Ron Paul on the Verge of Going Third Party?

[Ron Paul until November]

I was just going to correct you. With 61 flip flops and counting McAmnesty is not a real republican. Much less a conservative. lol

http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm

Next thing you will see is Obama having a repub VP and McNasty having Billary as a VP. hahah

[Ron Paul until November]

After much debate it has been proven the media has a researched bias against Ron Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Using Google labs and counting the number of questions and time alloted to Dr. Paul during the debates this is no news since the majority of us already knew he was being blacklisted on purpose.

Tin foil hat anyone?

[RonPauler]

"We must realize that no arsenal and or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women" - Ronald Reagen.

Sounds like old Ron thinks the people are the real superheros, unfortunately he's either mistaken or there's not enough will and moral courage around these days.

[Bill R]

RonPauler wrote:

<quoted text>
You say "Ron Paul's brand" but there is no such thing. Ron Paul's brand is the same as John McCain's brand, just with a few differences. Ron Paul claims to believe what John McCain claims to believe, they just have different ways of showing it. That is why they are both Republicans. If you need not embrace Ron Paul then you also need not embrace McCain, because they are both fiscal conservatives like you.
You say that conservatism is in a comfortable position. I disagree. You say that the economic downturn is natural? Natural like forest fires, natural in that it is a necessary process in destruction and regrowth? Is bailing out F & F a part of this necessary process? Is price-fixing natural or artificial? What does John McCain think about F & F, price-fixing, and natural processes? I think conservatism used to be in a comfortable position, not anymore. Look around you at what we're doing today, is this natural?
I am not waiting for a superhero like Ron Paul to solve everything for us, I am waiting for someone who knows how to let the people make their own decisions and who knows how to let the natural process steer us in a new economic direction without interfering. We will right the economic downturn ourselves, but not if there is something or someone stopping us.

Ron Paul has spent his political life attempting
to differentiate himself from others within his
party. This very fact has been the cornerstone of
his campaign in 2008, culminating in his refusal
to support John McCain as the Republican candidate. If you believe their "brands" are
the same, with "just a few differences," you
simply haven't researched the positions of either
one in depth.

I have stated that I am fiscal conservative, but
that conservatism does not necessarily extend to
other aspects of our existence as Americans. It
is on these other issues that I find Ron Paul
woefully inadequate and out of touch with the
realities of today. And it is on these issues ...
we've covered a dozen of them here ... that
renders Paul irrelevant as a candidate for higher
office.

[Bill R]

RonPauler wrote:

<quoted text>
Naturally we all agree on the important parts, just not the details. Bill likes to believe that conservatism is self-sustaining, and I agree for the most part. However I would rather reward a liberal for doing something liberal than reward a conservative for doing something liberal. A minor difference, that's all.

Since you claim I like "to believe that conserva-
tism is self-sustaining," please explain my
thoughts to me.

You seem to imply that conservatives are obligated
to do only conservative things or they have
committed some kind of heresy. Are really that
uncomfortable with people having a kind of
independent spirit or willingness to consider
a common ground "outside the box" that you would
choose not to "reward" them?

I raise this question because this is exactly
the kind of thinking that is usually attributed
to the evangelical or neo-conservative parts of
the Republican Party.

[Bill R]

Ron Paul until November wrote:

I was just going to correct you. With 61 flip flops and counting McAmnesty is not a real republican. Much less a conservative. lol
http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm
Next thing you will see is Obama having a repub VP and McNasty having Billary as a VP. hahah

None of this matters, RPUN, as you claim Bush
is going to declare martial law and call off the
elections anyway. Right?

[Bill R]

RonPauler wrote:

<quoted text>
You say "Ron Paul's brand" but there is no such thing. Ron Paul's brand is the same as John McCain's brand, just with a few differences. Ron Paul claims to believe what John McCain claims to believe, they just have different ways of showing it. That is why they are both Republicans. If you need not embrace Ron Paul then you also need not embrace McCain, because they are both fiscal conservatives like you.
You say that conservatism is in a comfortable position. I disagree. You say that the economic downturn is natural? Natural like forest fires, natural in that it is a necessary process in destruction and regrowth? Is bailing out F & F a part of this necessary process? Is price-fixing natural or artificial? What does John McCain think about F & F, price-fixing, and natural processes? I think conservatism used to be in a comfortable position, not anymore. Look around you at what we're doing today, is this natural?
I am not waiting for a superhero like Ron Paul to solve everything for us, I am waiting for someone who knows how to let the people make their own decisions and who knows how to let the natural process steer us in a new economic direction without interfering. We will right the economic downturn ourselves, but not if there is something or someone stopping us.

