Rep. Ron Paul Won't Seek Congressional Seat in 2012

[Rockntractor]

Far be it from me to be a pain in the ass, but I do have to ask a question because I am like Curious George and I see such animosity toward Ron Paul here (beyond the rejection of his zealots, which I can understand). I know where I specifically disagree with the man's positions, but would any of you be willing to expound on what part of his message specifically puts you off?

(Note: If this has been covered elsewhere in this context, I apologize, but I've not had the time to search it out, so please humor me if you will.)

Give me up to five points in which you find yourself at odds with the principles of Mr. Paul. These are mine:

1. This ain't 1776, 1886, or even 1996 at this point. You can not return to a time in the past, period. You can only steer ahead. We can learn from the past, fix certain mistakes of the past, but that's about it. To think or hope otherwise is pure folly.

2. Planes, trains, and automobiles. The founders had none of these. If Ben Franklin wanted to get laid in France he needed to set aside months on his calendar, not hours. Missiles are faster than planes. The Internet is faster than a missile. Oh, and we have satellites that Paul Revere would revere. It's a global world Mr. Paul. It's not the same one you were snipping umbilical cords in during the golden Goldwater days. Civil liberties are the property of a civil people and not all people are civil.

3. Our military "adventures" aren't "adventures" to the people in the military, they are a coupling of duty and a willingness to serve. I agree that Congress should play the pivotal role in engaging our armed forces (i.e. declaration of war vs a pathetic War Powers Act), but Congress hasn't done its job in decades, so who's surprised? It's a nasty world out there, Ron. We can stop "picking on it", but it will never stop "picking on" us.

4. The last guy to be elected on a dream is a greatly responsible for where we find ourselves today. He has actually employed some of your foreign policy ideas, albeit in a half-hearted and politically expedient way. Turning the other cheek only works if you don't mind being nailed to a cross.

Next?

Good job.

[txradioguy]

So, by your own words...he doesn't have much chance if he runs.. Even less of a chance of winning if he ran as libertarian.

To quote the movie "War Games"

"The only winning move is not to play."

I'm really glad to see your posts here again. :D

[newshutr]

I'm really glad to see your posts here again. :D

Thanks...good to be back..

[jnkbortka]

So, by your own words...he doesn't have much chance if he runs.. Even less of a chance of winning if he ran as libertarian.

To quote the movie "War Games"

"The only winning move is not to play."

yes i do, although it all depends on the SC and IA primaries. i still think it it possible although not probable.

[lacarnut]

yes i do, although it all depends on the SC and IA primaries. i still think it it possible although not probable.

Dr Nutz has zero chance. I doubt he could win the vacant Senate seat left by KBH because he comes across as a screwball.

[jnkbortka]

1. This ain't 1776, 1886, or even 1996 at this point. You can not return to a time in the past, period. You can only steer ahead. We can learn from the past, fix certain mistakes of the past, but that's about it. To think or hope otherwise is pure folly.

no question there...

2. Planes, trains, and automobiles. The founders had none of these. If Ben Franklin wanted to get laid in France he needed to set aside months on his calendar, not hours. Missiles are faster than planes. The Internet is faster than a missile. Oh, and we have satellites that Paul Revere would revere. It's a global world Mr. Paul. It's not the same one you were snipping umbilical cords in during the golden Goldwater days. Civil liberties are the property of a civil people and not all people are civil.

with this... i don't really know what you're getting at...

3. Our military "adventures" aren't "adventures" to the people in the military, they are a coupling of duty and a willingness to serve. I agree that Congress should play the pivotal role in engaging our armed forces (i.e. declaration of war vs a pathetic War Powers Act), but Congress hasn't done its job in decades, so who's surprised? It's a nasty world out there, Ron. We can stop "picking on it", but it will never stop "picking on" us.

4. The last guy to be elected on a dream is a greatly responsible for where we find ourselves today. He has actually employed some of your foreign policy ideas, albeit in a half-hearted and politically expedient way. Turning the other cheek only works if you don't mind being nailed to a cross.

Ron Paul is not in the same boat with that lying dumbass B.O. refer to bold letters. RP doesnt believe in turning the other cheek like that, he voted to hunt down Bin Laden, but he said, if i may quote his website, "Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home."

[Zathras]

with this... i don't really know what you're getting at...

Being an isolationist in todays modern world is a stupid idea.

[jnkbortka]

Being an isolationist in todays modern world is a stupid idea.

there's a difference between isolationism and neutrality

[djones520]

there's a difference between isolationism and neutrality

Not when you're the worlds largest economy.

[jnkbortka]

Not when you're the worlds largest economy.

Yes there is. Just because we wouldn't be fighting everyones wars doesn't mean we'd stop trade.