Paulbots' opinions requested

[sepe]

I didn't know that. Is statist pig and sheeple also on the banhammer list?

Is there like a George Carlin list of words that can never be said on [STRIKE]television[/STRIKE] INGO?



If I was elected President his title would be OB/GYN, a position he is (seriously) emminently and most qualified for.

Joining a Romney administration wouldn't expose Paul as a hypocrite. His earmark votes have already done that.

I honestly don't care about Paulbots, you can even call me a Paultard if my differing opinion makes you feel that is an appropriate label but the statist pig thing should be added to the list of filtered words on here because before long, even if it is the correct description, everyone will mentally filter it. As far as voting for Newt/Willard/Rick...not a chance here for me because I have read enough about them/listened to enough of the debates to not feel anymore comfortable with them than with Barry O. Do I feel Barry O is any more or less dangerous than the anyone but Paul group...I don't know if I can say 100% because I feel that the anyone but Paul group may be more dangerous in some aspects and possibly a little less in others. That is a group of 4 men that I can't pick who I'd trust the most. If you can justify your reasons for a Newt/Willard/Rick vote, fine...don't really care. We don't have to have the same thoughts and opinions to be wanting a similar outcome.

 

[HICKMAN]

Because they're all the same unless they're Ron Paul, silly rabbit.

no, because if McCain had won with the economy tanking, every single seat held by a Republican in the house and senate would have been lost.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

beep boop bop, paulbot reporting

I would think long and hard about voting for a romney/paul ticket or a ticket that would result in Ron getting Sec Def (wouldn't that freak out the other kids) or maybe sec tres.

 

[HICKMAN]

So some people will cross over and pick the opposing ballot and vote for primary candidate least likely to defeat their parties candidate.

Yup, was Rush's Operation Chaos, sending repubs over to vote for Hillary against Obama.

 

[HICKMAN]

beep boop bop, paulbot reporting

I would think long and hard about voting for a romney/paul ticket or a ticket that would result in Ron getting Sec Def (wouldn't that freak out the other kids) or maybe sec tres.

Sec Treasury would would be awesome.

 

[firehawk1]

Sec Treasury would would be awesome.

I agree!

 

[Darral27]

I have to ask some you "smart" folks out here. What is the single most important issue in this election?
I believe most would agree it is the economy.
What is the one thing that all the candidates say they agree with Dr. Paul about?
That would be his answers to handling what is going on with our economy.
Whether it is other candidate's or radio talk show hosts everybody seems to agree Dr. Paul has the best thoughts and would be the boldest in making a real attempt to get us out of the trouble we are in. I really cannot understand why everybody is so worried about foreign policy and birth control issues. None of this will matter if something is not done about the finance's of this nation.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Sec Treasury would would be awesome.

Why? Cabinet secretaries serve at the pleasure and implement the policies of the President they serve. They are not stand alone actors acting on their own agendas.

I have to ask some you "smart" folks out here. What is the single most important issue in this election?
I believe most would agree it is the economy.
What is the one thing that all the candidates say they agree with Dr. Paul about?
That would be his answers to handling what is going on with our economy.
Whether it is other candidate's or radio talk show hosts everybody seems to agree Dr. Paul has the best thoughts and would be the boldest in making a real attempt to get us out of the trouble we are in. I really cannot understand why everybody is so worried about foreign policy and birth control issues. None of this will matter if something is not done about the finance's of this nation.

Great question.

First, the birth control thing. This is a non-issue started by Obama to solidify support in the single issue voters - namely women. There will be several of these. They are distractions.

I would submit that the economy seems like the biggest issue, but I would paint it with a braoder stroke - security. Economic security and national security. What is the biggest threat to both? The price of gas. Gas prices are rising. Why? Because we don't produce our own oil, even though we can. We therefore have to import oil from people who don't like us. We also have someone that owns a lot of our debt who competes with us on the world's oil market. That drives prices up. We can't simply outbid them, because we don't have the money and we can't **** them off or they'll stop buying our debt. At some point there may well be a flashpoint over oil and our inability to get it.

 

[HICKMAN]

Joining a Romney administration wouldn't expose Paul as a hypocrite. His earmark votes have already done that.

sorry dude, when you talk about earmarks, you show that you listen to common hyperbole and not facts.

earmarks in their own right are not wholly unnecessary; however, in their currently corruptible form, earmarks can take on the crooked form of what has become known as “pork.” Webster’s dictionary notes the difference: To earmark is to “designate (as funds) for a specific use or owner,” while pork barrel is “a government project or appropriation yielding benefits to a political district and its political representative.” Another words, when a project to build a multi-million dollar rainforest in the middle of America is added to the highway bill during conference (and thus not authorized specifically, not the subject of congressional hearings, and only serving as a local or special interest), that is “pork.”

Dr Paul has often said with earmarks, it forces them to show where every dime went, but once it gets to the Exec Branch.... who knows.

 

[theweakerbrother]

Single most important issue? The purest hermeneutical interpretation of the constitution. I'd say it's a pretty important.

 

[HICKMAN]

Why? Cabinet secretaries serve at the pleasure and implement the policies of the President they serve. They are not stand alone actors acting on their own agendas.

