JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Status
Does Ron Paul See Himself in the Oval Office?

But I agree, by his mere presence Ron Paul is affecting some change in the GOP. Hopefully the trend continues.

Here's the best I could manage to find, Ron Paul Says He Doesnt See Himself In The Oval Office - YouTube There was still more I thought. And for those unfamiliar, his comment at the end about, "that's the risk I take," I believe was a reference to his story about running for Congress for the first time where he reassured his wife that there's no way he'd get elected so to not worry about it.
 
I don't believe there is no such a thing as a conservative, or a liberal.
Yes RP has garnered some support among conservative voters, but only because they (we) are looking for a fiscal conservative. But frankly, the fantasy that RP's supporters are touting is hilarious.
He might be able to push through an audit of The Fed, but that's about it.
You guys on his side seem to think he's capable of trashing decades of settled law and policy. I got news for ya, it ain't gonna happen. That would require a sea change in the political climate involving both houses of Congress and the WH.

And for those of you that *think* you want isolationism, you'd better think again. The backlash from the last effort is rippling through our society and economy to this day.
If he's the nominee, I will vote for him and hope that he succeeds in doing all he can to dump The Fed and tell the IMF to get the h*ll out.
But if you think I will toss out my vote because he isn't the nominee you're mistaken. And if you do that you are being foolish.

Derailing the domestic and foreign policies perpetrated by BHO is job #1 in my book. Starting with the repeal of obamacare, and tossing the notion of cap and trade for good.
Then we move on to canning the 1,000 pages of new regulations since Jan. '09, and start making some business friendly tax/labor laws, and telling a few union bosses to sit down and STFU.
Then we make some serious changes in energy policy and stop flushing $Billion$ down the "green" toilet.
I believe reducing the price of gasoline and diesel by $1.00/gallon would set us on the path to recovery in short order. But having BHO's energy secretary, that believes we need to pay european prices to curb our fuel use is a direct impediment to that.

We don't need RP to do those things, and without the political sea change I spoke about previously, RP's grandiose notions are pretty much pure fantasy, and would leave him distracted and impotent in the office of president.

We need a constitutional fiscal conservative first. Following the constitution will restore as much liberty as is possible within the framework that is current settled law.
And while I don't believe Romney is that guy, I see him as the lesser of the two evils that includes BHO.


And lets face it, in the 36 years that I have been voting, I have had to make that choice every time but one.
 
I don't believe there is no such a thing as a conservative, or a liberal.
Yes RP has garnered some support among conservative voters, but only because they (we) are looking for a fiscal conservative. But frankly, the fantasy that RP's supporters are touting is hilarious.
He might be able to push through an audit of The Fed, but that's about it.
You guys on his side seem to think he's capable of trashing decades of settled law and policy. I got news for ya, it ain't gonna happen. That would require a sea change in the political climate involving both houses of Congress and the WH.

No one, other than people like you, are suggesting that he could transform the current situation into a libertarian utopia inside of 4yrs. Such claims lie only with his detractors.

Instead he's about stopping the bleeding. Four years of balanced budgets, no new laws, no new regulations, and no new wars will be a windfall for our nation.

And for those of you that *think* you want isolationism, you'd better think again.

Timely quote I saw today...
‎"Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn't come on your property and break your windows" -Chris Lyspooner

Derailing the domestic and foreign policies perpetrated by BHO is job #1 in my book. Starting with the repeal of obamacare, and tossing the notion of cap and trade for good.
Then we move on to canning the 1,000 pages of new regulations since Jan. '09, and start making some business friendly tax/labor laws, and telling a few union bosses to sit down and STFU.
Then we makes some serious changes in energy policy and stop flushing $Billion$ down the "green" toilet. I believe reducing the price of gasoline and diesel by $1.00/gallon would set us on the path to recovery in short order. But having an energy secretary that believes we need to pay european prices to curb our fuel use is a direct impediment to that.

We don't need RP to do that, and without the political sea change I spoke about previously, RP's grandiose notions are pretty much pure fantasy, and would leave him distracted and impotent in the office of president.

That's funny, because other than Ron Paul, can you name one other candidate that once in office won't do exactly what his crony capitalists demand? Which brings me to...

We need a constitutional fiscal conservative first. Following the constitution will restore as much liberty as is possible within the framework that is current settled law.

And out of the candidates who do you think is most inline with your views? Who hasn't flip-flopped on those views when convenient? I can only think of one, Ron Paul.

I can understand your support of "anyone but Obama" come November, but right now is the primaries where you have a say in who "anyone but Obama" is, why not pick well? :)
 
Wake up chrissie,...
This is Oregon. You/we/I have NO SAY in who the nominee will be.
We are "along for the ride."

I am voting against BHO in the general election. That means I will vote for RP IF he wins the nomination. The same goes for Romney/Newt/Rick or John.
You would be wise to do the same.
 