You misread my intent, which was that millions
of Americans feel comfortable as fiscal conserva-
tives without feeling the need to embrace the
economic ideology of Ron Paul. We've been doing
it before him and will continue whatever the
future holds. Note ... I spoke to the subject
of fiscal conservatism, nothing more.

As for F & F, I've stated my belief that it is
unwise to interfere in what is, by the nature of
economics, a process of correction in the economy.
We can debate and lay blame and accuse this person
or another person, one party or another, but the
fact remains that interfering will only delay
the correction and deepen the consequences. In
the process of avoiding a recession we also miss
the opportunity to learn from our mistakes and
benefit from them. In a sense it is teaching
moment and far too late in the game for Mulligans.

[Bill R]

Friend of Bill R wrote:

So Bill....who are you voting for in November?

McCain.

[LORAX]

LocalBoy wrote:

<quoted text>Holding noses is getting common place.
Our resident McCain supporters have gone underground and the Obama people cant stand simple logic.
I understand the need for housing loans, just not sure more of the same is the answer.
I fear the reason we see little of these bundled securities is the can of worms that will be created from the sunlight.
If the twins become insolvent the securities will be auctioned and the loans either restructured, repaid or foreclosed and the market will recover.
THe fact is we will have housing depreciation and higher intrest rates, and the first sign of a bottom and money will be avalaible for loans on low cost/high value houses.
If we bail them out the system that created this bubble remains intact and the purchasers of these are ignored, who will restructure when we just delayed the bottom. The bonds will go with the morgtages, at reduced rates. Foreign money and its influence will dry up. Corporate money will decline and so to will the corruption the money brings.
All we need is for the fed to raise rates and start the fun.

Its not a matter of rates and funds. Many of the people I know that are broakers have been told the money is there, the deals are there... the restrictions have done a pendulum swing to the oppisite side. Not allowing people with more than 700 scores to use stated income is what is keeping it stagnant. The people that utilized stated and overstreached their bounds should rightfully be eaten and suffer the consequences. And others should have the opportunity to buy them out. The other problem - banks are holding properties at inflated levels for way too long. Instead of selling at current levels their holding in some cases over a year to try and re-coup the entire loan. Half of the inventory is bank seized and over-priced. I appreciate you sentiments on the twins and really I dont care if they fail or not. What we need is commen sense solutions that match the situation - not the text books.

[LORAX]

RonPauler wrote:

<quoted text>
Naturally we all agree on the important parts, just not the details. Bill likes to believe that conservatism is self-sustaining, and I agree for the most part. However I would rather reward a liberal for doing something liberal than reward a conservative for doing something liberal. A minor difference, that's all.

That because you seem to be tied to party rhetoric. Why not reward a "person" for doing the right thing regardless of where it falls on the spectrum.

Just a little side: For all the energy wasted between Rep and Dem or Lib and Con. The ideological difference in a world comaprison is literally nothing. We waste so much time demonizing on labels that we always disregard sound ideas and compromises because it came from the other side.

[RonPauler]

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
Ron Paul has spent his political life attempting
to differentiate himself from others within his
party. This very fact has been the cornerstone of
his campaign in 2008, culminating in his refusal
to support John McCain as the Republican candidate. If you believe their "brands" are
the same, with "just a few differences," you
simply haven't researched the positions of either
one in depth.
I have stated that I am fiscal conservative, but
that conservatism does not necessarily extend to
other aspects of our existence as Americans. It
is on these other issues that I find Ron Paul
woefully inadequate and out of touch with the
realities of today. And it is on these issues ...
we've covered a dozen of them here ... that
renders Paul irrelevant as a candidate for higher
office.

Ron Paul has not spent his political life attempting to differentiate himself from others within his party, that is completely ridiculous. There are people in the Republican party who Ron Paul respects and listens to, I am sure. If every independent but you wanted universal healthcare then you wouldn't be differentiating yourself from them. Or would you say "well, I'm the only independent who opposes it but I can't say it because that would be differentiating myself from all the other independents"? Is that fair?

