[jbock13]

Ron Paul started it?

[RubberMallet]

Why do we argue and try to convince each other that we're right and they're wrong if when someone might actually be convinced and change their mind, they're a flip flopper?

when have you ever heard a politician tell you they changed their mind? never. the majority of people see it for generally what it is. pandering.

Actually, one of these candidates has said multiple times throughout the campaign that he's been wrong on stuff in the past. They've all been wrong in the past, and still are on many things, but only one has actually admitted it.

I hate that this whole thing has turned so ugly. Ron Paul started it, and Romney just amped everything up to absurd levels. The whole thing is just really depressing now.

i'm not paying enough attention though because i have no idea who. i always though getting around being a flip flopper should be easy. something always changes. i have no idea why these guys struggle with that so much. i was staunch anti-homeschool until ari and i had a sit down talk with Scott Fullbright.

[ALUmnus]

Ron Paul started it?

Yes, he was the first one to go negative in Iowa with his attack ad on Newt. Romney people may have been leaking a lot of stuff behind the scenes, but Paul was the first to go on the attack.

Say all you want about the virtues of Ron Paul, at the end of the day he's still a slimy politician.

[jbock13]

Hmmm, fair enough.

[Purple Haize]

Good question LUconn, let me give it a shot here.

As you all know, I've done a flip flop on Ron Paul. Mitt hides behind "oh I've always been this way," whereas in my example I make it clear that I've changed my mind, and gave the reasons why. In my mind, being a "flip-flop" politician is saying one thing to one crowd, and then saying something completely different to another. Mitt, when running for Governor in MA, said he was an independent and pro-choice. Now, running for President, he runs around telling everyone he is pro-life, when prior evidence seems to the contrary.

That, and when you say you support the Second Amendment because you hunt, you obviously don't understand the real context behind it. Second, how did you buy a gun when you were a kid? That's illegal.

Here's a good ad from McCain in 08 on Romney's changes... A Tale of Two Mitts.

[youtube]

[/youtube]

Even though I back Romney, I thought he gave a good answer to that question last nite. In short he said that when he entered public office he was a lot more 'moderate/liberal' then he is now. He said he'd 'matured' in office and began to see things differently. then listed a few things he had changed his mind on. LU has a point too. I thought the purpose of dialogue and debate are to convince people to change their mind? But when they do, we label them a flip flopper? Especially, if they change their mind to our side of the argument.
Case in point: Romney on abortion. He has stated many times the point in his life and the circumstances around his 'switch' to a pro life position. His wife is active in promoting marriage and adoption. Yet the line is still out there that he is fiercely pro choice! Now look at Newt. He sits with Pelosi and expounds on global warming after being skeptical but now he is skeptical again

I would say Ron Paul for head of the TSA but he would eliminate his own department then be out of a job! Same thing with Treasury Secretary!

Romney/Ryan 2012!

[Humble_Opinion]

To be honest, I am glad that this process appears that it's going to be long and drawn out. That means less time for Barack Obama's Mafia groups to focus in on and destroy whomever the nominee turns out to be. I just hope that if Mitt is the nominee, he goes after Barack Obama with the same tenacity that he's shown against Newt.

Also, I had heard about Mitt's campaign hiring a new debate coach, but I didn't know he was associated with Liberty University in any way. Though I guess this makes sense, considering the track record we have with our debate team.

JB - you continue to make the claim that Ron Paul is the only one that knows anything about the economy. Why is that exactly? I mean don't get me wrong, he's very knowledgeable on the academic side of the coin, but academics don't always turn out to be the most effective executives. In the end I would take any of these candidates economic policies over what we have had over the past 3 years...

[jbock13]

Well for one, Paul has pledged to cut one trillion dollars. Santorum loves government goodies for his pet causes, Gingrich wants to colonize the moon (which i think tells how he really feels as far as government spending, plus is obcession with Teddy Roosevelt). and Romney is running as the "making government more efficient" phrase, which essentially means not increasing spending, but not cutting it.

I know we disagree on foreign policy, and that's fine. But there's truly only one candidate who has the balls to cut spending, and that's Ron Paul.

You're right though, any of these four would be better than Obama. But I must say I think Romney would be more fiscally responsible than Santorum.

[Humble_Opinion]

I would agree with that statement. Santorum had no problem in voting for government expansion when Bush was in office. He seems to subscribe to that "Compassionate Conservative" viewpoint where everyone gets everything. I have no doubt that Ron Paul has the most guts on stage and would truly make it a mission to put this country back on the path to fiscal sanity. I just wish he was a little less radical on the foreign policy issues. If he were... he'd likely be in Newt's spot right now.

Also, while I think we should try to go back to the moon at some point, Newt's comments were nothing but pandering and it was too obvious.

[jbock13]

Hey, looks like we've found agreement! Although I would add Paul's foreign policy really isn't radical. Historically the Republican Party believed in non-interventionist policies (the exception being TR).

