[Purple Haize]

How is a sign of a good leader someone that convinces people they are right?? That makes zero sense to me.

Would you rather have a leader who convinces you they are wrong? A leader is someone who has ideas and convinces others to follow them. To motivate people towards a common purpose. To take parties that are sometimes at cross purposes and get them working together.
Unless you subscribe to our current Presidents theory of 'leading from behind' lol

[thepostman]

A good leader is someone that gets people to follow them and put aside petty differences for the common good. That doesn't mean they convince them they are right.

Anyways Ron Paul does not have the kind of personality that draws people from all walks of life to him. In a national election that is what matters. Most people agree with him for the most part but won't vote for him because of his personality or the personality of some of his supporters. I think that is a ridiculous reason not to vote for someone but it is how most people vote.

[Purple Haize]

A good leader is someone that gets people to follow them and put aside petty differences for the common good. That doesn't mean they convince them they are right.

Anyways Ron Paul does not have the kind of personality that draws people from all walks of life to him. In a national election that is what matters. Most people agree with him for the most part but won't vote for him because of his personality or the personality of some of his supporters. I think that is a ridiculous reason not to vote for someone but it is how most people vote.

But WHY do people follow them? The rest of your definition is fine but does not address the underlying reason WHY people follow someone. I'm not going to follow someone unless I'm convinced of the benefit of what they are proposing.

Then by your own definition of a leader, someone who gets people to follow them and put aside petty differences for the common good, Paul is not a good leader. He can not get a lot of people to follow him, and apparently none at the place he has worked for 22 years. Leaders DO have certain personality traits. What is wrong with that? It is an intrinsic quality of a good leader and by your own admission Ron Paul doesn't have it.

[thepostman]

You're right Ron Paul is not a great leader (I never said he was great). He is a pretty good one and has got support from across the board but he isn't a great leader. I support his stance on most issues and believe if our federal gov't followed his principles then we be in a lot better shape.

I, however, do understand why some people aren't comfortable with him I just and do wish there was someone people could relate with a little bit more with the same stances he holds but there isn't.

[Humble_Opinion]

Yeah, the whole Republican establishment argument always makes me .
The people with the most experience in DC, Paul and Gingrich, are labeled as " outsiders". While the person with the least experience is considered the 'establishment candidate'.

I think the term is less a description of the candidate and more of a description of whom supports them. In 2008, Mitt was actually an outsider and catered to more of the 'Reagan' voting bloc than did Huckabee or McCain. That's why you saw McCain go to CPAC and give a stump speech talking about his time in the 80's when he worked with Reagan. Remember that in '08, McCain had a hard time winning the hearts of Conservatives, due to his "Maverick" personality.

This time around, the consensus of 'inside the beltway' or 'establishment' Republicans is that Mitt is their guy. However, just like McCain in 2008, Romney is having a hard time with the Conservatives in the party. That's why he just went to CPAC and gave a speech, very similar in nature to McCain's, that was full of overatures that appeal to the base of the party. Essentially, the Romney of 2012 is more like the McCain of 2008. It's not that I think he necessarily changed his philosophy as much -- It's just more of an indictment of who is in the race and whom is supporting whom.

[Humble_Opinion]

I wonder how many pages this thread will have by the time November 4th comes around... Wagers anyone?

[Purple Haize]

I wonder how many pages this thread will have by the time November 4th comes around... Wagers anyone?

Over /Under is 43

[ALUmnus]

I, however, do understand why some people aren't comfortable with him I just and do wish there was someone people could relate with a little bit more with the same stances he holds but there isn't.

That was part of my question. Unless the pool is extremely shallow, there has to be someone else. There has to be plenty of someone elses. Yes, you want to be on the right side when going to battle, but you also need the right general.

And just a side note. Skywalker, if you don't know why people lump Ron Paul supporters in with nutjobs, you haven't done enough research on the guy you support. The man has said enough things himself to make people suspect, which is one reason he does attract his fair share of undesirables.

