Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3266
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:33 am
 


Sure, Ron Paul has a consistent ethic, and yes that's a good thing. It's just not a popular ethic, so all those people who disagree will vote against him. People can't imagine he might flip-flop in their favor, whereas people like Romney and Obama get moderate votes because they probably will.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8876
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:10 am
 


I'd say parts of his rhetoric are popular. His anti-government, anti-regulation bits are popular but his isolationist, "America shouldn't be dominating the world" rhetoric.

I tend to agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy but his economic ideas are (to me) an unholy amalgam of Ayn Rand and Adam Smith.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13847
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:48 am
 


xerxes wrote:
I'd say parts of his rhetoric are popular. His anti-government, anti-regulation bits are popular but his isolationist, "America shouldn't be dominating the world" rhetoric.

I tend to agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy but his economic ideas are (to me) an unholy amalgam of Ayn Rand and Adam Smith.


His bumbling non-answer when he was pegged at what should happen to an injured and uninsured person in emergency was also telling. "We're responsible for what we do" or words to that effect. When pressed, he wouldn't take the next step and say "service denied."


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
 Boston Bruins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 198
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:49 pm
 


Ron Paul is refreshing in the way that he actually says what he means, and unlike pretty much every other candidate isn't just saying what he thinks is most likely to get him elected.

That said, while I agree with some of his libertarian ideas, his economic policies are a little too radical, and wild shifts in economic policy are a little unnerving to consider.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3239
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:25 pm
 


Looking at the potential candidates so far, Obama's gonna slaughter them in a debate. Matter of fact looking at slacker's avatar, a 300 year old head in a jar of formaldehyde would slaughter any of 'em.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26877
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:28 pm
 


he won't even have to show up, present or do anything.....well maybe hold up a cut out of the moon and watch the Republican candidates bay at it.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3266
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:51 am
 


herbie wrote:
Obama's gonna slaughter them in a debate.
ShepherdsDog wrote:
he won't even have to show up
I fully expect Obama to win the election, but he'd be hard-pressed to win the debates. There are too many easy attacks on his effectiveness any critic can use; Obama took office with an unemployment rate of 7.8%, passed his big stimulus plan a month later, and unemployment has never been below 8.8% since; the United States is militarily active on more fronts in more countries than when the anti-war lobby voted him in; for all the criticisms of Bush's big deficit spending, the deficit grew more in 2.5 years of the Obama Administration than under 8 years of the Bush Administration.

Obama has a few easy points of his own -- "We passed health care!" and "We got Osama!" -- but they're a few chocolate chips in a dog crap pie, the former not necessarily the right thing to do and clearly underfunded while the latter is not necessarily the result of his actions or an effect of his election. A Republican challenger faces the same uphill battle as any challenger facing an incumbent in a wartime election, but it's Obama who faces the uphill battle of assembling debate rhetoric that makes his administration look like the string of important successes that it clearly isn't.


Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:32 pm
 


Ron’s a hoot, but Sarah Palin is even more fun. GW may have been the stupidest Pres ever but Bubble Gum Sarah could give him a run for his title.

Obama is plain boring. If you lack balls, at least have some humour? Bush had the goolies and was a laugh. Sarah puts me in stitches. She had me with her choice of newspapers for world news, “all of ‘em”. She should run on “Legally Cheerful”.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
 Boston Bruins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 198
PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:30 pm
 


herbie wrote:
Looking at the potential candidates so far, Obama's gonna slaughter them in a debate. Matter of fact looking at slacker's avatar, a 300 year old head in a jar of formaldehyde would slaughter any of 'em.

[B-o]

Although to be fair TJ was a terrible speaker by all accounts -- only had 2 during his entire 8 years in the White House (inauguration addresses I think both times).

Mind, he could write pretty well. :wink:


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Previous  1  2



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.