[Purple Haize]

Hey, looks like we've found agreement! Although I would add Paul's foreign policy really isn't radical. Historically the Republican Party believed in non-interventionist policies (the exception being TR).

We already have one radical in office and look where it got us. How would putting another one in be different?

[jbock13]

How is Ron Paul a radical?

[From the class of 09]

How is Ron Paul a radical?

He thinks actions have reactions and that the US doesn't own the world. Duh

[LUconn]

Ron Paul guys, especially jbock: can any of you tell me what you think of Iran, their intentions, their capabilities (present and future) and how it affects us? It's certainly not the only pressing foreign policy issue on the table, but it offers a good litmus test. I think this is a pretty big flashpoint of why people can't support this guy.

[Purple Haize]

How is Ron Paul a radical?

Compared to where we are in relation to where he wants to take us is huge. Gold standard. Isolationism. No social safety net. Not saying I'm for or against but those are huge steps.

[jbock13]

Perhaps the question is, what is Iran capable of doing to us?

[LUconn]

...which is why I included that in my post

[RubberMallet]

Ron Paul guys, especially jbock: can any of you tell me what you think of Iran, their intentions, their capabilities (present and future) and how it affects us? It's certainly not the only pressing foreign policy issue on the table, but it offers a good litmus test. I think this is a pretty big flashpoint of why people can't support this guy.

our country doesn't have the resources to preemptively strike a country that may or may not be hostile to us. paul supports israels ability to defend itself. he doesn't feel that sanctions work on countries (we bombed "sanctioned" the crap out of iraq too before we invaded...yeah that worked). and their possible work with nuculear weaponry may just be a result of those sanctions. to me it seems like we are poking a barking dog with a stick. and eventually when it bites we'll put it out of its misery because thats what we wanted to do in the first place. its simple to see and he is saying, nothing good can come of our involvement. well beyond the vast amount of oil the country possesses that is.

i also realized i am awful at analogies.

[ALUmnus]

How is Ron Paul a radical?

Compared to where we are in relation to where he wants to take us is huge. Gold standard. Isolationism. No social safety net. Not saying I'm for or against but those are huge steps.

Actually, Ron Paul is all for a social safety net. That's one of his glaring inconsistencies for me.

[jbock13]

Thank you RM for putting better than I could.

[RubberMallet]

Thank you RM for putting better than I could.

i just have no problem putting on my foil hat and saying the GOP's main reasoning for wanting to be involved is not for our national saftey. the main reason for involvement is the pocketbooks of their campaign contributors, themselves, and anyone else that stands to gain from our involvement.

[RubberMallet]

How is Ron Paul a radical?

Compared to where we are in relation to where he wants to take us is huge. Gold standard. Isolationism. No social safety net. Not saying I'm for or against but those are huge steps.

Actually, Ron Paul is all for a social safety net. That's one of his glaring inconsistencies for me.

WAT.

[jbock13]

Yeah I mean honestly I just think for some reason the GOP has some insane fears about Muslims everywhere in the world trying to kill everybody. And quite frankly that's just irrational. The fact is that Iran poses no threat to us at all, so why should we bother? And if they attack this, we'll kick their in 43 seconds flat. Paul is all for retaliation when it comes to a direct military attack against us.

I know the Paul supporters love to run around calling everyone who disagree neo-cons, and honestly I don't think that's the way to do it. Sadly, there's a group of conservative who for some reason are willing to give up their freedoms and liberties to keep themselves safe. I used to be that guy! But every time I asked myself questions such as, "Why do these people keep saying the TSA is keeping us safe? How many people have they actually stopped, and do we really need to check Grandma for bombs?" As for these people, they're not neo-cons, rather, they are wrong.

I'd have more to add but I'll just stop here and see what else is said.

[jbock13]

Ron Paul guys, especially jbock: can any of you tell me what you think of Iran, their intentions, their capabilities (present and future) and how it affects us? It's certainly not the only pressing foreign policy issue on the table, but it offers a good litmus test. I think this is a pretty big flashpoint of why people can't support this guy.

I've probably answered this question quite a few times, and others have too.

[jbock13]

How is Ron Paul a radical?

Compared to where we are in relation to where he wants to take us is huge. Gold standard. Isolationism. No social safety net. Not saying I'm for or against but those are huge steps.

So... if those things are good things, we shouldn't do them because it's radical Oh I know, Mittens isn't as crazy about all that cutting government spending right? Silly Ron Paul, actually wanting to cut a trillion dollars...

For the record I truly haven't looked at the whole gold standard debate. When I'm done with this semester I may have to do so when summer comes around.

[thepostman]

Iran is no different then Iraq was and that they aren't a true threat to America unless we decide to strike first then its not even Iran we have to worry about its terrorist cells. We have some of the best intelligence in the world. Use it, monitor them and protect OUR borders. That is what the military is for or is suppose to be for. Its not to police the world.

That is a very basic over view of my opinion on Iran from a Ron Paul supporter. So there you go LUconn. I would like to hear your view point