[jbock13]

It was never was intended as such, but it's come to be the general politics thread. Pretty much all political discussion comes here and that's why there's so many posts, and it will continue to be as such.

[jmdickens]

if you don't know why people lump Ron Paul supporters in with nutjobs, you haven't done enough research on the guy you support. The man has said enough things himself to make people suspect, which is one reason he does attract his fair share of undesirables.

Kind of like Jerry Falwell

Can i get a few specifics alumnus? After meeting Paul several times and reading everything of his I can get my hands on, I am failing to see where youre getting your information? His predictions have or are coming true, and if that scares a few of the Republicrats, then theyre only recourse is to call him a nut.

[Purple Haize]

9/11 was an inside job?

[jmdickens]

9/11 was an inside job?

when the hell did that old man ever say that nonsense?

[jbock13]

9/11 was an inside job?

That's a myth perpetrated by Mark Levin that Paul said that. It's BS. As far as some of his supporters, well...

[Purple Haize]

He blames US Policy for it. His super PAC is funded by a 9/11 truther. His biggest supporters, Alex Jones and Lew Rockwell are 9/11 Truthers. He says he won't come out with the truth about 9/11 because of the IRS and IMF.....Just a few nuggets.

[jbock13]

So you're equating saying that government policy caused 9/11, means that you think it was an inside job? Huh? That's quite a leap in logic there. I think Paul has some good points, but nowhere does he say the US Government set up 9/11. There's a big difference between the two. Paul believes that misguided policies were the reason the terrorists were inspired to attack. If you can't understand that difference, I really cant help you lol

As for his supporters, we agree so I honestly don't know why you keep bringing it up.

[Purple Haize]

So you're equating saying that government policy caused 9/11, means that you think it was an inside job? Huh? That's quite a leap in logic there. I think Paul has some good points, but nowhere does he say the US Government set up 9/11. There's a big difference between the two. Paul believes that misguided policies were the reason the terrorists were inspired to attack. If you can't understand that difference, I really cant help you lol

As for his supporters, we agree so I honestly don't know why you keep bringing it up.

I'm honestly not sure what he believes about it.
As for his supporters I agree we agree but can't agree about not brining it up because it is Germaine to some people.

On another topic I think National Review sums up Romney's campaign the best I've seen

Romney is a transactional politician rather than a charismatic one. Maybe he should make the most of it: Tell conservatives what they will get out of a Romney presidency. Entitlements brought under budgetary control. A more market-oriented health-care system. Judges who know their place in the constitutional architecture. Fannie and Freddie extinguished. The defense budget protected. Tax reform, and tax relief for families. In some cases making this case will require that Romney commit to more detailed proposals than he has thus far; in others that he will do more to emphasize things he has already said. But emphasis and repetition are not trivial in presidential campaigns. So far Romney has been running mostly on his biography: Republicans are supposed to vote for him because he is a family man and shrewd businessman. And Republicans, even the many who are well disposed to him, have been saying as loud as they can: It isn’t enough.

I support Romney but agree with this and like its solutions.

[jmdickens]

He blames US Policy for it. His super PAC is funded by a 9/11 truther. His biggest supporters, Alex Jones and Lew Rockwell are 9/11 Truthers. He says he won't come out with the truth about 9/11 because of the IRS and IMF.....Just a few nuggets.

The blowback that occurred as a result of our presence in the Middle East is what caused 9/11....not our Freedom. That is what the attackers have told us.

Alex Jones and Lew Rockwell are entertainers, just like Linbaugh and Mark Levin. Everything they say should be viewed in that context.

also you are referring to this Ron Paul quote when asked about 9/11: "Because I can’t handle the controversy, I have the IMF the Federal Reserve to deal with, the IRS to deal with because no because I just have more-too many things on my plate. Because I just have too much to do."

sounds like he doesnt want to cut his ties to people who send him money....do not assume anything with politicians

Search Debra Medina on Glen Beck....everything you want in a Republican who was tied with Rick Perry for the governor's race in TX. Regarding 9/11 truther accusations from Beck she said "I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there. So I’ve not taken a position on that."

