No difference between Rudy and Hillary [Archive]

KG4JYD

01-09-2008, 11:16 PM

What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that the Ron Paul "10%" will determine the outcome of the general election.

From the perspective of the Ron Paul platform, there is no difference between Hillary and Rudy (or any of the others for that matter).

All want to invade our privacy. All want to spend more. All want to expand the government.

So if Ron Paul does NOT get the nomination, then Ron's 10% will be sitting out, voting 3rd party, or doing a write-in campaign. Either way, the GOP will LOSE.

W3MIV

01-09-2008, 11:21 PM

The GOP may well lose, but despite your increasingly desperate cries in the night, Ron Paul will have nothing whatever to do with it.

He has shown himself to be so lacking in any sort of magnetism (inside of the fringe, anyway) that he will not even make a good spoiler, a la Perot or Wallace. In simple fact, Ron Paul is writing a whole, new definition of "feckless." He began his rewrite in the Congress, and he is now taking it to new heights (depths?) of ineptitude in this campaign.

You look sillier and sillier with these posts. Get over it. The midget is toast.

K7JEM

01-09-2008, 11:25 PM

So RP would rather see Hillary win the presidency than endorse an opponent in the GOP?

Pretty much what I thought.

Check out definition of "spoiler".

I fully expect this little man to launch an independent bid for presidency when he sees that he can only muster 5-10% of the vote in any primary, even though he said he was 99.9% sure he wouldn't do it.

Joe

n2nh

01-09-2008, 11:28 PM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 09 2008,18:25)]I fully expect this little man to launch an independent bid for presidency when he sees that he can only muster 5-10% of the vote in any primary, even though he said he was 99.9% sure he wouldn't do it.
There's always that pesky one tenth of one percent hanging around.

n2ize

01-09-2008, 11:39 PM

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 09 2008,16:16)]
Quote[/b] ]
From the perspective of the Ron Paul platform, there is no difference between Hillary and Rudy

No wonder the Ron Paul platform can't get anywhere.

al2i

01-09-2008, 11:47 PM

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 09 2008,15:16)]What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that the Ron Paul "10%" will determine the outcome of the general election.

From the perspective of the Ron Paul platform, there is no difference between Hillary and Rudy (or any of the others for that matter).

All want to invade our privacy. All want to spend more. All want to expand the government.

So if Ron Paul does NOT get the nomination, then Ron's 10% will be sitting out, voting 3rd party, or doing a write-in campaign. Either way, the GOP will LOSE.
Sure there is a difference. One is warfare/welfare, and the other is welfare/warfare. I am surprised that you don't see it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

ac4r

01-09-2008, 11:50 PM

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 09 2008,16:47)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 09 2008,15:16)]What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that the Ron Paul "10%" will determine the outcome of the general election.

From the perspective of the Ron Paul platform, there is no difference between Hillary and Rudy (or any of the others for that matter).

All want to invade our privacy. All want to spend more. All want to expand the government.

So if Ron Paul does NOT get the nomination, then Ron's 10% will be sitting out, voting 3rd party, or doing a write-in campaign. Either way, the GOP will LOSE.
Sure there is a difference. #One is warfare/welfare, and the other is welfare/warfare. #I am surprised that you don't see it. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Yes, Hillary has the"welfare broodmare" vote .

n0ov

01-09-2008, 11:54 PM

There is a difference. Rudy took action on 9/11/2001 to help restore a city after an attack.

Hilliary, also as an Elected Representative of New York, stood around and did nothing (because she was either powerless or shocked like the rest of the nation, or perhaps wondering if this was the price of missed opportunities during when her husband was in office).

The difference -- now Hilliary has a chip on her shoulder and something to prove.

Neither is white house material

n2nh

01-09-2008, 11:58 PM

Quote[/b] (n0ov @ Jan. 09 2008,18:54)]There is a difference. Rudy took action on 9/11/2001 to help restore a city after an attack.

Hilliary, also as an Elected Representative of New York, stood around and did nothing (because she was either powerless or shocked like the rest of the nation, or perhaps wondering if this was the price of missed opportunities during when her husband was in office).

The difference -- now Hilliary has a chip on her shoulder and something to prove.

Neither is white house material
Wow, I live in New York City and didn't see that not even on 9/11, Dan! Must be something peculiar to Montana that gives them 20/20 eyesight at a distance of 2,000 miles.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

KG4JYD

01-10-2008, 04:46 AM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 09 2008,16:21)]The GOP may well lose, but despite your increasingly desperate cries in the night, Ron Paul will have nothing whatever to do with it.
Riiiight... So you are telling me that +10-15% of the voting population can't swing an election?!??

