|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kingplaya4
Joined: 14 May 2006
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:50 pm Post subject: Ron Paul- anti- establishment candidate for President |
 |
|
I never thought I'd consider voting for a Republican, but this guy has piqued my interest. He's a strict constitutionalist who is the only Republican candidate to have voted against the Iraq War. In fact, he often breaks with his Republican colleagues on bills he believes do not square with the Constitution. I'm not sure I agree with everything he stands for, but he seems to be a candidate that I can be pretty sure isn't in the pocket of the corporations.
Here is some information about him for those that are interested, yes its fox news, but it squares with everything else I've read about him, and puts his views fairly succinctly.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252847,00.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NPR Reports wrote: |
As the Republican Party prepares for another presidential debate tonight in New Hampshire, the GOP candidate drawing much of the attention online is Texas Rep. Ron Paul. Put his name into the blog search engines at Technorati or Google, or look for him on Facebook, and you'll find hundreds of mentions, as well as blogs devoted to his every utterance and appearance.
But realistically, what are his chances to get the Republican nomination? Based on the history of similar candidates, not all that good. Colin Delany at techPresident explains why Paul is an "online natural, but doomed candidate."
According to Delany, Paul is popular online because:
The Web loves libertarians. [my emphasis]
The other candidates are a disappointment.
A pre-existing base of support. (techPresident calls Paul's service in Congress and his 1988 run for president as a Libertarian his secret weapon.)
The Web loves a purist. [my emphasis]
But Delany says that like other one-time "hot" candidates such as Howard Dean and Ralph Nader, Paul will not be president. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject: Re: Ron Paul- anti- establishment candidate for President |
|
|
| kingplaya4 wrote: |
I never thought I'd consider voting for a Republican, but this guy has piqued my interest. He's a strict constitutionalist who is the only Republican candidate to have voted against the Iraq War. In fact, he often breaks with his Republican colleagues on bills he believes do not square with the Constitution. I'm not sure I agree with everything he stands for, but he seems to be a candidate that I can be pretty sure isn't in the pocket of the corporations.
Here is some information about him for those that are interested, yes its fox news, but it squares with everything else I've read about him, and puts his views fairly succinctly.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252847,00.html |
Ron Paul voted against every bill supporting alternative energy.
Shame on Ron Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Masta_Don
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Hyehwa-dong, Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:27 pm Post subject: Re: Ron Paul- anti- establishment candidate for President |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| kingplaya4 wrote: |
I never thought I'd consider voting for a Republican, but this guy has piqued my interest. He's a strict constitutionalist who is the only Republican candidate to have voted against the Iraq War. In fact, he often breaks with his Republican colleagues on bills he believes do not square with the Constitution. I'm not sure I agree with everything he stands for, but he seems to be a candidate that I can be pretty sure isn't in the pocket of the corporations.
Here is some information about him for those that are interested, yes its fox news, but it squares with everything else I've read about him, and puts his views fairly succinctly.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252847,00.html |
Ron Paul voted against every bill supporting alternative energy.
Shame on Ron Paul |
Why do you keep spreading this disinformation? Or least tainting his message?
He isn't against alternative energy, but he believes that it should be up to the private sector to decide to use it or not. It shouldn't be government's deal to intervene and force people one way or the other. Strangely enough that's his stance on everything yet you keep harping on alternative energy bills like it's different from the rest of his platform.
Besides, what's Guiliani going to do about alternative energy? Fear mongering doesn't work so well in that regard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:25 am Post subject: Re: Ron Paul- anti- establishment candidate for President |
|
|
| Quote: |
Why do you keep spreading this disinformation? Or least tainting his message? |
Fact is he voted against every bill
| Quote: |
He isn't against alternative energy, but he believes that it should be up to the private sector to decide to use it or not. It shouldn't be government's deal to intervene and force people one way or the other. Strangely enough that's his stance on everything yet you keep harping on alternative energy bills like it's different from the rest of his platform. |
He voted against it every . That is a fact
It is the governments job to intervene when it is in the strategic interest.
No government intervention no mass transit , no internet and no GPS.
Right now the US is at war with a bunch of Klansman from the mideast and one of the things the US can do is to cut off the cash to them.
There is a threat to US national security but Ron Paul cares about his ideology not US national security
Besides, what's Guiliani going to do about alternative energy? Fear mongering doesn't work so well in that regard.[/quote]
He will invest in it far more than Ron Paul.