I don't think any of them would mind turning Paul loose on auditing the Fed.

 

[hornadylnl]

Why? Cabinet secretaries serve at the pleasure and implement the policies of the President they serve. They are not stand alone actors acting on their own agendas.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly why a promise of a Paul VP or cabinet appointment means absolutely nothing to me.

 

[HICKMAN]

I believe most would agree it is the economy.


None of this will matter if something is not done about the finance's of this nation.

Not much they could really do for the economy, except to show business that GOV is cutting waste and not hurting the country. End foreign aide, stop borrowing money, PASS A F'N BUDGET and no more debt limit increases.

 

[Olive Drab]

Is there like a George Carlin list of words that can never be said on [STRIKE]television[/STRIKE] INGO?.

Speaking of George Carlin, here's a video I put up awhile back on a different thread. I agree with his take on the illusion of choice and how we are presented with candidates that don't really care about the American people.

Warning-Profanity


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

sorry dude, when you talk about earmarks, you show that you listen to common hyperbole and not facts.



Dr Paul has often said with earmarks, it forces them to show where every dime went, but once it gets to the Exec Branch.... who knows.

I'm not passing judgment on the merits of earmarks. But when he inserts them and then votes against the bill to claim he doesn't support them, that sure seems like the height of hypocracy to me.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm not passing judgment on the merits of earmarks. But when he inserts them and then votes against the bill to claim he doesn't support them, that sure seems like the height of hypocracy to me.

What is he saying he doesn't support, earmarks or astronomical spending bills?

From what I understand, each new budget or spending bill is going to be some astronomical number higher than the last, regardless whether there are earmarks or not. An earmark just nails down that particular amount of money for that particular amount of money. When a budget amount is set, do you think congress will lower that number if not one single earmark is proposed afterwards?

 

[tr1gg3r]

I'm not passing judgment on the merits of earmarks. But when he inserts them and then votes against the bill to claim he doesn't support them, that sure seems like the height of hypocracy to me.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where calling yourself a "conservative" and wanting to spend a couple tril on (more?) wars and/or colonizing the moon were lower levels of hypocrisy.

 

[88GT]

I am no longer going to tow the party line.I will vote for who I think is the best man or woman for the job.
The "anyone but Obama" crowd will tow the party line and vote for who ever wins the Republican nomination.I can not do that and have a clear conscious any more.
I will try to do my part and support Ron Paul in the Indiana primary,and still have some hope he will win the party nomination(he is second in delegates),but my vote no longer is tied to party loyalty or anyone but Obama.

Where is the merit in voting for someone not on the ballot?

Why anyone who supports Dr. Paul would respond to a thread titled "Paulbots' opinions requested" is beyond me.

Because not everybody uses the term perjoratively.

What is he saying he doesn't support, earmarks or astronomical spending bills?

Earmarks. He has specifically stated with a proper degree of smugness that he has "never" voted earmarks. Not once, not twice, but repeatedly. His emphasis is always on the earmarks as the issue of importance, not the level of spending. If his point were to say he's never voted for a spending bill that added to the deficit/debt, he should say he's never voted for a spending bill that added to the deficit/debt. Instead, he says he's never voted for an earmark (a technical lie) because he wants us to think that's why he's opposed the bills.

Knowing Paul, he probably opposed the bills for both (and other) reasons. But he makes it a point of highlighting the earmarks as his reason for opposition more often than not.

 

[sepe]

Why? Cabinet secretaries serve at the pleasure and implement the policies of the President they serve. They are not stand alone actors acting on their own agendas.



Great question.

First, the birth control thing. This is a non-issue started by Obama to solidify support in the single issue voters - namely women. There will be several of these. They are distractions.

I would submit that the economy seems like the biggest issue, but I would paint it with a braoder stroke - security. Economic security and national security. What is the biggest threat to both? The price of gas. Gas prices are rising. Why? Because we don't produce our own oil, even though we can. We therefore have to import oil from people who don't like us. We also have someone that owns a lot of our debt who competes with us on the world's oil market. That drives prices up. We can't simply outbid them, because we don't have the money and we can't **** them off or they'll stop buying our debt. At some point there may well be a flashpoint over oil and our inability to get it.

Which of the United States largest suppliers are the ones hating us the most? You do know that the biggest portion of imported oil isn't from the Middle East, right? As of November 2010, over 75% of crude came from non-Arab states. Canada and European nations made up a little over 34% of that. Does the US import from countries that we have a less than stellar relationship with? Sure...I'm guessing that is true for more than a handful of industries but the United States had a good stretch (didn't see data more current that 2011) where refined fuel exports per day were in the tens of thousands of barrels higher than the number of imported petroleum products.

I am not a big fan of the amount of debt that China owns and the possible issues that could come from it but they just own the largest amount of non-domestically owned debt. I've read (last year, summer time) that foreign owned debt was around 4.5 trillion and 9.8 trillion is debt that America owes America. It would be stupid to **** them off and have them stop buying our debt (even though I think it is putting us in a crap situation) and no, you're right...we can't outbid them.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Good point. Let's keep Bam-Bam around for four more years. All that "Change We Can Believe In" is just working out great!

Or vote someone in that has the same kind of voting record as Obama ... The more things change the more they stay the same