You must have your head in the sand.

KG4JYD

01-10-2008, 04:49 AM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 09 2008,16:25)]So RP would rather see Hillary win the presidency than endorse an opponent in the GOP?
It doesn't matter if anyone wins other than Ron. Why?

Because we will be getting the same old same old in Washington.

There is no difference between Hillary's platform and that of anyone else running in the GOP. Both are going to raise taxes. Both are going to increase spending. Both are going to erode our rights. Both are going to keep our troops deployed on undeclared wars. Both are going to expand the government. Both are going to trample on the Constitution.

So again, other than some personality differences, what are the policy differences between the rest of the candidates?

Ron Paul is the ONLY one who will not do everything listed above.

n2ize

01-10-2008, 04:57 AM

Quote[/b] (n0ov @ Jan. 09 2008,16:54)]There is a difference. #Rudy took action on 9/11/2001 to help restore a city after an attack.

Hilliary, also as an Elected Representative of New York, stood around and did nothing (because she was either powerless or shocked like the rest of the nation, or perhaps wondering if this was the price of missed opportunities during when her husband was in office). #

The difference -- now Hilliary has a chip on her shoulder and something to prove.

Neither is white house material
No Rudy didn't take action any more than any mayor would have been expected to do.

The people who took action were the firemen, the police, the emergency workers and volunteers from all over the country who came to help, the EMS crews, the utilitiy and telephone repair crews who restored electricity and communications, the sanitation workers who helped clean the mess, and the many civilians who lent a hand and who cooperated as best they can to make things go as smoothly as possibly during the event. Those are the people who deserve the credit. They handled all the action that was needed.

Quote[/b] ]
The difference -- now Hilliary has a chip on her shoulder and something to prove.

Hillary has no more of a chip on her shoulder than any other politician. The real difference between Hillary and Rudy is that Rudy is an egotistial maniac and an uber authoritarian. Hillary is much more refined, she is quite intelligent, quite clever, and very articulate, experienced, and qualified. You don;t have to like her or have to vote for her. But nobody can deny that the woman is bright and very well spoken.

Quote[/b] ]
Neither is white house material

And that goes quadruple for the present administration.

N3RQ

01-10-2008, 05:22 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2008,22:57)]Hillary is much more refined, she is quite intelligent, quite clever, and very articulate, experienced, and qualified.
And quite power hungry! She stayed with Bill because she has no scruples! Their marriage is a sham that only serves to increase their power.

W4DFW

01-10-2008, 05:56 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 09 2008,00:57)]Quote[/b] (n0ov @ Jan. 09 2008,16:54)]There is a difference. Rudy took action on 9/11/2001 to help restore a city after an attack.

Hilliary, also as an Elected Representative of New York, stood around and did nothing (because she was either powerless or shocked like the rest of the nation, or perhaps wondering if this was the price of missed opportunities during when her husband was in office).

The difference -- now Hilliary has a chip on her shoulder and something to prove.

Neither is white house material
No Rudy didn't take action any more than any mayor would have been expected to do.

The people who took action were the firemen, the police, the emergency workers and volunteers from all over the country who came to help, the EMS crews, the utilitiy and telephone repair crews who restored electricity and communications, the sanitation workers who helped clean the mess, and the many civilians who lent a hand and who cooperated as best they can to make things go as smoothly as possibly during the event. Those are the people who deserve the credit. They handled all the action that was needed.
Ray Nagin . . YO BRO!! NAGIN!!

You don't matter, man!! It's the OTHER folks that screwed up, you know, the firemen, the policemen, the EMS and utility crews, all those folks who didn't do their jobs, who ran home to mammy rather than stay and help the needy!

If we play this right, Bro, you could be GUV'NAH!!

'Dat RUDY guy, shoot!! HE didn't do nutt'in!! Don't worry 'bout him! Rudy don't make you look bad AT ALL!!

HANG wi'd me, BRO!! YOU be 'da MAN!!

(IZE, you been tootin' again tonight? Hey man, jus' wonderin')

W4DFW

01-10-2008, 06:01 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 09 2008,00:57)]Hillary is much more refined, she is quite intelligent, quite clever, and very articulate, experienced, and qualified. You don;t have to like her or have to vote for her. But nobody can deny that the woman is bright and very well spoken.
I take back my query regarding your tootin' tonight.

You answered it.