^ after that one conversation, Medina was destroyed and labeled a truther by the media

[Purple Haize]

The whole blowback argument is weak IMO. That assumes that if we had just packed up and gone home after WW1 and WW2 the Middle East would be the Garden of Eden. Or if we had not gotten involved in either of those wars we would be best buds with Arabs and Middle Easterners. I'd like to reverse the equation, what if these same people had left THEIR neighbors alone? Finally, by saying it is blowback is basically saying we did this to ourselves, akin to Pres Obamas favorite pastor.
The Middle Easter mindset is different from the Western mindset. Applying the 'if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone' mindset won't work.

[jmdickens]

the blowback argument is still better than Fox News' "they hate us for our freedom" nonsense

To me there is no difference between extreme Muslims and extreme Christians. The ideology is different, but the goal is to control the other groups who disagree. But we can implement a strategy that will work to stop all of the wars. The solution is to just leave the country and let it decide to destroy itself and let Israel blow the place out of existence.

My biggest Issue with our foreign policy is from one of my former professors at LU. He taught history at UVA before coming to LU and is also a pastor. His argument really centered around why we go to the middle east and fight in some Muslim countries and not in others. He always sponsored a trip to Morocco and said it would be great for Christians to visit a Muslim country and know "thy neighbor".

his ultimate conclusion was that it is always convenient that we fight Muslim extremist in countries that have oil....ask why we do not help Morocco when they have a great relationship with the United States. It is quickly answered because Morocco has no oil.

Not a conspiracy

[Purple Haize]

JM I have spent time in the Middle and Near East. I know my neighbor.

There is a HUGE difference between extreme Muslims and extreme Christians. One straps bombs to their kids and worship in a culture of death. The other just protests military funerals and drive trucks around with repulsive pictures.

We fought in Kosovo, not a lot of oil there. Large Muslim population. We fought in Iraq, not getting a lot of oil from them. But yes, Oil= National interest so, yeah, we will be a tad more proactive there.

[jmdickens]

JM I have spent time in the Middle and Near East. I know my neighbor.

There is a HUGE difference between extreme Muslims and extreme Christians. One straps bombs to their kids and worship in a culture of death. The other just protests military funerals and drive trucks around with repulsive pictures.

We fought in Kosovo, not a lot of oil there. Large Muslim population. We fought in Iraq, not getting a lot of oil from them. But yes, Oil= National interest so, yeah, we will be a tad more proactive there.

But the one thing about both extremist groups is that it is a very small percentage of the groups. Kosovo was a little bit of a smaller span of time than what we have spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But our National Interest should not be controlling another countries natural resources. That is what started all this...Remember 1953?

[Purple Haize]

Percentages can equal big numbers when you talk Muslim extremists. And again, when the extreme Baptists start blowing themselves up at crowded malls for the glory of God, I will make that moral equivocation. Until then they are not even in the discussion.
I was not alive in 1953 but do remember the Ottoman Empire from one of my previous lives! I was a shepherd! Lol

[jbock13]

Come on really? National Review? They're so in the can for Mittens that they fell in head first for Mittens. Theyve lost their conservative credituals years ago. It's okay to like Mitt, but to act as though NR is a good source isn't reality. Before I was libertarian even I didn't buy much of what they were saying.

[thepostman]

wait ron paul thinks 9/11 was an inside job??

Lets ignore all the times he has said he doesn't believe that. Fox News propaganda at it's finest.

The blowback theory has its holes that much is true but would they hate us as much as they do if we weren't over there pretty much non stop the past 20 years?? There is no way to know that for sure but it sure isn't helpful for anybody involved.

[LUconn]

If I recall, which I do, a bunch were arrested plotting some kind of terrorist attack against that Danish newspaper that printed those muhammed cartoons. Not to mention the fatwah declared and the thousands of death threats that followed. Denmark is not in any muslim countries or "endlessly bombing them". Is that not hating the freedom to make fun of their religion?