JB3: >Why are you so ready to give Ron Paul the excuses >that are not allowed for other politicians? Apparently you don't read well... I DID allow ALL candidates the "excuse" I allowed RP. As proof of the above, I repost my FIRST line of the post you quoted: >"Here's the problem with a list like the above (for any candidate, not just RP)" JB
I was not hard on him at all, I like and respect him and I was rather surprised that he of all people bought this honesty/integrity argument from unelectable candidates.
why not quote from 04 ??? i gave you the link. how odd... and fyi, at that time there was a lot of debate as to who the actual guilty party was. had anyone been charged yet? it was all speculation. i clearly said cheney and scooter... no gray area. the quote you used included Rove.. so what? there were a ton of people that disagreed with me... and in the end i was right. you seem desperate.
JB3: >Out of the 5 things I listed, only the last one, the vote >against welfare reform, could have been a package >that contained other things Ron Paul opposed to. Since you've made the above assertion, answer me this ... Why could not the other four have been packaged with things that RP was opposed to? Is there some law against it? JB
how odd that ZZzzz would be infatuated with RuPaul. he also finds Hillary attractive. things are starting to make sense now. ZZZzzzz likes to take a walk on the wild side?
so a politician has to be crazy to be honest... No, but it's easy to be honest when you're not running to win and just want to make a statement. Anyone can be honest when he/she has nothing to lose.
Because they were NOT packaged with things that RP was opposed to. Please RTFP! 1. He called for dismantling of environmental laws. Nobody packaged this for him. He called for it and it's nuts! 2. He voted against Rosa Parks medal. Again it was just one thing, no attachments and was passed with Ron Paul as the lone dissenter in the entire congress. 3. The border security measure was proposed by Republicans 4 separate times, at least twice as amendments to other bills. Voting no four times should give you a very clear idea where he stands on that issue. 4. The line item veto was a constitutional amendment. Again there was no packaging - it would be foolish for anyone to package porks in a constitutional amendment. Yet Ron Paul voted against it. (I can hear the reasoning, he didn't want to give the president more power.) Stop giving him excuses. He is a nut case.
The fact that he didn't mention Kucinich demonstrates the narrow mindedness of someone who claims to be open minded. So he is a conservative who supports RuPaul more than the other conservatives, again, what is the point? His personal endorsement is supposed to mean something? In addition, if people like Trudick truly don't think RuPaul is going to win, are they going short RuPaul futures? A so called "Libertarian" who opposes giving women certain rights, who thinks that 95% of black men in D.C. are criminals, who thinks that gays shouldn't have the right to marry is nothing but another right winger who hates the federal government, which of course he is a member of. A member who says we should have term limits, but will not apply that principle voluntarily to his own position in government. This being a trading forum, I find it somewhat telling that there is little talk of placing bets at tradesports for or against Paul...
I did find a photo explaining the source of your infatuation, which also explains your man love for Paul... <img src=http://www.marklevinfan.com/Images/RP_black.jpg>
do: >Hmm, if honesty and integrity are you only >criteria, why Ron Paul? I'm pretty sure I didn't say those were the *only* criteria, but they're high enough that I understand your point. Let's say that if there are multiple candidates who I believe aren't bullshitting me, my tiebreakers would be A: positions, B: 'percentage of vote' potential -- even in losing, I want my vote to have the biggest impact and that will be with the honest candidate who is the *most* electable (the biggest loser so to speak) >Kusinich says what he believes in, so does Mike Gravel, >so does Alan Keys. You're pretty close with these guys, but they still haven't impressed my the way RP has. >And it's just too easy to play the honesty card when >you have absolutely nothing to lose. I don't think RPs card would change if he were polling higher, but if it did I'd drop him like a hot potato. JB