W4DFW

01-10-2008, 06:05 AM

Quote[/b] (N3RQ @ Jan. 09 2008,01:22)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2008,22:57)]Hillary is much more refined, she is quite intelligent, quite clever, and very articulate, experienced, and qualified.
And quite power hungry! She stayed with Bill because she has no scruples! Their marriage is a sham that only serves to increase their power.
When you look back at all the women that came forward and said Bill raped them or otherwise treated them like crap, what WAS the one thing they ALL had in common?

And with Hillary?

They are all butt ugly!!

At LEAST Kennedy had better taste!

nx6d

01-10-2008, 06:09 AM

Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Jan. 09 2008,21:56)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 09 2008,00:57)]Quote[/b] (n0ov @ Jan. 09 2008,16:54)]There is a difference. #Rudy took action on 9/11/2001 to help restore a city after an attack.

Hilliary, also as an Elected Representative of New York, stood around and did nothing (because she was either powerless or shocked like the rest of the nation, or perhaps wondering if this was the price of missed opportunities during when her husband was in office). #

The difference -- now Hilliary has a chip on her shoulder and something to prove.

Neither is white house material
No Rudy didn't take action any more than any mayor would have been expected to do.

The people who took action were the firemen, the police, the emergency workers and volunteers from all over the country who came to help, the EMS crews, the utilitiy and telephone repair crews who restored electricity and communications, the sanitation workers who helped clean the mess, and the many civilians who lent a hand and who cooperated as best they can to make things go as smoothly as possibly during the event. Those are the people who deserve the credit. They handled all the action that was needed.
Ray Nagin . . YO BRO!! NAGIN!!

You don't matter, man!! It's the OTHER folks that screwed up, you know, the firemen, the policemen, the EMS and utility crews, all those folks who didn't do their jobs, who ran home to mammy rather than stay and help the needy!

If we play this right, Bro, you could be GUV'NAH!!

'Dat RUDY guy, shoot!! HE didn't do nutt'in!! Don't worry 'bout him! Rudy don't make you look bad AT ALL!!

HANG wi'd me, BRO!! YOU be 'da MAN!!

(IZE, you been tootin' again tonight? Hey man, jus' wonderin')
Do right wingers from Georgia have trouble with English spelling and comprehension?

It appears so...

What's a "lib'rul"? And all those other words using apostrophes?

nx6d

01-10-2008, 06:11 AM

Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Jan. 09 2008,22:05)]Quote[/b] (N3RQ @ Jan. 09 2008,01:22)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2008,22:57)]Hillary is much more refined, she is quite intelligent, quite clever, and very articulate, experienced, and qualified.
And quite power hungry! #She stayed with Bill because she has no scruples! #Their marriage is a sham that only serves to increase their power.
When you look back at all the women that came forward and said Bill raped them or otherwise treated them like crap, what WAS the one thing they ALL had in common?

And with Hillary?

They are all butt ugly!!

At LEAST Kennedy had better taste!
For someone who thinks he's oh so smart, you sure say some really dumb things.

How come you can't speak english, station?

W4DFW

01-10-2008, 06:14 AM

Quote[/b] (nx6d @ Jan. 09 2008,02:09)]Do right wingers from Georgia have trouble with English spelling and comprehension?

It appears so...
Dunno.

Guess you will have to ask someone from Georgia.

Are all leftwingnuts from California QRZ'ed challenged, or are you just "special?"

n2ize

01-10-2008, 06:16 AM

Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Jan. 09 2008,23:01)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 09 2008,00:57)]Hillary is much more refined, she is quite intelligent, quite clever, and very articulate, experienced, and qualified. You don;t have to like her or have to vote for her. But nobody can deny that the woman is bright and very well spoken.
I take back my query regarding your tootin' tonight.

You answered it.
I suspect you're another one of those macho males who is afraid of strong women in positions of power. The whole idea of Hillary being the most powerful person in the world and in charge the nation is a tough pill for you guys to swallow. You're probably the type who can't envision a woman anyplace outside the kitchen... or bedroom maybe.
I have learned to accept and respect the liberated woman. Seeing her rise to positions of great power doesn't bother me.

nx6d

01-10-2008, 06:22 AM

Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Jan. 09 2008,22:14)]Quote[/b] (nx6d @ Jan. 09 2008,02:09)]Do right wingers from Georgia have trouble with English spelling and comprehension?

It appears so...
Dunno.

Guess you will have to ask someone from Georgia.

Are all leftwingnuts from California QRZ'ed challenged, or are you just "special?"
It's pretty clear you're "special".