Ron Paul's beliefs have been the cornerstone of Ron Paul's campaign, just like John McCain's beliefs have been the cornerstone of his campaign. Ron Paul does not promote the fact that he is different, and neither do I. That is why I say Ron Paul and John McCain are the same, just with a few minor differences. But why should Ron Paul feel obligated to endorse someone based on the fact that they are in the same party? That doesn't make sense, Bill, it's just what's expected, though not by me. I wouldn't have endorsed John McCain either, not if those minor differences were enough to stop me. But would you endorse an independent who supports universal healthcare just because you are both independents? You may agree with him on so much else, but that minor difference might be enough to cause you to endorse someone else, or maybe no one at all. In case you haven't noticed, Ron Paul has not endorsed anyone, so by your reasoning he is differentiating himself from all of us, you, me, localboy, and everyone else here included. But even though me and Ron Paul are different I am still able to give him my support because our minor differences are not enough to stop me.

And just what is so different about John McCain's brand and Ron Paul's brand? What are the minor differences that stop Ron Paul from endorsing John McCain and that stop you from supporting Ron Paul? Besides a difference in poll numbers and names, I mean. According to you Ron Paul is woefully inadequate and out of touch with the realities of today. That is true in some cases, but how is McCain any better, any different? Isn't he out of touch with reality, too? But he's got the numbers, of course, while Ron Paul is "different", I guess that makes all the difference to some.

[Ron Paul until November]

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
None of this matters, RPUN, as you claim Bush
is going to declare martial law and call off the
elections anyway. Right?

Just waiting till Israel attacks Iran! Either way it still looks like it might happen due to the rhetoric but knowing him he would rather help the GOP by shifting the problem to the incumbent prez thus thwarting blame.

Either way now we have more problems because of the Russian Jets coming into Cuba again..(ps..this was cause by us placing a missle defense system near Russia; again foreign meddling get's us in trouble)

Why is it sooo hard for people to use the "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" scenario when dealing with foreign diplomacy.

[RonPauler]

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
Since you claim I like "to believe that conserva-
tism is self-sustaining," please explain my
thoughts to me.
You seem to imply that conservatives are obligated
to do only conservative things or they have
committed some kind of heresy. Are really that
uncomfortable with people having a kind of
independent spirit or willingness to consider
a common ground "outside the box" that you would
choose not to "reward" them?
I raise this question because this is exactly
the kind of thinking that is usually attributed
to the evangelical or neo-conservative parts of
the Republican Party.

Well you seem to believe that conservatism will continue as long as the citizens act conservatively, and I agree for the most part. However at some point, no matter how conservative the citizens act themselves, if the government is not acting conservatively then there are sure to be problems. We cannot act conservatively if the government does not let us. Therefore the citizens cannot completely ignore the government and just do whatever conservative thing they can, they must also work to make the government more conservative so that they CAN do conservative things.

I did not mean to imply that conservatives are obligated to do only conservative things or that liberals are obligated to do only liberal things. I do not mean to say that to find a common ground deserves punishment, not at all. I was referring only to the concept of reward and punishment. Of course there are exceptions and compromises, but if you reward behavior then that behavior will be duplicated because the person you reward perceives it as good. I don't have any problem with trying to find common ground, but I do have a problem with saying you want to do something and then doing the opposite, and I don't think that behavior should be rewarded.

[Ron Paul until November]

If you listened to Obama in Germany yesterday in Germany, you would have heard some troubling things (the issues on a nutshell, no quotes, I am just posting this fast):

1. Re-Distribution of wealth from the USA to other countries through the UN.(Same as McLiberal)

2. America is a nation that tortures people just for fun, basically.(The anti-US crowd went wild and cheered).

3. Europe must help the US against Islamic extremism (no cheer, not one cheer from the crowd).(Same as McLiberal)

4. I, Barack Obama, am a citizen of the World (this is Globalization/North American Union rethoric we have heard before).(Same as McLiberal)

Those are just a few snippets I could gather. What scared me the most was the "globalist" statement and the "Nato" statement.

God...I wish Dr. Paul had a superhero cape and got us out of this predicament.

[RonPauler]

Bill R wrote:

<quoted text>
You misread my intent, which was that millions
of Americans feel comfortable as fiscal conserva-
tives without feeling the need to embrace the
economic ideology of Ron Paul. We've been doing
it before him and will continue whatever the
future holds. Note ... I spoke to the subject
of fiscal conservatism, nothing more.
As for F & F, I've stated my belief that it is
unwise to interfere in what is, by the nature of
economics, a process of correction in the economy.
We can debate and lay blame and accuse this person
or another person, one party or another, but the
fact remains that interfering will only delay
the correction and deepen the consequences. In
the process of avoiding a recession we also miss
the opportunity to learn from our mistakes and
benefit from them. In a sense it is teaching
moment and far too late in the game for Mulligans.