The US was attacked on 9-11 no fear mongering needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:27 am Post subject: Re: Ron Paul- anti- establishment candidate for President |
|
|
| Masta_Don wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| kingplaya4 wrote: |
I never thought I'd consider voting for a Republican, but this guy has piqued my interest. He's a strict constitutionalist who is the only Republican candidate to have voted against the Iraq War. In fact, he often breaks with his Republican colleagues on bills he believes do not square with the Constitution. I'm not sure I agree with everything he stands for, but he seems to be a candidate that I can be pretty sure isn't in the pocket of the corporations.
Here is some information about him for those that are interested, yes its fox news, but it squares with everything else I've read about him, and puts his views fairly succinctly.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252847,00.html |
Ron Paul voted against every bill supporting alternative energy.
Shame on Ron Paul |
Why do you keep spreading this disinformation? Or least tainting his message?
He isn't against alternative energy, but he believes that it should be up to the private sector to decide to use it or not. It shouldn't be government's deal to intervene and force people one way or the other. Strangely enough that's his stance on everything yet you keep harping on alternative energy bills like it's different from the rest of his platform.
Besides, what's Guiliani going to do about alternative energy? Fear mongering doesn't work so well in that regard. |
Here is the record:
| Quote: |
Congressman Ron Paul (R - TX)
Ron Paul has the least favorable position on alternative energy. He believes the American economy will continue to depend on oil in the foreseeable future. He is putting alternative energy on the back burner, and instead focusing on increasing the number of domestic refineries. Just recently, he voted Yes for the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act.
Paul has opposed every bill supporting alternative energy investment:
� Voted NO for the Clean Energy Act of 2007 - To reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewable Reserve to invest in alternative energy (01/18/2007)
� Voted NO for the Energy Policy Act of 2005 � To develop an energy policy that addresses tax incentives, conservation strategies, regulatory standards, research and development programs, energy efficiency, and alternative sources of energy (07/28/2005)
� Voted NO for the Energy Omnibus bill - To enhance energy conservation and research and development, to provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for the American people (06/15/2004)
� Voted NO for the Securing America's Future Energy [SAFE] Act of 2001 - To enhance energy conservation, research and development and to provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for the American people (08/02/2001)
The problem is that Ron Paul has a tendency to vote against proposals for government spending, initiatives, and/or taxes. Could any progress be made in the alternative energy field without any of the three?
It would be extremely difficult for such a candidate to lead us towards energy independence if he is unwilling to invest in a cleaner future.
Anyone disagree? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:25 am Post subject: Re: Ron Paul- anti- establishment candidate for President |
|
|
| kingplaya4 wrote: |
I never thought I'd consider voting for a Republican, but this guy has piqued my interest. He's a strict constitutionalist who is the only Republican candidate to have voted against the Iraq War. In fact, he often breaks with his Republican colleagues on bills he believes do not square with the Constitution. I'm not sure I agree with everything he stands for, but he seems to be a candidate that I can be pretty sure isn't in the pocket of the corporations.
Here is some information about him for those that are interested, yes its fox news, but it squares with everything else I've read about him, and puts his views fairly succinctly.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252847,00.html |
I've been equally impressed by him. Again, not by everything he stands for, but I like his integrity, honestly, and I particularly like his views on foreign policy.
Another very appealing factor is the 'states should decide' their own social issues. Its tiring watching states slug it out nationally over gay rights, abortion rights, gun rights.. just let each state decide based on their own constituency.
I much prefer the federal government take on a MUCH MORE limited role.. and particularly a much more limited role on the WORLD stage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
| ...the 'states should decide' their own social issues. Its tiring watching states slug it out nationally over gay rights, abortion rights, gun rights[...]just let each state decide based on their own constituency. |
Are you aware that this means reversing, among other things, Roe vs. Wade? Not to mention federally-mandated background-checks re: gun purchases and all the federal-govt-sponsored Civil-Rights gains that we have won since the Civil War and again since the 1960s?