Your little yellow bus icon sparkles every time you post your right wing nonsense.

Georgia, Florida, What's the difference? Of course If I was from Georgia, I'd be ashamed that someone assigned you to my state.

My mistake. I'm sorry I insulted Georgia.

W4DFW

01-10-2008, 06:23 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 09 2008,02:16)]Seeing her rise to positions of great power doesn't bother me.
Well said, IZE.

The problem is, were it not for BILL, Hillary would not even be on the radar. She is like Paris Hilton, famous for being famous.

Margaret Thatcher, now THAT'S a woman who made something of herself!

I have no problem with women in power, not at ALL! I HAVE a problem with a fake, lier and conniver who uses any and all means to her ends regardless of the damage it causes along the way.

Your mileage may vary.

W4DFW

01-10-2008, 06:29 AM

Quote[/b] (nx6d @ Jan. 09 2008,02:22)]It's pretty clear you're "special".
'Spose I could get a handicapped sticker in California?

I might wanna come see Paris Hilton one day.

K7JEM

01-10-2008, 06:50 AM

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 09 2008,21:49)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 09 2008,16:25)]So RP would rather see Hillary win the presidency than endorse an opponent in the GOP?
It doesn't matter if anyone wins other than Ron. Why?

Because we will be getting the same old same old in Washington.

There is no difference between Hillary's platform and that of anyone else running in the GOP. Both are going to raise taxes. Both are going to increase spending. Both are going to erode our rights. Both are going to keep our troops deployed on undeclared wars. Both are going to expand the government. Both are going to trample on the Constitution.

So again, other than some personality differences, what are the policy differences between the rest of the candidates?

Ron Paul is the ONLY one who will not do everything listed above.
OK, if there is no difference in who wins, if its not RP, then why run as an independent? He can't possibly win, all he can do is siphon votes away from whoever the GOP candidate is.

All of RP's supporters are not going to stay home on election day, contrary to what you might think. There will be other elections on the ballot that will interest these people, and they probably won't leave the presidential column blank.

If RP thinks he is a republican, then he should abide by the voter's decision in the primaries. He should either endorse the nominee, or endorse no-one, and stay out of the race.

RP sure thinks a lot of himself if he actually thinks he will be the savior of our nation. Truth is, if he was elected, he probably wouldn't be able to get anything at all done, since it takes the co-operation of the congress and the courts. A little constitutional thing called checks and balances.

Joe

n2ize

01-10-2008, 08:13 AM

Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Jan. 09 2008,23:23)]
Quote[/b] ]
I have no problem with women in power, not at ALL! I HAVE a problem with a fake, lier and conniver who uses any and all means to her ends regardless of the damage it causes along the way.

You''ve just described your hero Rudy and the present administration to the tee.

Quote[/b] ]

The problem is, were it not for BILL, Hillary would not even be on the radar. .

So what ?

AE6IP

01-10-2008, 09:31 AM

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 09 2008,21:46)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 09 2008,16:21)]The GOP may well lose, but despite your increasingly desperate cries in the night, Ron Paul will have nothing whatever to do with it.
Riiiight... So you are telling me that +10-15% of the voting population can't swing an election?!??
10-15% of the voting population might swing an election in these later days.

Unfortunately for Paul fans, he's not getting 10-15% of the voting population. He's getting 8% or less of those voting Republican in primaries, which is around 4% or less of the voting population.

Of course, since, by your logic, the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate are no different to Ron Paul or his fans, it doesn't matter to them which wins when Paul loses, so it shouldn't matter to y'all one way or the other.

Not that people who turn 4% into 15% are expected to be any better at logic than they are at arithmetic.

KG4JYD

01-10-2008, 05:18 PM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 09 2008,23:50)]OK, if there is no difference in who wins, if its not RP, then why run as an independent? He can't possibly win, all he can do is siphon votes away from whoever the GOP candidate is.

All of RP's supporters are not going to stay home on election day, contrary to what you might think. There will be other elections on the ballot that will interest these people, and they probably won't leave the presidential column blank.
Who said he is going to run as an independent/3rd party? No one knows if he will or not.

But I think you are underestimating the fact that the Ron Paul base will NOT vote for anyone else running in the election.

KG4JYD

01-10-2008, 05:22 PM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 10 2008,02:31)]Unfortunately for Paul fans, he's not getting 10-15% of the voting population. He's getting 8% or less of those voting Republican in primaries, which is around 4% or less of the voting population.
That's some fuzzy math there.... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

K7JEM

01-10-2008, 06:32 PM

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 10 2008,10:18)]But I think you are underestimating the fact that the Ron Paul base will NOT vote for anyone else running in the election.
Then they're bigger fools than I thought.

