Epiphony

[AZXD]

Simply amazing that you attempt to use his words against him
What if I also believe most of those things and think they should be stopped ??

Please continue, your list is quite short, and those arguments are very old.
Perhaps you should search out his name and do a little reading before you waltz in here and rehash a bunch of stuff.

The NAFTA SSP etcetera stuff was linked up long before Ron Paul. As a matter of fact, I started the thread.
SSP, N. American Union, NAFTA, CAFTA, Social Security, Foreign Ports, Mexican Trucks

The UN ... Uh, tell everyone why we should stay tied to a disorganized group that wants contractual control over this country.

Iraq is it's own little world, start the millionth thread and we can discuss it.

The IRS and FR .... Explain something good they do.

All of this and many more items have been discussed at length, but if you want to rehash them .... Go ahead and start. Myself, I'll try to quote things from XDTALK's past threads.

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by Carnivorous

AZXD, I was pretty sure everyone was familiar with Ron Paul's campaign websites. In case you haven't read Ron Paul's own words on the subjects, here's the support:

I wrote: 1. He things the government is building a gigantic superhighway between Canada and Mexico

Ron Paul says: "By now many Texans have heard about the proposed “NAFTA Superhighway,” which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor. ... This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast. Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside."

From: The NAFTA Superhighway — Ron Paul 2008

I wrote: 2. He wants to immediately drop out of the UN

Ron Paul says: "The UN is perhaps the least democratic institution imaginable, but both Democrats and Republicans insist on using it to “promote democracy.” We should stop worrying about the UN and simply walk away from it by withdrawing our membership and our money."

From: Can the UN Really be Reformed? — Ron Paul 2008

I wrote: 3. He wants an immediate withdrawal from Iraq

Ron Paul says: "On my first day as commander-in-chief, I will direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our commanders on the ground to devise and execute a plan to immediately withdraw our troops in the safest manner possible."

From: Ron Paul 2008 Issues Iraq

I wrote: 4. He wants to get rid of the IRS and the Federal Reserve

Ron Paul says: "I have long been an advocate of ending the income tax and eliminating the IRS."

From: RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008 - News on Ron Paul 2008 Revolution

Ron Paul says: "By legalizing competing currencies, we can end the Federal Reserve’s stranglehold on our money supply and begin to restore value to the dollar."

From: Ron Paul 2008 Issues The Inflation Tax

I wrote: 5. He thinks the US is controlled by a shadowy alliance called the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America", which will abolish the constitution and merge the US, Canada, and Mexico

Ron Paul says: "The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” or SPP. ... The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union--complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether."

From: The NAFTA Superhighway — Ron Paul 2008

[jmichna]

Originally Posted by xds&chevys

I have an idea. buck the system. ... choose D.(RON PAUL) If enough people think its possible he will win. Really, how much damage can he do to our country after the last 8 years. ...

In 1992 I chose "option D" (Ross Perot), and that decision (by me and millions of like-minded disenchanted folks) resulted in the presidency of William Jefferson Clinton, elected by 43% of the voters.

Perot took 18.9% of the voters in 1992, the most by a Third Party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt, and his Bull Moose Party in 1912 (the elections that brought Woodrow Wilson into the White House).

In retrospect, if GHW Bush had won re-election, things would probably be very different today.

It will take a lot to convince me to vote a third party candidate again, even as a legitimate protest vote, unless I'm pretty certain doing so would NOT result in the greater of two evils getting elected.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by jmichna

In 1992 I chose "option D" (Ross Perot), and that decision (by me and millions of like-minded disenchanted folks) resulted in the presidency of William Jefferson Clinton, elected by 43% of the voters.

Perot took 18.9% of the voters in 1992, the most by a Third Party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt, and his Bull Moose Party in 1912 (the elections that brought Woodrow Wilson into the White House).

In retrospect, if GHW Bush had won re-election, things would probably be very different today.

It will take a lot to convince me to vote a third party candidate again, even as a legitimate protest vote, unless I'm pretty certain doing so would NOT result in the greater of two evils getting elected.

From your signature "Develop your character, for it becomes your destiny" and your destiny is the acceptance of a status quo. Are you truly happy with the way this country is being run ??

