Ron Paul Withdrew from the Race, Right? , page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 8-7-2008 @ 02:52 PM by jasonjnelson
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


So is this thread a joke?

You are a Obama supporter, as you have stated on many threads. How you can possibly say that you were going to vote Ron Paul, but instead are now going to "pick the candidate who most closely aligns with my views". So how did you EVER arrive at Obama?

So it seems to me that you are merely trying to keep others from voting for him, while simultaneously making yourself out to be a conservative. (it helps your case as you promote Obama) "I'm conservative, but Obama is more aligned with my views than Mccain". Yeah, right.

I admit that I am writing in Ron Paul's name, but if California is up for grabs, I may throw my vote to Mccain. Anyone but Obama.

As for your question, he merely suspended his campaign, same as Hillary did. That means that they can Un-suspend it at any time as well.




[edit on 8-7-2008 by jasonjnelson]


reply posted on 8-7-2008 @ 03:23 PM by xmotex
Because Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative.

"Conservative" has come to mean a right wing authoritarian, whatever the original meaning. One who uses the force of the state to expand it's powers domestically and overseas. George Bush is a perfect example, having presided over a huge expansion of government power at home and an aggressively militaristic foreign policy overseas.

At one time "conservative" indicated an interest in limiting the size of government, but the political definition of "conservative" has drifted over the years, just like the definition of the term "liberal", which originally referred to (guess what?) - limited government power over individuals

But conservatism is no longer a philosophy of limited government. It has become a philosophy of state-enforced social traditionalism, military imperialism, and police state policies at home.

Ron Paul, as I pointed out earlier, promised less authoritarianism at home, and less interventionism overseas - these were the issues important to me.

Now that he stands no chance of winning, and is not in fact pursuing the office, I'll go for the candidate that offers less authoritarianism at home, and less interventionism overseas - and between Obama and McCain, judged by that standard, Obama is clearly the better candidate.

To hell with ideological purity - conservative, liberal, libertarian - all ideologies limit your perspective, all are labels whose meanings change over time.

I'll vote for the candidate that I think will do the best job, not the one who "fits my ideological label" best



reply posted on 8-7-2008 @ 03:28 PM by Benevolent Heretic
Great Post xmotex!

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
So is this thread a joke?


Uh... No.


How you can possibly say that you were going to vote Ron Paul, but instead are now going to "pick the candidate who most closely aligns with my views".


How can I say that? I can say that because it's the truth. I'm not sure I understand the question. There are plenty of older posts of mine that show that I was supporting Ron Paul if you don't believe me. Here are just a couple:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


So how did you EVER arrive at Obama?


I'm not going to go over all this again. I have said in MANY posts why I'm voting for Obama.


So it seems to me that you are merely trying to keep others from voting for him, while simultaneously making yourself out to be a conservative.


A. I'm not trying to keep others from voting for anyone! LOL I have NO way of keeping people from voting. I have stated the purpose of this thread.

B. I have never "made myself out to be a conservative". I have beliefs that go from one "extreme" to the other. I'm pro-choice and I support the 2nd amendment. I believe gays should be allowed to marry and I think illegal immigrants should all go HOME. Conservative or Liberal? I am neither and I am both. Deal with it.


As for your question, he merely suspended his campaign, same as Hillary did. That means that they can Un-suspend it at any time as well.


That's not what his website says. And I have found no indication that that's true. See, that's why I started this thread, because while I support Obama right now, if Ron Paul was still running, and promised to pull out of Iraq, I might still vote for him. But if he's NOT RUNNING, I won't.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]


reply posted on 8-7-2008 @ 03:32 PM by Blueracer
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You're correct. I would have voted for Ron Paul but since he took himself out of the race, it would be a wasted vote.

Therefore I shall vote for Bob Barr instead.


reply posted on 8-7-2008 @ 04:05 PM by xmotex
But it's now a campaign to reform the Republican Party and American politics, not a campaign for the office of President.

According to who?

According to Ron Paul, that's who.

More power to him I say, the GOP and American politics are in dire need of reform.

But he's no longer campaigning for the Presidency.


reply posted on 8-7-2008 @ 04:41 PM by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by titorite


I know he has redirected his efforts to this Revolution, and I support that 100%! And I agree with everything he has to say as regards the fact that we need a serious re-vamp of this governmental system. I support him! We need to take our country back. That's why I was going to vote for him (for president).