Many times, in recent elections, people vote against a candidate just as much as they vote for a candidate. Very seldom is the person running exactly your cup of tea, but sometimes a person running is certainly not what you want to see.

A lot of the people that support RP are quite conservative in nature. You're telling me that they wouldn't bother to vote if Hillary was running against Huckabee/Romney/McCain/Rudy?

Hillary is the antithesis of most conservative people, if these ronnettes won't vote against her, even though the other choice is certainly more palatable, then it tells a story about them.

Much as Nader caused the loss of Al Gore in the 2000 election, RP could certainly cause the election of Hillary in the next one, especially if he runs as an independent or refuses to mobilize his sheep for the more conservative candidate.

Ron Paul's sycophants would do whatever the man told them to do, probably right up to jumping off a cliff. I have never seen more politically brain dead individuals than many who say they support him. YMMV.

Joe

KG4JYD

01-10-2008, 07:10 PM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 10 2008,11:32)]A lot of the people that support RP are quite conservative in nature. You're telling me that they wouldn't bother to vote if Hillary was running against Huckabee/Romney/McCain/Rudy?They'll probably do a write-in for Ron Paul.

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 10 2008,11:32)]Hillary is the antithesis of most conservative people

There really is very little policy difference between Huck, Rudy, McCain, Romney, Obama, Clinton, Edwards when viewed from the following perspective:

- fiscal responsibility
- smaller government
- states rights
- civil liberties
- humble foreign policy
- low or no taxes

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 10 2008,11:32)]Ron Paul's sycophants would do whatever the man told them to do, probably right up to jumping off a cliff.You obviously have not studied the Ron Paul movement very closely.

We really don't care anything about Ron himself. It's the message (even Ron has admitted this).

Ron hasn't told anyone to do anything. In fact if anything, the grassroots support is telling HIM what to do.

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 10 2008,11:32)] I have never seen more politically brain dead individuals than many who say they support him. Speak for yourself. Oh, and I would like to see how any of the Democrats differ from the Republicans in the above list of points... Please, be specific.

In the mean time here is a quote from a friend of mine:

"The Democrat voter turn out has been about 30-40% higher. The Republican party is out this Novemeber...............unless they nominate a Republican who has proven that he can grab Democrat, third party and independent voters.

Hmmmmmmmmmm who could that Republican candidate be?"

K7JEM

01-10-2008, 08:23 PM

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 10 2008,12:10)]"The Democrat voter turn out has been about 30-40% higher. The Republican party is out this Novemeber...............unless they nominate a Republican who has proven that he can grab Democrat, third party and independent voters.

Hmmmmmmmmmm who could that Republican candidate be?"
Not Ron Paul, that is obvious.

In a state like NH, he couldn't muster 9% of the vote, and it is filled with independents.

Are all RP supporters so delusional that they think he could beat ANY mainstream candidate? RP is saying things that alienate democrat AND republican voters, while attracting a small crowd of misfits and losers.

If he ran against Hillary, she would get 80+% of the vote. I don't know why you people think that democrats will support this guy, or even independents. There is no evidence to support the fact that RP has anything other than rabid support from a very small minority of voters.

Republicans are given every opportunity to vote for the guy, yet they don't, this despite his $20 million warchest. People just don't like the guy, regardless of his message, which I do agree with as much as any other candidate.

But the guy is contrary, non-bendable, and thinks that his answers are the only thing that counts.

Ask yourself this, when was the last time we elected someone whose only experience was in the house of representatives to the presidency?

Joe

kc2orw

01-10-2008, 08:44 PM

Ron Paul turned me into a Democrat, believe it or not!

KG4JYD

01-10-2008, 09:37 PM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 10 2008,13:23)]If he ran against Hillary, she would get 80+% of the vote.Riiiight.....

Because Republicans would never vote for an old white guy who rails on about the Constitution, smaller government, lower taxes, and State's rights..... clearly impossible

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 10 2008,13:23)] I don't know why you people think that democrats will support this guy, or even independents. There is no evidence to support the fact that RP has anything other than rabid support from a very small minority of voters.I am in the middle of his grassroots campaign and it is a hodge podge mix of everyone. We have libertarians, conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, etc.... In fact I bet that if we were not all united around Ron, we probably wouldn't be able to stand each other truth be known.

You should take a look around before you start making independent statements like that.