Are you insane? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kingplaya4
Joined: 14 May 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No one said he was perfect, but he looks to be the best out there. And everyone deciding over a year before the general election that he's got no chance of winning will become a self fulfilling prophesy. Its a little different than voting for Nader when you know the day before the election his support is in the low single digits. Give the guy a chance before bailing on him... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kingplaya4
Joined: 14 May 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Btw, I'm tired of people voting based on issues like abortion and gay marriage. Personally, I could give a damn. I'm no fundamentalist Christian, but if they overturn Roe vs Wade, I don't think its any tragedy if a woman can't kill her unborn child for the sake of her own convenience, which is usually the reason, the mothers health and children of rape are rare ocurrences and probably could be exceptions anyway.
As for gays, the fact that at best 5% of our population is in effect deciding elections really ticks me off. Probably not the average gay man's fault, but its still very irritating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:04 am Post subject: Re: Ron Paul- anti- establishment candidate for President |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
| kingplaya4 wrote: |
I never thought I'd consider voting for a Republican, but this guy has piqued my interest. He's a strict constitutionalist who is the only Republican candidate to have voted against the Iraq War. In fact, he often breaks with his Republican colleagues on bills he believes do not square with the Constitution. I'm not sure I agree with everything he stands for, but he seems to be a candidate that I can be pretty sure isn't in the pocket of the corporations.
Here is some information about him for those that are interested, yes its fox news, but it squares with everything else I've read about him, and puts his views fairly succinctly.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252847,00.html |
I've been equally impressed by him. Again, not by everything he stands for, but I like his integrity, honestly, and I particularly like his views on foreign policy.
Another very appealing factor is the 'states should decide' their own social issues. Its tiring watching states slug it out nationally over gay rights, abortion rights, gun rights.. just let each state decide based on their own constituency.
I much prefer the federal government take on a MUCH MORE limited role.. and particularly a much more limited role on the WORLD stage. |
Welcome to the debate.
Rep Paul thanks for coming here tonight.
First question: Does Al Qaeda fight for the Caliphate?
Rep Paul : ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
| ...the 'states should decide' their own social issues. Its tiring watching states slug it out nationally over gay rights, abortion rights, gun rights[...]just let each state decide based on their own constituency. |
Are you aware that this means reversing, among other things, Roe vs. Wade? Not to mention federally-mandated background-checks re: gun purchases and all the federal-govt-sponsored Civil-Rights gains that we have won since the Civil War and again since the 1960s?
Are you insane? |
Didn't realize you were against Republican agenda!
Watch out.. its a slippery slope.. soon you'll be questioning if throwing as much $ and as many troops as possible towards one city - Baghdad - is indeed the most effective way to fight a worldwide 'war on terror'! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poor Joo. Everyone knows, including Bin Laden and other top leaders of Al Qaeda, that Al Qaeda only uses "the Caliphate" for propaganda. It is not and has never been a serious interest or goal of the group.
Joo has a handful of mantras that he repeats so often that he has brainwashed himself into believing them. It's as if all knowledge of the universe has been removed from his brain except his three mantras.
... blah, blah... they should give up their war
.... blah, blah... the caliphate
.... blah, blah...alternative energy
My uncle has a parrot that can repeat more sentences than Joo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
Didn't realize you were against [the] Republican agenda!
Watch out[...]its a slippery slope[...]soon you'll be questioning if throwing as much $ and as many troops as possible towards one city [--] Baghdad [--] is indeed the most effective way to fight a worldwide "war on terror!" |
This fails to respond to my objection.
Last edited by Gopher on Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:37 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
Tiger Beer wrote:
...the 'states should decide' their own social issues. Its tiring watching states slug it out nationally over gay rights, abortion rights, gun rights[...]just let each state decide based on their own constituency.
Are you aware that this means reversing, among other things, Roe vs. Wade? Not to mention federally-mandated background-checks re: gun purchases and all the federal-govt-sponsored Civil-Rights gains that we have won since the Civil War and again since the 1960s?
Are you insane? |
It would also mean, Mr. Dispassionate Historian, preventing a national overturning of Roe v. Wade and ensure that one could go to a different state and get the medical treatment one deserves as opposed to another "further left" country where one doesn't have religious zealots projecting their world view on the state, Mr. Nuanced Position.
| Quote: |
| By all means, go back to cheerleading Ron Paul and praying that he might win and turn back the clock to the 1790s... |
And, by all means, what century are you coming out of with your "nuanced" position on torture?
| Quote: |
| But I never voted for W. Bush and I never supported the Iraqi War. |
Who did you vote for in 2006? Change or a continuation of Republican control ?
You accuse Tiger Beer of being a de facto Blum supporter, but what are you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
