical application of that issue will be decided by the courts, and I don't see Paul going to a great deal of trouble to stack the federal courts with pro-ID judges, so I think I can let it slide.
It isn't just about ID. It's about his general attitude towards scientific research. I do not know his official policy but I assume that Paul is against federal funding of scientific research. Private funding sounds great in theory but fails for many important fields.
EDIT: It's not quite that simplistic but I doubt very many people want to hear me rant about Bush's cuts on scientific research spending.
Believes the theory of evolution is a....theory?!!! *Gasp*
I don't quite understand the sarcasm on that point. Are you saying it's not surprising that a republican would make such an ignorant statement (not sure that that would be a fair generalization) or do you not understand why the statement is so dumb?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
When a candidate wants to stick to issues, like Dr. Paul, I can understand why a question like that would annoy him.
The republican base is very Christian, and it is obvious that the question was referring to "humans coming from apes."
It is not surprising for a presidential candidate to play to the base. It would not serve him to go into a educational pontification about the scientific definition of "theory" and what "evolution" is and how he makes that jive with his personal beliefs.
It's not surprising he responded that way to an Iowan crowd. Of course he would. He is a firm Christian but still a medical doctor. Of course he understands science.
I am agnostic, but I think any republican would have used "theory" that way. Especially if they want to move onto the important issues.
Instead he said he didn't believe in it (that we came from apes) but didn't rule out evolution as a tool God would use. He closed with reminding he is not running for a science position.
I don't think any republican at a political even would get into a science debate. He played off of a layman understanding of theory, restated his faith, and left room he didn't understand God and it was not his role as president to debate that issue.
He handled it like an experienced politician. The crowed accepted it. He got back to the issues. I think he answered it well.
Who, among the republicans, would have answered it better? Maybe Giuliani. Certainly not Huckabee or Romney.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who, among the republicans, would have answered it better? Maybe Giuliani. Certainly not Huckabee or Romney.
I thought Romney's answer was pretty good:
quote:“I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe, and I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body.”
also:
quote:“In my opinion, the science class is where to teach evolution, or if there are other scientific thoughts that need to be discussed, If we’re going to talk about more philosophical matters, like why it was created, and was there an intelligent designer behind it, that’s for the religion class or philosophy class or social studies class.”
quote: “I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe, and I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body.”
I stand corrected. That is a bold answer. As an ex-Mormon that seems contrary to my understanding of God being our parents.
The most evolution friendly answer I expected from a Mormon would be something like, "I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe, and I don't know that God revealed the process he used in creation."
To say he thinks evolution is the most likely way God used to design the body flies in the face of everything I thought I understood about Mormonism. I guess there is no "revealed" answer or LDS stance on the issue, and I am more and more removed from the church.
quote:Originally posted by lem: Woah...stop the presses.
Are you telling me that there is a republican presidential hopeful who:
Believes the theory of evolution is a....theory?!!! *Gasp*
Believes in a Creator?!! *shudder*
Doesn't personally believe that we evolved from apes but admits he doesn't understand the methods God would use? *the horror*
Does not think that one's personal belief should be part of the debate on presidential policy, mimicking what he said in Romney's defense ? *clutches hair--it's too much!*
I better abandon my man and look either at the Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, or other Christians who probably have much more rational personal beliefs and would stand for my vision of what peace, economic prosperity, and individual liberty should look like.
This dirt is just too shocking!
Wow, I hope Paul is better at dealing with criticism than you are.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
