dross on Ron Paul

[steveh_131]

And that's why you'll forever be on the political margin.

What's the difference between a child about to die in a burning house and a child about to starve?

Are you in favor of food stamps?

If there's a kid about to burn, go save him yourself. I much prefer that option than forcing everyone else to do it.

ETA: I contribute to my church food pantry and to the needy in general as much as I can. I'm not advocating that we let people die. I'm advocating that we take responsibility ourselves to help people, not delegate it to everyone around us.

 

[CarmelHP]

What's the difference between a child about to die in a burning house and a child about to starve?

Are you in favor of food stamps?

If there's a kid about to burn, go save him yourself. I much prefer that option than forcing everyone else to do it.

ETA: I contribute to my church food pantry and to the needy in general as much as I can. I'm not advocating that we let people die. I'm advocating that we take responsibility ourselves to help people, not delegate it to everyone around us.

The difference is one of immediacy, for one thing, but that's irrelevant to your political marginalization and has nothing to do with my observation.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

The thing I like most about Ron Paul is he wants us to mind our own business and concentrate on our own ****. We have plenty of it over here, we dont need to worry about what is going on 16hrs away by plane.

We as a country need to be accountable, I am not sure I agree about letting a kid die in a fire, I see the value in having a fire department, but I also think its better to take care of our own people than try to take care of others who would probably rather us leave them alone anyway.

 

[Pocketman]

Neither should the government force me to pay for saving children burning in a fire in the house down the street.

While I get the point, this may not be the best analogy. Fire protection is delegated to the townships, where voters still have a little influence. Some have good fire protection, while others only minimal. Regardless, the way it is suppose to work, is we each pay the government to protect our life and property. If an irresponsible neighbor torches his property, I'd like it stopped before it gets to mine.

 

[steveh_131]

The difference is one of immediacy, for one thing, but that's irrelevant to your political marginalization and has nothing to do with my observation.

Fair enough.

 

[steveh_131]

While I get the point, this may not be the best analogy. Fire protection is delegated to the townships, where voters still have a little influence. Some have good fire protection, while others only minimal. Regardless, the way it is suppose to work, is we each pay the government to protect our life and property. If an irresponsible neighbor torches his property, I'd like it stopped before it gets to mine.

This is a good point.

 

[88GT]

88GT, as far as thinking RP is the only one that can move us in the "right" direction...as far as everything I've heard so far and from doing some research, I haven't seen too much from the other candidates that would make me feel better about the future. If we see things differently, that is fine with me. If you can, please point me in a direction that may make me see things from the other GOP candidates that shows they're overly concerned with liberty. I've went into the debates and plenty of reading (blogs, AP articles, news articles from all various slants) and I'm just not seeing it. If you can point me somewhere, I'll do the reading with an open mind.

I should be more clear. I think Paul is the only candidate of the current bunch running that will actually do what he says. But I think all of the candidates have it in them to be conservative and Constitutionally sound. The difference is motivation. Paul does it because he respects the Constitution and the intent of the framers and the fact that we have the best damn political system on earth (no matter how much the naysayers on here ***** about it), and he wants to preserve it in the condition it was created.

Romney and Newt could all just as easily walk the same path, but their motivation is inherently more selfish. Bachman, Johnson, Santorum, et al probably fall somewhere in the middle.

So in that regard, Paul is the best candidate. While I don't see Newt or Romney ever being as good as Paul, I do see them being better than Obama. And we have to slow down and stop our current direction before we can turn it around. I am perfectly happy to settle for a candidate that's only going to slow us down (as opposed to Paul doing everything he can to turn us around as well) if he actually has a chance of being elected, than spending all my political capital on the perfect candidate that isn't likely to be elected.

It seems that people aren't understanding that. My not throwing my unconditional support to Paul doesn't mean I think somebody else is a better candidate. It means that I think someone else has a better chance of actually doing something. Paul could be perfect but if he isn't in the WH none of it matters.

 

[88GT]

Well...that's pretty much standard human nature. I think I'm right in my values and therefore yours must be wrong. It's really nothing personal, at least not to me.

Well, I must not be human then because on issues like this, I don't think you're wrong. And certainly not because I think I'm right. So how do you explain your constant attitude towards me now? And even if it were true, do you really think that "it's human nature" is sufficient justification for the way Paul supporters repeatedly attack people for not licking Paul's boots?

I do understand where you're coming from on it. But keep in mind that a lot of people see the GOP frontrunners to be just as dangerous as Obama. That comes down to values as well.

No, I don't think you do. Or you ignore it and pretend that you don't.

We can still respect each others' values, though. Even when we disagree.

Great. When are you going to start?

 

[steveh_131]

Great. When are you going to start?

I thought I was.

 

[steveh_131]

Well, I must not be human then because on issues like this, I don't think you're wrong. And certainly not because I think I'm right. So how do you explain your constant attitude towards me now?

Well then I'll admit it. I value different things than you and therefore I think yours are wrong. Some of mine are probably wrong too. That's why we argue about them. We can't all be right.

What constant attitude are you talking about, anyways? I'll vote for Ron Paul, and I've explained why. I get that you may be more interested in his electability and chances of beating Obama than in his actual policies. Fair enough. I still think you're valuing the wrong things, but I do understand it.