ron paul.

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Latest poll in Iowa shows Ron Paul the only GOP contender who would beat Obama in a head to head match up.

For those who hold the "Anybody But Obama" position and yet fear Ron Paul, especially on the foreign policy front, if the above poll numbers continue to hold up with the other GOP contenders while Paul continues to gain strength, you may find yourself in a real interesting dilemma.

Will you hold to the ideal of "ABO" and go with the best horse or will you stick with another GOP contender that the polls show is a loser head to head with Obama? Poor little redstaters!

:happy-very:
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
Latest poll in Iowa shows Ron Paul the only GOP contender who would beat Obama in a head to head match up.

For those who hold the "Anybody But Obama" position and yet fear Ron Paul, especially on the foreign policy front, if the above poll numbers continue to hold up with the other GOP contenders while Paul continues to gain strength, you may find yourself in a real interesting dilemma.

Will you hold to the ideal of "ABO" and go with the best horse or will you stick with another GOP contender that the polls show is a loser head to head with Obama? Poor little redstaters!

:happy-very:

I'm happy as an ABO along with the fact that I really like Ron Paul.
This would really be cool if it stands up through the other primaries.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
Latest poll in Iowa shows Ron Paul the only GOP contender who would beat Obama in a head to head match up.

For those who hold the "Anybody But Obama" position and yet fear Ron Paul, especially on the foreign policy front, if the above poll numbers continue to hold up with the other GOP contenders while Paul continues to gain strength, you may find yourself in a real interesting dilemma.

Will you hold to the ideal of "ABO" and go with the best horse or will you stick with another GOP contender that the polls show is a loser head to head with Obama? Poor little redstaters!

:happy-very:
I wonder how many people were polled?
 
IMO. the best thing about Paul is his consistency. I like many of his ideas and dislike some as well. However, I have found that any candidate that I agree with 100% is probably lying.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
IMO. the best thing about Paul is his consistency. I like many of his ideas and dislike some as well. However, I have found that any candidate that I agree with 100% is probably lying.

Or a nut case .. either way he/she would be unelectable. :funny:

jk
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
I've never found a candidate that I agree with 100%. If/when I do it will probably be a sign of the apocalypse.
 

JustTired

free at last.......
I can't wait to see that "one-episode" reality show I'll call the Donald Trump debate. I'm sure that will clear up the picture for the primary!!

In all honesty......after watching the side-show these people have been putting on......I've come to the conclusion that the only candidate that makes any sense and hasn't become a laughing stock is Huntsman. While I don't agree with some of his stances......he, at least, has been carrying himself as a level-headed and not too radical candidate. Therefore, I don't give him much of a chance.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
I can't wait to see that "one-episode" reality show I'll call the Donald Trump debate. I'm sure that will clear up the picture for the primary!!

In all honesty......after watching the side-show these people have been putting on......I've come to the conclusion that the only candidate that makes any sense and hasn't become a laughing stock is Huntsman. While I don't agree with some of his stances......he, at least, has been carrying himself as a level-headed and not too radical candidate. Therefore, I don't give him much of a chance.
Donald has a temper. Maybe he'll get mad and chew them all out.
 
The article calls it unlikely sources? I think that falls into the "whodathunkit" category.

What I'm having trouble with is if Paul was elected and indeed cuts the agencies he says, what are all the people going to do without jobs? I'm already on record for believing we have way too many public sector employees but they have to have somewhere to go.
 

804brown

Well-Known Member
The article calls it unlikely sources? I think that falls into the "whodathunkit" category.

What I'm having trouble with is if Paul was elected and indeed cuts the agencies he says, what are all the people going to do without jobs? I'm already on record for believing we have way too many public sector employees but they have to have somewhere to go.

I guess that is conservative economics: when the private sector will not or cannot hire, lets add to the problem by laying off hundreds of thousands of govt workers. Is this 2011 or 1931??
 

JustTired

free at last.......

while this seems to make sense.......you have to stop and think it through. While I agree that Govt. can be too big and can have their hands into things they probably shouldn't......you can't just shut it off.

Take roads and the infrastructure that goes with it (bridges, tunnels, etc.). If you turn it over to private ownership, where is the incentive to keep up with repairs? Does every road become a toll road? In this age of greed do the tolls keep going up to raise profit margins for the inevitable stockholders?

If you think that the only role for government to play is defense of the country....where does the money come from to outfit and keep a standing military if not by taxation? And to that point....why not just be a collection of 50 small countries? Each fending for themselves. No need for a federal government at all. Will see how long "liberty and justice for all" lasts under that scenario.

Those that want to see government reigned in and held accountable to those that elect them. Those that want to see the greed and fraud removed and dealt with.....hey, I'm with you. But, those that want government whittled down to nothing......well, they better be careful what they wish for!
 
Top