[Judge]

Keep in mind a vote for paul is a vote not only for surrender to AQ and having a loon in office, it is in actuality a vote for obama or hillary, who would be appointing the Judges and Supreme Court Judges for the next 4 years. Who's judges would you rather have ruling on Heller: Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas or Ginsburg, Beyer, Stevens... with kennedy as a toss, but who ultimately believes the UN Charter is a proper basis for making US rulings.

Less than a 10,000 vote margin gave the elections to Kennedy and Clinton....

So is an insignificant protest vote worth giving the election to obama?

[Judge]

How is voting for an idiot going to change that??

You've failed to make that causal link.

Did the votes for Perot change anything - other than giving clinton the victory??

Originally Posted by AZXD

From your signature "Develop your character, for it becomes your destiny" and your destiny is the acceptance of a status quo. Are you truly happy with the way this country is being run ??

[jmichna]

Originally Posted by AZXD

From your signature "Develop your character, for it becomes your destiny" and your destiny is the acceptance of a status quo. Are you truly happy with the way this country is being run ??

My signature refers to personal, not national, character and destiny. Although a non sequitor, you asked "am I truly happy with the way this country is run" and my answer is most certainly "no." I will no longer, however, risk getting the worse of two electable candidates elected, if my vote will make a difference. IMO, the time for the protest vote, when it might really make a difference, is during the primary process. Once that is concluded, voting often becomes damage control.

ETA: As Judge has indicated, the most lasting (and potentially dangerous) impact a president has, is who they appoint to the Supreme Court. I have no idea who a President McCain might appoint, but I have a great deal of fear that a President H. Clinton or a President Obama would appoint activist, "living Constitution" judges, which are NOT what I believe is in the best interest of this country. The Justices' sole duty is to interpret the Law, not to make the Law... that is the job of the Legislature.

[wombat13]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

Very well said and I can't agree more. BUT .... unless Paul gets a huge vote any message sent will be short lived. Inside the Beltway will quickly turn to business as usual once the "look at how many votes Paul got" oh's and ah's have died down. Purely opinion on my part but unless the guy gets greater than 15% of the popular vote I can't see his candidacy impacting much after a short period of time.

Ross Perot earned 19% of the vote in 1992 and what was the lasting impact? President Slick Willie and now Hillary's candidacy.

[wombat13]

Judge and Jmichna have hit the nail on the head. I've posted this before, but it deserves an encore.

SCOTUS Justices

John Paul Stevens, 88 y.o., Liberal
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75 y.o., Liberal
Antonin Scalia, 72 y.o., Conservative
Anthony Kennedy, 71 y.o., Liberal
Stephen Breyer, 69 y.o., Liberal
David Souter, 68 y.o., Liberal
Clarence Thomas, 59 y.o., Conservative
Samuel Alito, 58 y.o., Conservative
John Roberts, 53 y.o., Conservative

Note that the court still has a liberal majority despite W's two appointments, but three of the four Justices that are 70 y.o. or older are liberals. Stevens and Ginsburg are almost certain to retire during the term of the next President. If the next Pres serves two terms he/she will likely appoint at least 3 Justices. This next election will determine whether we have a Court that is hostile to RKBA for the next generation or whether we have one that is supportive.

Don't take your eye off the ball.

[Carnivorous]

AZXD, after I listed 5 things that Ron Paul stands for, you wrote:

Originally Posted by AZXD

As has already been shown, the accusations without proof quickly arrive.

To which I replied by citing exactly where Ron Paul has supported those things. You then said:

Originally Posted by AZXD

Simply amazing that you attempt to use his words against him

I really am confused by your direction here. We can agree to disagree on his platform, or duke it out on the interwebs, but here's the bottom line: you called me a liar, and I showed you the proof for my statements. Whether that's "using his words against him" or not, you were dead wrong in saying that my "accusations" lacked proof. Be honest about what your candidate believes or get off the soap box.

Originally Posted by AZXD

What if I also believe most of those things and think they should be stopped ?? ... Perhaps you should search out his name and do a little reading before you waltz in here and rehash a bunch of stuff.

If you agree with him then that's your business. I think it's insane to cut and run from Iraq but you're entitled to your own opinion. But don't throw out the "do a little reading line" when you're the one who doesn't even know what the man stands for. I recite the guy's platform, and you say I'm making an "unfounded accusation"? WTF?