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 10 2008,13:23)] But the guy is contrary, non-bendable, and thinks that his answers are the only thing that counts.And that's exactly why he has such dedicated grassroots support; he has integrity even if you don't agree with him 100%.

kc2orw

01-10-2008, 09:41 PM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 10 2008,16:23)]If he ran against Hillary, she would get 80+% of the vote.
A bet like that is like money in, assuming a high interest and stable economy, the bank http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

K7JEM

01-10-2008, 10:01 PM

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 10 2008,14:37)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 10 2008,13:23)] I don't know why you people think that democrats will support this guy, or even independents. There is no evidence to support the fact that RP has anything other than rabid support from a very small minority of voters.I am in the middle of his grassroots campaign and it is a hodge podge mix of everyone. We have libertarians, conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, etc.... In fact I bet that if we were not all united around Ron, we probably wouldn't be able to stand each other truth be known.

You should take a look around before you start making independent statements like that.

I should have said "a goodly number of democrats and independents". Obviously, any candidate will have some crossover vote from any other political group. Democrats get republican votes, and vice versa. RP will get votes from whack jobs of every political bend. Probably even some normal people will vote for him.

But there are not enough crazies or "true believers" to put him in the White House, or even close. The sooner that your people come to this conclusion, the better off you will be. Does RP have support? Certainly. But 5-10% of the population is not going to do it, especially if there is someone running with a more conventional political agenda.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 10 2008,13:23)] But the guy is contrary, non-bendable, and thinks that his answers are the only thing that counts.And that's exactly why he has such dedicated grassroots support; he has integrity even if you don't agree with him 100%.

Integrity is one thing, stupidity is something else. His integrity is that he has determined what is best for the country, what is "constitutional", and the way things should be. It's one thing for a lowly representative to think that way, since he is just one of 400+ individuals making the decisions, totally another for this person to be president where whacky decisions could affect us all. It is apparent to me that he wouldn't bother to listen to advisers that gave him advice that didn't comport with his own thoughts.

In a political environment, compromise is a must. You don't always get what you want. If you do, then it is a dictatorship.

Joe

KG4JYD

01-11-2008, 03:43 AM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 10 2008,15:01)]In a political environment, compromise is a must.
WRONG

"Compromise" is what has gotten this country to the ####ty position it is currently in! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

K7JEM

01-11-2008, 06:49 AM

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 10 2008,20:43)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 10 2008,15:01)]In a political environment, compromise is a must.
WRONG

"Compromise" is what has gotten this country to the ####ty position it is currently in! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Then what RP would get as president would be a congress running the country, if they got tired of his lame ideas. They could pass laws at will, the pres wouldn't be able to override them, he would have little support from them.

Just as RP was many times the lone vote against some bill, so congress would be ganging up on him to do as they wished.

He would be a most ineffective president.

Fortunately, we will never have to find out.

Joe

AE6IP

01-11-2008, 07:11 AM

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 10 2008,10:22)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 10 2008,02:31)]Unfortunately for Paul fans, he's not getting 10-15% of the voting population. He's getting 8% or less of those voting Republican in primaries, which is around 4% or less of the voting population.
That's some fuzzy math there.... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Yes, your turning 4% into 10-15% is, indeed, fuzzy math.

My math, on the other hand, is easy to understand: Ron Paul is getting about 8% of the vote in the primaries. That's a recorded fact. In those very primaries, only about half the voters who vote in a given state vote Republician. 8% * 1/2 = 4%.

You did get as far as fractions before you dropped out, right?

KG4JYD

01-11-2008, 07:15 AM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 10 2008,23:49)]Then what RP would get as president would be a congress running the country, They could pass laws at will, the pres wouldn't be able to override them, he would have little support from them.
Perhaps, but remember we'll have a Democrat Congress and a Republican President with nearly half of Congress being Republican. Do you REALLY think Congress could pull together and get much done without the help of the President?

Also don't underestimate the power of the bully pulpit.

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 10 2008,23:49)]He would be a most ineffective president.On the contrary he would have absolute control of the armed forces and would be in charge of the entire executive branch of government. He would be QUITE effective at spending less than his budget and returning the surplus back to Congress (as he does now).

He could also pardon anyone for anything he wishes.

Imagine this scenerio.... President Ron Paul tells Congress to abolish the IRS and eliminate the income tax or else. Congress refuses. So Ron goes on TV and tells America that effective immediately he is pardoning everyone convicted by the IRS of any tax crimes, he will instruct his appointed federal prosecutors not to prosecute tax crimes. It would take President Paul less than 30 seconds to say, and the entire would would change instantly.