But my point is that you are comfortable without embracing either Ron Paul's ideology or John McCain's ideology, but you are uncomfortable with not embracing McCain. Do you mean to say that the only different between Ron Paul and John McCain is that Ron Paul is Ron Paul while John McCain is John McCain, since you are equally comfortable without embracing either man's ideology? Or is it Ron Paul's ideology on all matters except fiscal conservatism, is that what makes you uncomfortable with embracing Ron Paul? Do you favor McCain's approach to environmental issues? I believe the environment is something that we will have to find a common ground with, but where is John McCain's common ground on this issue?

[RonPauler]

LORAX wrote:

<quoted text>
That because you seem to be tied to party rhetoric. Why not reward a "person" for doing the right thing regardless of where it falls on the spectrum.
Just a little side: For all the energy wasted between Rep and Dem or Lib and Con. The ideological difference in a world comaprison is literally nothing. We waste so much time demonizing on labels that we always disregard sound ideas and compromises because it came from the other side.

I believe we should reward a person for doing the right thing, but McCain and Obama have not done very much, yet, and so we cannot either reward or punish them. We can only reward or punish them for what they promise to someday do, and so we must look at what everyone promises they will do and decide whether that really is what they will do and whether that is the right thing to do. If they will not do what they promise, if it is not the right thing to do, then we cannot reward that person for promising it, even if the "only alternative" is someone who does not promise it altogether. It doesn't matter who promises it if they both will not give it.

I agree completely with your side note, btw.

[LORAX]

RonPauler wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe we should reward a person for doing the right thing, but McCain and Obama have not done very much, yet, and so we cannot either reward or punish them. We can only reward or punish them for what they promise to someday do, and so we must look at what everyone promises they will do and decide whether that really is what they will do and whether that is the right thing to do. If they will not do what they promise, if it is not the right thing to do, then we cannot reward that person for promising it, even if the "only alternative" is someone who does not promise it altogether. It doesn't matter who promises it if they both will not give it.
I agree completely with your side note, btw.

So why waste so much effort on the office that will be held by picked, groomed, and controlled lying politician that will not utimately be chosen by the whole (not the few participating) anyway?

It would seem the energy lost on Topix alone could be re-directed to common understanding of citizen involvement. The inadequacy in the government is only highlighted by the position of President. It is indeed a good measurement of the government not the country. McCain and Obama for me a very much the same and as long as Billary stays out of 1600 I am completely uncaring about the Pres position because that is the result not the production. We need to be focusing on the production - where we can make a difference. US Senate to local boards.

[Ron Paul until November]

LORAX wrote:

<quoted text>
So why waste so much effort on the office that will be held by picked, groomed, and controlled lying politician that will not utimately be chosen by the whole (not the few participating) anyway?
It would seem the energy lost on Topix alone could be re-directed to common understanding of citizen involvement. The inadequacy in the government is only highlighted by the position of President. It is indeed a good measurement of the government not the country. McCain and Obama for me a very much the same and as long as Billary stays out of 1600 I am completely uncaring about the Pres position because that is the result not the production. We need to be focusing on the production - where we can make a difference. US Senate to local boards.

I agree 100%!. No matter who you vote for it's a controlled communism. Basically 2 sides of the same coin. Anyone with REAL change will most likely get shifted by the powers that be. Obama was hand picked by the media and Juan McLib is basically the same on most issues.

(btw..Bill was a fiscal conservative by economist standards)

[Ron Paul until November]

Bill R is going to slam me for this quote.

Fidel Castro on U.S elections. May 2007

"Our elections are the antithesis of those held in United States ... There, first you have to be very rich, or have an enormous amount of money behind you," said Castro,

Can't criticize him there. Ask any third party U.S candidate. Only thing you can criticize is in Cuba you have a vote ..for or against Fidel. Surprisingly he always gets voted back in ..hahah

[A-Patriot]

What a shame that we can only have two partys. Oh sure, they will give lip service to other partys, but the bottom line is that any effort to have a viable third party candidate run for president will be thwarted. Our whole process is skewed. If Obama wanted to REALLY make a change, he would push to have other partys recognized and allowed to have candidates without all the rigmarole .