Perry Tried to Physically Intimidate Ron Paul? - Page 2

You'll forgive me if I stick with Gallup and Rasmussen, thanks.  

Skippymjp, it seems that you aren't actually able to debate the man based on his policies and how he proposes to fix the cycle of economic bubbles, huge deficit, constantly dwindling freedoms,  threats to the constitution, and perpetual state of warfare since WW2.    If these issues are as important to you as they are to me, then one can see the value of actually paying attention to them.

Some people would argue that an inability to debate actual issues is a rather weak position to stand on.    And speaking to a person's character affecting their legislation, Ron Paul has been a politician with a consistent voting record for decades, and is now serving his eleventh term as a senator.   

This isn't someone inexperienced with next to no track history in Washington to track like Obama was, we know exactly how Ron Paul votes as he has been doing it for so long.  And more than just vote, Ron Paul has sponsored more bills than any other senator to date, so we even know what kind of legislation he wants to see enacted.   The proof is in the pudding.  

Here, I'll spoon feed the pudding to you, heh.   

Now in his 11th term of service, what in his voting record or sponsored bills do you specifically disagree with, and why do you think those policies are wrong for America?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul

Its all right there easy to digest broken down by foreign policy, terrorism, healthcare, inflation, social security, education, you name it.  

So, as just another politician, motivation aside, you don't have issue with any of the legislation he has sponsored or anything in his consistent voting history over the decades?   Not even one of the numerous bills he has sponsored conflict with your liberal ideology?  Just trying to figure out if you are even vaguely familiar with his platform (it appears no), and if you are, what you disagree with and what you believe would be a better approach.   

I will take that answer as a resounding "no" and "no interest to discuss".  

BTW, so I was just watching Bill O'Reilly on Fox News talking about Iowa.   And what did he say?  

"Clearly this is a battle between Gingrich and Romney now".    So I guess we are still back at ignoring Ron Paul at all costs.   He literally didn't say his name once discussing it... not once.   *facepalm*

Then over on MSNBC, they flat out admitted that the media will not air any Ron Paul wins and will just "take it out" as irrelevant information.   What???   REPORT THE NEWS.  When he wins states and wins polls, report the news!  This is really getting ridiculous.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippymjp 

The reason his stance appears to be too good to be true is because it is, just as too good to be true ALWAYS is.  Everything he has done so far is present the carrot, while his stick is in waiting.  

So he's planned this all since 1976, huh?  That truly is quite a feat, carefully hatching a devious plan 35 years in the making.  

I am pleased to see that you do believe his actual policies are good.   I really pictured you as more of a nanny-state big government liberal than an ideological Libertarian like Ron Paul.   Pleasantly surprised, if perhaps still a bit skeptical considering previous discussions leaning towards socialist ideals. 

Hah, if you put more liberal spin on that you might reverse the rotation of the Earth and turn back time Superman style.     

In December 2004 a University of California, Los Angeles (itself a very liberal school) study gave The New York Times a score of 73.7 on a 100 point scale, with 0 being most conservative and 100 being most liberal: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

To put that in perspective, that is more liberal than Fox News is conservative.   Sometimes you have to take political news with a grain of salt, but when it comes to one of the country's most ideologically socialist/big government's opinion articles on a ideologically consistent Libertarian, yeah.... I'm honestly surprised they didn't claim that Ron Paul eats babies and tortures baby seals in his free time.  Anything to distract the public from Ron Paul's voting record, sponsored bills, predictions of the housing bubble and financial crisis aired on the news, Iraq war, and more.    

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippymjp 

 He is the presidential Jim Crow candidate, and only his tiny group of ardent supporters want that. 

You mean tiny in that he's consistently ranked in the top three republican candidates of late, and more recently ranked number one.   Rasmussen polls also show him winning to incumbent Obama or losing by only a few points, in their various hypothetical races at various points in time.   Oops, not so obscure and tiny huh?

BTW, did you watch even a single one of the Republican debates?   Notice how often the crowd burst into applause with positive hoots and whistles after many of the so-called controversial points he made on the stage?   

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippymjp 

Being endorsed by a group naturally means that one embodies their position; or at the very least, they strongly agree with the position they endorse.  He doesn't have to endorse the White Supremacist position because he LIVES their position.  

You really want to play that game?  I can show you various youtube videos of fanatical Obama supporters including blatant racists at his campaign offices not to mention ACORN support which he didn't even attempt to disavow.   Obama appreciated their votes as much as any other, but they were voting for him, he was not voting for them.    Heck, its in fact far worse as Obama in fact volunteered for decades to attend the sermons of an outspoken racist and anti-American in Reverend Jeremiah Wright for over two decades, who also performed the ceremony for his marriage, and per the president himself was even the inspiration for Obama's book.   

Yup, the guy that says that the US government invented the AIDS virus to eradicate black people is not merely someone that supports Obama and helped him build a base to get elected, but that Obama supported in turn.

No, the defense is that Paul's actions speak louder than any liberal spin article, as he has been an extremely active and popular senator serving his 11th term and has voted consistently for decades with a clean track history and sponsored more bills, almost all of which I support, than any other senator.  

He is one of the only politicians I can think of that has served so long without any Watergate financial scandals, sex with subordinates, and such that we consider par for the course.  And not only is he honest, but he even returned over $140,000 from his office budget to the US Treasury, and heck even part of his own salary, and its things like this over a period of thirty years that show his supporters that he is one of the few "good guys".

And regarding liberal spin, no Ron Paul did not "storm out" of the interview.  The footage was cut and manipulated to make it appear that way, but the raw footage released shows that was not the case at all:

He answered her over and over ad nauseum, but it was clear she was being hostile and repetitive most likely trying to catch an aggressive frustrated response on video.   Ron Paul didn't bite, and so a little editing was the best they could come up with.    

Hostile and repetitive... apparently your strategy as well.     As Ron Paul has said for 22 years, you have the answer: Didn't write it, didn't read it at the time, and disavows it.  

The obvious reason to fall back on something like that is that you're failing to actually attack him on the issues, as he's been right in his predictions time and time again, and his answers to those questions on the issues are becoming more and more popular with the American people.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippymjp 

So, you want to put a person in office who, even though he was getting paid for it, and published written endorsement for the newsletters, supposedly had no idea how his name was being used, for 22 years?  

Oh, and here I thought there was just one out of thousands of articles, first brought to his attention a full decade after it was published, that had anything suspect in it whatsoever.

He stated full well that he did read many of the newsletters, he also wrote many articles himself, but if you can't believe that within a 22 year period that he might have been able to overlook one article combined with his squeeky clean track record for decades now in the public eye as a representative, then you probably are just using this as an excuse to dismiss someone with whom you have ideological differences, but are unable to actually attack on the issues since so far he's pretty much always been right. 

I consider this actually very promising news.   The Democrats, Republican opponents, and other liberals in the media have staff that are working 24x7 to attempt to discredit Ron Paul, and they clearly are going back decades, and they didn't discover anything new (this was already blasted by CNN back in 1996) and this is all they are able to try and make a case on?   Contrast that with all the shady connections for Obama including Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, Khalid Al-Mansour, Hamas, Frank Davis, Tony Rezco, fundraising debacle, and other Chicago dealings or the Dubya drunk driving, felony cocaine use, skipped out on national guard service, etc.   Yet for Ron Paul they can't come up with a single solid slip up.  NOTHING.