Ineffective? Hardly!

AE6IP

01-11-2008, 08:11 AM

and then we'll all write 1040s that give us each the maximum possible tax credits back, and the government will go out of business paying us off for all those crimes we'd been pardoned for.

n2ize

01-11-2008, 09:22 AM

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 09 2008,16:16)]What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that the Ron Paul "10%" will determine the outcome of the general election.

From the perspective of the Ron Paul platform, there is no difference between Hillary and Rudy (or any of the others for that matter).

All want to invade our privacy. All want to spend more. All want to expand the government.

So if Ron Paul does NOT get the nomination, then Ron's 10% will be sitting out, voting 3rd party, or doing a write-in campaign. Either way, the GOP will LOSE.
The goal is neither to expand nor shrink government. The real goal should be to manage government in sensible and appropriate ways. In some instances shrinkage of certain aspects of the government may be in order. In other ways expansion of certain aspects government may be in order.

This is where you alienate many people. You talk of shrinking government, abolishing facets of government. You talk about things like abolishing the FAA because, according to you, it is unconstitutional. Yet that is a challenge that would have to be met in court. And you don;t discuss the feasibility of dissolving the FAA and turning FAA function over to each state. Before you shut down the FAA you need to show a viable plan as to how the nation would benefit, how the individual states will finance such a project, how will it be coordinated on a national scale, will it make flying safer or more dangerous, etc. If you are going to talk in terms of making such drastic changes you also need to talk in terms of a viable plan for how/why such a change is needed, how it will be implemented in a manner that is both realistic and feasible, and, how the American people will draw great benefit. Otherwise you are simply going to alienate people and turn them off.

So, have you and your people submitted the plan yet ? Where can I get a copy of your report ?

KC9IUX

01-11-2008, 10:05 AM

Funny how nobody says Rudy has no chance, blah blah, he's in the same % as Ron Paul.

As far a compromise goes, try that with your daily life. Have food and poison compromise with every meal. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

K7JEM

01-11-2008, 02:51 PM

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 11 2008,00:15)]Imagine this scenerio.... President Ron Paul tells Congress to abolish the IRS and eliminate the income tax or else. Congress refuses. So Ron goes on TV and tells America that effective immediately he is pardoning everyone convicted by the IRS of any tax crimes, he will instruct his appointed federal prosecutors not to prosecute tax crimes. It would take President Paul less than 30 seconds to say, and the entire would would change instantly.

Ineffective? Hardly!
He could do that, sure. But congress could impeach him immediately to. Thats the constitutional thing to do.

Speaker of the house could wind up president.

No-one likes the IRS. But the way to abolish it is not like you describe, but rather a phase out of income taxes, a more gradual thing over several years. But it takes some sort of plan, not just elimination.

See previous IZE post about FAA. Same things apply.

Fortunately, we won't have to worry about RP being elected.

Joe

KC9IUX

01-11-2008, 03:02 PM

Quote[/b] ]But the way to abolish it is not like you describe, but rather a phase out of income taxes, a more gradual thing over several years. But it takes some sort of plan, not just elimination.

No freedom lost incrementally is ever won back the same way. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

K7JEM

01-11-2008, 03:30 PM

Quote[/b] (KC9IUX @ Jan. 11 2008,08:02)]Quote[/b] ]But the way to abolish it is not like you describe, but rather a phase out of income taxes, a more gradual thing over several years. But it takes some sort of plan, not just elimination.

No freedom lost incrementally is ever won back the same way. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Thats a nice saying, but may or may not be factual.

Does anyone bother to think what might happen upon overnight abolishment of these federal agencies and programs? The FAA, FCC, IRS, Homeland Security, Dept of transportation, Education, ICC, etc, are all targets of looney thinking people.

Things would go into chaos if these things were eliminated outright, I actually think this is what RP supporters want. Without the IRS, there would be no income to the government, no way to collect or pay Social Security or Medicare, and no checks going out to welfare recipients. There would be rioting and looting in the streets.

Fortunately, other than delusional people, there is no-one that thinks this guy can win, regardless of his $20 million.

Joe

KC9IUX

01-11-2008, 04:16 PM

Quote[/b] ] Without the IRS, there would be no income to the government, no way to collect or pay Social Security or Medicare,

Pure, unadulterated bunk.

K7JEM

01-11-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote[/b] (KC9IUX @ Jan. 11 2008,09:16)]Quote[/b] ] Without the IRS, there would be no income to the government, no way to collect or pay Social Security or Medicare,

Pure, unadulterated bunk.
Thats what the IRS does.