OK, there are some people who don't believe it makes any difference who the president is and I pretty much agree. How about we make this whole thing more simple and more gratifying in the long run by trying to elect the guy with the hottest wife and kids? After all, we'll have to be looking at them for four years. To that end, Huntsman wins, hands down. Just a thought, and if I dare say, one that makes as much sense as anything.
 
From my perepsctive - Obama will win again if the Republicans cannot provide a better candidate - he will win by being viewd by the general public as being better then what other options exist, regardless of wether it is actually true. I once was told by a lawyer that perception plays a bigger part in the outcome of a trial than the truth does. This is a sad postion to accept. If the Republicans cant field a better option Barrack will have it for another 4 years. Then all h?)l will break out. Republicans dont win elections they lose them.

James Ruby
 
If he gets re-elected and appoints liberal SCOTUS judges in place of conservatives, you will know differently.

How silly of me. You're right. We've never had a liberal SCOTUS before. That WOULD probably be the end of the world as we know it.
 
I don't like Obama. I don't like "liberals," as we currently use the term. But I like alarmists even less- they're more harmful than both.

That's my only point.
 
Both Romney and Obama are opposed to civil rights... so I'm having trouble seeing how Romney is the "lesser" of two blatant "evils," anyway. The difference is that Obama has so much resistance. Romney would not have nearly as much, and is, in my opinion, much more dangerous than Obama. HOW dangerous? I don't know.... but it's not likely anyone will ever come within a parsec of FDR for a very long time... so either way, I'm not gonna lose any sleep.
 
It's a lie when you use it as an excuse to not vote for him, as if it were some foregone conclusion.

I'm not using it as an excuse to not vote for him. I'm not voting for Ron Paul because his foreign policy is dangerous and stupid, as is his lunacy of wanting to put us back on a "Gold Standard". Ron Paul makes his own enemies as far as voters. He doesn't need me or anyone else to come up with lies or excuses not to vote for him. He's a one man wrecking crew in that regard.
 
The most dangerous president... I thought that was GW Bush? Or Clinton? Or HW Bush? Are you sure that wasn't Regan? I'm almost positive it was Carter. And it was very probably Ford, and definitely Nixon. But wasn't it also LBJ? Kennedy was a scary guy- can anyone say "Cuban missile crisis?" Eisenhower started the whole "Military Industrial Complex" hipsters and anarchists can't stop talking about- and that was over half a decade ago... surely it was him. Or maybe Truman.. Roosevelt (it actually WAS him, but in our current context, what difference does truth or accuracy make?)? I think Hoover was certainly a good candidate.

You better forget going to bat for Hussein, and start thinking who you'll be voting for after he and Ron Paul are gone. You hate everybody. Join the "occupy" crowd. You'll fit right in.
 
I'm not using it as an excuse to not vote for him. I'm not voting for Ron Paul because his foreign policy is dangerous and stupid, as is his lunacy of wanting to put us back on a "Gold Standard". Ron Paul makes his own enemies as far as voters. He doesn't need me or anyone else to come up with lies or excuses not to vote for him. He's a one man wrecking crew in that regard.

You could have saved everyone a lot of time if you simply admitted you are a warmongering bankster-puppet up front, instead of pretending to be a reluctant Romney supporter.

Why don't you vote for Obama, his foreign policy (kill more people) suits you and he'd never try go to back to the gold standard. Other than bickering over the corpse of 2A and some meaningless religious BS, he really is indistinguishable from Romney.
 
You could have saved everyone a lot of time if you simply admitted you are a warmongering bankster-puppet up front, instead of pretending to be a reluctant Romney supporter.

Why don't you vote for Obama, his foreign policy (kill more people) suits you and he'd never try go to back to the gold standard. Other than bickering over the corpse of 2A and some meaningless religious BS, he really is indistinguishable from Romney.

:s0114: :s0112: :s0114: :s0112: :s0114: Keep it comin! LIVE FROM HIS MOTHERS BASEMENT....IT'S DMANCORNELL!!!!
 
Wake up chrissie,...
This is Oregon. You/we/I have NO SAY in who the nominee will be.
We are "along for the ride."

I am voting against BHO in the general election. That means I will vote for RP IF he wins the nomination. The same goes for Romney/Newt/Rick or John.
You would be wise to do the same.

Unfortunately since this IS Oregon (or Washington, for our northern neighbors) Obama WILL win. Vote for who you think would do the best job. It won't make a difference.
I saw on some news show during the last election Oregon is gaining something like 500k democrats a year and bleeding off about 20k republicans a year. The state may be a lost cause :s0058:
Alaska is looking better all the time.
 
Billt I am curious about what you know about the gold standard and why you think it would be bad for our country.

Far from it being "lunacy" to return to the gold standard it could help restore us to prosperity and limit government power by making it impossible for them to print (digitally or otherwise) new money.

Not to mention that the constitution prohibits the government from issuing paper money.
But who on this forum really cares about that silly ol thing anyways?
 
Status

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top