Seeing as how he's now organizing a revolution instead, I totally support him in that! I'm just not sure how much effect he's going to have on things unless he's in the big chair.

And the truth of the matter is, he scares the current political machine's pants right off! And since the political machine has the control right now (not how it was intended to be) it is my opinion that it doesn't matter if everyone in the country wrote in Ron Paul's name. He STILL would not be "given" the presidency.

So people "march" and sing songs and hear speakers on July 12. Then everyone goes home. Then what? What is the desired result?

Here's the thing. Alex Jones said it perfectly in the beginning of that video - people who have organized need marching orders. Ron Paul needs to understand that HE IS THE LEADER - he needs to give some orders because an army that doesn't fight, falls apart.

I thought if Paul kept in the race and kept campaigning and kept his movement alive, by November, he may have had QUITE a following. If forty million people voted for Ron Paul, and Obama and McCain came in at 35 and 20 million, and the presidency was handed to Obama, there would be REASON and JUSTIFICATION for a widespread revolution.

I know Paul's idea of rEVOLution involves LOVE, but love is not going to bring Karl Rove and Dick Cheney to justice. It's not going to put this country back in the hands of the people where it belongs.

If 15,000 people show up on DC this weekend and sing and march, we'll probably never hear about it on the news. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure it's going to make any difference at all.

I HOPE it does.

Convince me to vote for Ron Paul. Why should I vote for him when he's not running? Why should I vote for him when he will not be permitted to take the office, even if he wins? The last 2 elections were fixed. Why should I believe that this one is going to be all fair?


reply posted on 8-7-2008 @ 05:03 PM by jasonjnelson
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Okay, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I enjoyed your postings up until you began to shill for Obama.

What you need to realize, is that your efforts are wasted on your present track. It is not about Ron Paul becoming president, but about recognizing the need for, and the power of, a new grass roots party.

Start to take the seats of congress, and a voice will be heard. Giving up because the mainstream won't acknowledge him, and admitting that you won't be able to trumpet the fact that your opponent won, is a sad ending to your democratic process.

# the presidential race. Let's take this one seat at a time. Only those who lament the last echoes of a once loud and clear voice, will be responsible for that echo dying.


reply posted on 8-7-2008 @ 05:24 PM by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by jasonjnelson
It is not about Ron Paul becoming president, but about recognizing the need for, and the power of, a new grass roots party.


I recognize that need! I have for the past 8 years. What you need to realize is that your assumptions about me are incorrect. If Paul wants a grassroots party, then he needs to name it. Start it. Fight for it. I will join in that fight. But I will not waste my one vote on a man who is not running for president.

If he's not withdrawn from the presidential race, if he's on the ballot, I will vote for him. No doubt. But if he has quit before the race begins (and I have heard people here say he hasn't quit, but I haven't heard it from him) I won't waste my vote on him.

Of the 2 people running for president (since this is in the election forum) I think Obama is CLOSER to what we need than McCain. The GOP is what got us to where we are. My "shilling" is just to make sure that people know that this Muslim, Kenya, Birth certificate crap are NOT reasons to vote against Obama.

Giving up because the mainstream won't acknowledge him, and admitting that you won't be able to trumpet the fact that your opponent won, is a sad ending to your democratic process.


There you go with your asinine assumptions. I have given up nothing. Paul gave up. And trumpeting about the winner is so totally NOT what I'm about. Your assumptions make me sick.


# the presidential race.


It's going to happen, whether I participate in it or not. And BY my participation, I am exercising my Constitutional right.


[edit on 8-7-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]


reply posted on 8-7-2008 @ 05:40 PM by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by lunchmanstan
If you bother to learn his values and commitment to this country and individual freedoms you will support him too.


Who are you talking to? If it's me, I have KNOWN Paul's platform for several years, now. Here's a post from 2005 where I was talking about Paul.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Give a listen to my PODcast on that page. You talk to me as if I'm some kind of naive Obama-lover. I could spit on the people who are assuming this crap.


Think for yourself dont let the Media decide... I only posted so the uninformed can seek the truth.


