Ron Paul, does he stand a chance?

[Rhaze]

So what does everyone think about (R)Ron Paul? He's intelligent, has a good track record, anyone know much about him, I just started hearing a lot about him lately, seems like he might be gaining some momentum, just curious what any of you thought/new about him.


YouTube - RON PAUL INTERVIEWED ON CNN SUNDAY SPOTLIGHT MAY 27 2007
CNN interview


YouTube - Ron Paul on Bill Maher Show 5-25-07
Recently on Bill Maher


anyone else excited for a new election?

[newerakb]

He's someone who could allow me to vote republican. But there's next to no chance that he'll win the primary. Right now this election looks exciting with all the Obama/Paul/Gravel's of the world, but just wait...Gore will enter the race, seal the primary/election and lead the country via powerpoint for 4 years before the country remembers why it voted for Bush the first time and replace Gore with another lead-by-numbers republican.

If this country had any balls, the election would be between Paul and Obama.

[Rhaze]

yeah, that's what i was affraid of, he doesn't seem to have the $$ or political weight to win the primary.

Would Gore actually enter?

[Cadrid]

You know, he has the support of the internet-savvy population. Considering only ~30% of the population tends to vote in any year, I think he could win the election if he ran at all, even if he lost the Republican nomination and ran as an Independent. While it would take a coordinated effort, if we decided to make some normally blue states end up voting red and vice versa, while pre-determined states vote Ron Paul he could certainly win the electoral vote.

[Ronne]

Not a chance.

[Mr Element]

Originally Posted by newerakb

If this country had any balls, the election would be between Paul and Obama.

....wtf?

Ron Paul doesn't have a chance at getting the Republican nomination for starters. (probably because he's not a Republican! He's an Independent) He already screwed up in the debate when he insinuated that the US caused 911. No reason to debate what he meant by his statement, because Giuliani owned him bad and he didn't explain or defend himself well. If he ended up running as an Independent he would still lose big time because it's pretty obvious America is a two party democracy and will stay that way.

Obama is inexperienced and may or may not be Muslim. That's the guy I want in the white house when we have Muslim extremists trying to attack us.

[Arbitrary]

Originally Posted by Mr Element

He already screwed up in the debate when he insinuated that the US caused 911. No reason to debate what he meant by his statement, because Giuliani owned him bad and he didn't explain or defend himself well.

He didn't insinuate anything. We were attacked because of our actions in the Middle East for the past 60 years. Not because an imaginary "they" hates our wealth and freedom. That is the explanation you would give a child.

Giuliani didn't own anyone.

[Cadrid]

Originally Posted by Mr Element

....wtf?

Ron Paul doesn't have a chance at getting the Republican nomination for starters. (probably because he's not a Republican! He's an Independent) He already screwed up in the debate when he insinuated that the US caused 911. No reason to debate what he meant by his statement, because Giuliani owned him bad and he didn't explain or defend himself well.

Really? I thought "We've been there for decades, playing God with their countries, drawing out lines for countries, funding militant groups to shape the world in our favor, and generally being arrogant, nosy interventionists, hence pissing the populace off." was a pretty sound argument.

If he ended up running as an Independent he would still lose big time because it's pretty obvious America is a two party democracy and will stay that way.

Unless people actually want change. There are a significant number of citizens tired of the Democrat vs. Republican debacle that inevitably ends up with The People being given the shaft. It may not be a large enough force to evoke change in the electoral system yet, but it's on the horizon.

Obama is inexperienced and may or may not be Muslim. That's the guy I want in the white house when we have Muslim extremists trying to attack us.

There are two issues with this: First and foremost, the madrassa he attended as a child was a typical school that shows equal respect to all religions, including Obama's, which is Christianity. Stop watching so much FOX news. Secondly, not all Muslims want to blow up infidels, just as not all Christians hunger for the Apocalypse. It's the narrow-minded, ill-informed, addle-brained manifestation of xenophobia and intolerance that results in statements like yours.

[RiskyChris]

Originally Posted by Arbitrary

He didn't insinuate anything. We were attacked because of our actions in the Middle East for the past 60 years. Not because an imaginary "they" hates our wealth and freedom. That is the explanation you would give a child.

Giuliani didn't own anyone.

As far as dumbfuck America goes, Giuliani kicked his ass.

[Arbitrary]

Originally Posted by RiskyChris

As far as dumbfuck America goes, Giuliani kicked his ass.

I must concede that point.

[Havelock]

Originally Posted by Arbitrary

He didn't insinuate anything. We were attacked because of our actions in the Middle East for the past 60 years. Not because an imaginary "they" hates our wealth and freedom. That is the explanation you would give a child.

Yours is the dumber fuck explanation. I bet it gets you mad pussy down at the coffee house.

[Arbitrary]

Originally Posted by Havelock

Yours is the dumber fuck explanation. I bet it gets you mad pussy down at the coffee house.

I drink tea.

Bitch.

[Gigfc]

Oh ok I see that both of you are online now. I am anxiously awaiting both of your replies.

[Leadsalad]

Originally Posted by Arbitrary

I drink tea.

Bitch.

Oh snapplez, it's on!

Havelock, grow up and maybe read something outside of U.S. spoonfed news.

[Havelock]

A more civilized drink, I'll grant you. But seriously, it wasn't anybody imaginary who flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Al Qaeda's literature discusses American wealth and freedom (casting it negatively as decadence, of course). And as far as our actions in the Middle East go, al Qaeda's explicit original gripe is that we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, only a few hundred miles from Islam's holy cities. Of course, Saudi Arabia told bin Laden to fuck off when he bitched about it, revoking bin Laden's citizenship and sending him to Afghanistan. He then organized a number of attacks on the U.S. abroad and then at home. The sensible thing to do would be to get the Saudi government to uninvite us; if they're not willing to do so, the appropriate target would be the Saudi government, not the U.S., and certainly not the U.S.'s civilians.

Here's an analogy for you: say you're a black man and a white friend invites you to his party. Some of his other friends there are racist fucks who don't want you there. They beat you to death. Detective Arbitrary shows up to investigate and rules it a suicide - "The silly boy shouldn't have been at that party. He brought it on himself." [Edit: The analogy would be even more apt if they beat your wife or children to death instead.]

Admittedly, in the time leading up to the Gulf War al Qaeda became less focused on the American presence in Saudi Arabia and more focused on reestablishing the caliphate. But that doesn't do the "America brought it on themselves" crowd much good. Al Qaeda's aim expanded to setting up a theocratic dictatorship of the worst kind. To the extent that the U.S. did not go along with this - e.g., allowed separation of church and state, did not stone gays to death, let women learn to read, etc. - the U.S. was evil and al Qaeda hates us.

Predictably, al Qaeda also pointed to U.S. support of Israel as a justification for attacking; Islam should control its third holiest city, Jerusalem, because God frowns on infidels asserting sovereignty over it. Religious fanaticism isn't sufficient justification for killing thousands of civilians of a third-party country.

I can't believe that someone who celebrated Jerry Falwell's death because "he caused enough trouble" is a crusading apologist for religious fanatics who killed thousands of civilians.