You could eliminate them if you put another agency or program in to collect the money, and make the payments, but what would be the difference?

The IRS is not necessarily a bad agency to deal with. They are trying to do their job, as it has been delegated to them.

How do you think SS, medicare, and other income to the government would be collected and sent out?

Joe

KG4JYD

01-11-2008, 06:07 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 11 2008,02:22)]The goal is neither to expand nor shrink government.
WRONG.

The Constitutional goal is to get the federal government back to its size as spelled out in the Constitution and give most of the power back to the States where it belongs.

The libertarian goal is to get the government at all levels to be very limited and minimal and only carrying out the absolute necessary tasks that the free market can't provide.

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 11 2008,02:22)]how the individual states will finance such a project,It's real simple. Have the federal government quit robbing the States of their citizens' income and then giving that money back to the States with strings attached.

KG4JYD

01-11-2008, 06:10 PM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 11 2008,08:30)]Does anyone bother to think what might happen upon overnight abolishment of these federal agencies and programs? The FAA, FCC, IRS, Homeland Security, Dept of transportation, Education, ICC, etc, are all targets of looney thinking people. I don't think it would all happen literally "overnight".

For instance, Ron Paul says social security needs to be "phased out" not immediately abolished.

AE6IP

01-11-2008, 06:14 PM

Quote[/b] (KC9IUX @ Jan. 11 2008,03:05)]Funny how nobody says Rudy has no chance, blah blah, he's in the same % as Ron Paul.

As far a compromise goes, try that with your daily life. Have food and poison compromise with every meal. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
It's only funny if you're not paying attention.

Giuliani has staked his strategy on skipping the early contests and going for the large states. Until such time as there's a large state contest that he's trying to compete in there's no way to measure his strategy.

Let's see if Michigan is Giuliani's Waterloo or not.

AE6IP

01-11-2008, 06:17 PM

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 11 2008,11:07)]The Constitutional goal is to get the federal government back to its size as spelled out in the Constitution and give most of the power back to the States where it belongs.
The size of the federal government is not spelled out in the Constitution.

The more I hear Ron Paul nutters make claims about the Constitution the clearer it becomes that they have no idea what the document actually says.

KG4JYD

01-11-2008, 06:20 PM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 11 2008,09:23)]How do you think SS, medicare, and other income to the government would be collected and sent out?
You are catching on http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

KG4JYD

01-11-2008, 06:22 PM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 11 2008,11:17)]The size of the federal government is not spelled out in the Constitution.
Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So that means that if it isn't enumerated in the Constitution (specifically for Congress Article 1 Section 8) then the federal government isn't allowed to do it!

Therefore effectively, YES, the Constitution does limit the size of the federal government.

N3ATS

01-11-2008, 07:37 PM

Semantics. Again.

Not size but powers and responsibilities.

Though most reasonable people would agree that in this context, and casual environment, the word "size" is an acceptable synonym for power and responsibility.

That is, except those who enjoy busting balls over semantics in order to incite further argument.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

AE6IP

01-11-2008, 07:48 PM

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 11 2008,11:22)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 11 2008,11:17)]The size of the federal government is not spelled out in the Constitution.
Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So that means that if it isn't enumerated in the Constitution (specifically for Congress Article 1 Section 8) then the federal government isn't allowed to do it!

Therefore effectively, YES, the Constitution does limit the size of the federal government.
You've confused size with scope, again.

There's nothing there that says the government can't do whatever it's "limited" duties are with a huge workforce.

Of course, the 10th amendment is only meaningful when read in the context of the rest of the Constitution, which grants the federal government pretty sweeping scope, even in a narrow reading.

AE6IP

01-11-2008, 07:51 PM

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Jan. 11 2008,12:37)]Semantics. Again.

Not size but powers and responsibilities.

Though most reasonable people would agree that in this context, and casual environment, the word "size" is an acceptable synonym for power and responsibility.

That is, except those who enjoy busting balls over semantics in order to incite further argument.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Actually, it's not simple semantics 'ball busting'.

There is an implication in libertarian writing that 'smaller scope' is the same as 'smaller size'. You can see it in the promises of reduced budgets which will automatically come from smaller scope, for example.

But real government doesn't work that way. Even if you reduced the scope you wouldn't get a reduction in size automatically. Rather, what you'd likely get is a refocusing of the existing resources into the reduced scope.

Anyone who doesn't understand this about government needs to read Parkinson's study.