Give me a freaking break!


reply posted on 8-7-2008 @ 06:03 PM by lunchmanstan
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


sorry I was trying to talk to everyone. not accusing you or anyone of anything. Peace



reply posted on 8-7-2008 @ 06:31 PM by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by lunchmanstan


No problem. I just didn't know if you were talking o me specifically or not. I agree with most of what you say, but could REALLY do without the condescension.

I have heard my fill of assumptions about me as an Obama supporter. People who know absolutely nothing about me telling me what my motives are, what I'm thinking, what I'm trying to do and what I want. And I'm about done with it.

Sorry about the spit remark.


reply posted on 8-7-2008 @ 07:38 PM by jasonjnelson
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Asinine? It was a collective "you" that I was referring to.

Hmmm, I try to give you some slack, and you insult me. Nice move.

And again, debunking Obama myths is one thing, but saying that you support all of Ron Pauls Ideas, but take Obama since our man is off the ballot?

I think that you have picked one or two issues, while ignoring the longer term ones. Mccain never said he wante dto have a war in Iraq for the next hundred years, or anything else that the Obamanites have accused him of.

It's all propaganda, but you seem to think me misinformed.

I know that many here focus on the crappy parts of politics, but I would assume that someone who has the gall to call someone else asinine would also take the time to look at real issues. Like how in the heck we are supposed to pay for the billions in programs that he suggests. Or the fact that he now supports faith based programs, (something that Bush got pounded for for many years) or that he now has changed his mind about Iraq. Yes, I actually know the facts.

Just because certain other members on this site are clearly partisan does not make it so about me.

You want Asinine? Check your boy Andrew E Wiggin, and then check my sig.

Seems to me that you are just full of it when you talk about anything having to do with Ron Paul. Choosing an entirely Liberal course of action does not make me think of Ron paul, it makes me think of the man for whom you shill.

Or should I choose a better insult, as you have decided me worthy of just that?


reply posted on 8-7-2008 @ 07:58 PM by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by jasonjnelson
It was a collective "you" that I was referring to.


There was a "Reply to Benevolent Heretic" at the top of your post. It seemed very much that you were talking to me.


And again, debunking Obama myths is one thing, but saying that you support all of Ron Pauls Ideas, but take Obama since our man is off the ballot?


I have never said that I support (or agree with) ALL of Ron Paul's ideas. I do not.


I think that you have picked one or two issues, while ignoring the longer term ones. Mccain never said he wante dto have a war in Iraq for the next hundred years, or anything else that the Obamanites have accused him of.


I know that. I have never accused him of that.

And I will be the first to admit that I'm putting a lot of weight on one issue. Getting out of Iraq. That one issue carries more weight for me than just about all the others put together.


It's all propaganda, but you seem to think me misinformed.


I'm not the one making assumptions about your beliefs or opinions. I never even implied that you are misinformed.

Like how in the heck we are supposed to pay for the billions in programs that he suggests.


We're spending $5000 per second in the Middle East.


Or the fact that he now supports faith based programs, (something that Bush got pounded for for many years)


Obama was supporting faith-based programs before he went into politics. He was working with churches to help the needy. I don't have a problem with that.


or that he now has changed his mind about Iraq. Yes, I actually know the facts.


If you think he has changed his mind about Iraq, you apparently do NOT know the facts.


Just because certain other members on this site are clearly partisan does not make it so about me.


And I never suggested such. I would like to remind you that the same is true for me. I have never registered with a political party.


Or should I choose a better insult, as you have decided me worthy of just that?


Look, I'm just asking you to stop assuming things about me and ask. I didn't say you were asinine. I said I'm tired of the asinine assumptions. And they are. And you're still doing it. In this one post, you have assumed that I support ALL of Ron Paul's ideas, that I have ragged on McCain for his "100 years" comment, that I think you are misinformed and that I have a problem with faith-based programs... You don't know me and can't really assume these things about me.

Unless of course, this post wasn't directed at me, either...

Edit: And I see you've made an assumption about another member and written about it in your signature. See? That I cannot abide by. You get no respect from me, man. Sorry.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]


reply posted on 8-7-2008 @ 08:07 PM by justamomma
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I just have a quick question w/ no hidden agenda behind it. I will take you at your word that you have none either.

If it were clear that Ron Paul was running and would accept the office, would you be voting and pushing for him? just curious
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^