***New Vid DR. RON PAUL 4 President!

[cupocity303]

Actually he hasn't been in office since the 70's. He started in the late 70's , quit Congress in 85, resumed his medical practice for the next 10 years, and returned to Congress in 1997.



Not quite the same career politician as lets say, Joe Biden, who served his terms consecutively from the 70's to 2008.

[Chief2ndzOnly!]

I feel like the point is that the other poster is acting like all he did was serve in congress? There was a successful military man with a successful business prior to that. So... is it a career, I suppose it is... but it's not all he's done so let's not act that way.

I see where you comin from Loki, but I dont think thats what Bringer is getting at. He's not dismissing the fact that Paul had a career prior to getting involved in politics. He is merely stating that he is being passed on to the public, as if he is a political new comer, devoid of being involved in the circus known as Capitol Hill, when in fact he is no different(in regards to having a established career in politics)than Newt per se. Thats where I think Bringer is goin my man.

[ßringer]

Actually he hasn't been in office since the 70's. He started in the late 70's , quit Congress in 85, resumed his medical practice for the next 10 years, and returned to Congress in 1997.

Not quite the same as the old timers who have been serving term after term since the 70's.

Not quite the same career politician as lets say, Joe Biden, who served his terms consecutively from the 70's to 2008.

Granted. But that's still what? 21 years in public office?

That's a little too long to be selling yourself as an "anti-establishment" guy, by my estimation. Which was my whole point to begin with.

[cupocity303]

Then that failure to understand falls solely at the feet of your own reading comprehension : Not once did I imply that "all he did was serve in Congress". I realize he has other experience, jobs, and positions : I'm just saying he's been an "establishment guy" since the mid 70's, and that's not even debatable.

If he's some kind of demigod to you, that's fine, have at it. Just don't lash out like a lunatic whenever somebody disagrees with your view of things.

I'm not a fanboy of Ron Paul. Some are nuthugging him like the fanboys did Obama in 2008.

Personally, I like Paul, particularly regarding his Non-Interventionist view. And he seems incorruptible and voted according to his ideology consistently, when he could've "compromised" on votes to blend in with the others. Which probably means, that he will do what he says if he has the authority to do it.

Hell, he'd probably abolish 80% of the Govt. if he could, but he can't.

[cupocity303]

Granted. But that's still what? 21 years in public office?

That's a little too long to be selling yourself as an "anti-establishment" guy, by my estimation. Which was my whole point to begin with.

The reason he is perceived Anti-Establishment is because of his Libertarianism and his consistent votes that didn't blend in with the others. If you look at some of his interviews when he was younger, he sounds just the same. Same rhetoric for 30 years against Government and Politicians.

He also seems to have the most unique coalition of supporters, some of which are White Nationalists and others who are Anti-War Lefties & Conspiracy theorists. Who else can draw two opposite crowds like that?

[ßringer]

I'm not a fanboy of Ron Paul. Some are nuthugging him like the fanboys did Obama in 2008.

Personally, I like Paul, particularly regarding his Non-Interventionist view. And he seems incorruptible and voted according to his ideology consistently, when he could've "compromised" on votes to blend in with the others. Which probably means, that he will do what he says if has the authority to do it.

Hell, he'd probably abolish 80% of the Govt. if he could, but he can't.

Don't get me wrong, as I said before : I agree with a certain number of his platforms. Namely the abolition of the IRS and his non-interventionist views that you just pointed out. But like you say, he won't be able to accomplish even one tenth of what he wants even if he were to be elected (which he won't) because he would also need control of the House and Senate, and an overwhelming majority of those Congressmen and Senators would never vote in favor of some of his more extreme proposals.

Another point I want to make real quick that goes back to the "career politician" point I made earlier : Ron Paul's voting record may be much better than his opposition's by comparison, but it's not as squeaky clean as his PR team would have you believe.

He's voted in favor of $400 million worth of earmarks.

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2008...ts-for-fy2009/

And that's just the 2009 stats.

[cupocity303]

Don't get me wrong, as I said before : I agree with a certain number of his platforms. Namely the abolition of the IRS and his non-interventionist views that you just pointed out. But like you say, he won't be able to accomplish even one tenth of what he wants even if he were to be elected (which he won't) because he would also need control of the House and Senate, and an overwhelming majority of those Congressmen and Senators would never vote in favor of some of his more extreme proposals.

Another point I want to make real quick that goes back to the "career politician" point I made earlier : Ron Paul's voting record may be much better than his opposition's by comparison, but it's not as squeaky clean as his PR team would have you believe.

He's voted in favor of $400 million worth of earmarks.

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2008...ts-for-fy2009/

And that's just the 2009 stats.

Yes, I know about this. But he already explained this, which makes sense.

He is against discretionary spending & Federal Income Taxes on principle. So if it were up to him, there would be no earmark's to give out to your district in the first place. But since there is Discretionary spending & Federal Income tax, he is taking some funds back to his district because they're already paying Federal Income Tax and might as well get a bang for their buck.

If he doesn't take some earmarks for his district, it just goes to the Executive branch. And his district still has to pay Taxes, and won't get nothing in return.

Makes sense?

[ßringer]

It makes sense, yes. But not when you go on to publicly state that you've never voted for an earmark of any kind.

(Granted he's since admitted to doing so, but the point still stands and calls his honesty into question a bit. I mean, if he wouldn't even admit to voting for an earmark or two like every other politician, what else wouldn't he own up to?)

Regardless, all this Paul talk is making me batty. He won't win the nomination, and whoever does will just get butchered by Obama anyway, so it's a moot point.

[cupocity303]

It makes sense, yes. But not when you go on to publicly state that you've never voted for an earmark of any kind.

(Granted he's since admitted to doing so, but the point still stands and calls his honesty into question a bit. I mean, if he wouldn't even admit to voting for an earmark or two like every other politician, what else wouldn't he own up to?)

Regardless, all this Paul talk is making me batty. He won't win the nomination, and whoever does will just get butchered by Obama anyway, so it's a moot point.

But that's the thing, HE DID NOT VOTE FOR AN EARMARK, . Check his record, he voted NO. But collectively appropriation bill's aka Discretionary spending always gets passed. He votes NO, but he requests earmarks for his district, before someone else takes more for their district, or the rest of it goes to the Executive branch.

HE NEVER VOTED FOR EARMARKS. People just don't understand the process and misunderstood his position with knee-jerk reactions..

[Jim Jeffries]

There seems to be an inordinate amount of confidence in the landslide reelection of a guy with an abysmal record, who's added 4.5 trillion to the debt in 3 years, kept unemployment over 8% (the figure he promised it would never go over if we just passed his 800 billion dollar "Stimulus") for almost 3 years straight, and who loses in polls against generic Republican, or even worse, Mitt fricken Romney.