TexasCHLforum.com

KBCraig wrote:I'm proud to support a man who takes unpopular stands, especially when the Constitution is unpopular.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

So on one side of the issue you have 430 members of Congress, 98 senators, the president, and the entire SCOTUS.

On the other side you have - Ron Paul.

Yes, and it takes guts to look at a bill and say, I am all for the Amber Alert, but why are additional bills that have nothing to do with protecting kidnapped children being added to one that does? (Reeks of the regular political game, if I can't get something to legitimately pass on its own merit I'll just add it to a popular bill and see if I can sneak it in.) Some members of congress actually read the ENTIRE bill instead of the summary and KNOW what they are passing into law.

Now tell us something. With views that far out of the mainstream, (allowing for all of the millions of people who voted for all of the above senators, presidents, etc.), by what strategy does this guy intend to be elected president?

I'm not his campaign manager and I don't know Ron Paul personally. I would think that he would use the same strategy to get elected as president as he has used to win the congressional election for 10 terms. Apparently the voters of his congressional district don’t find him that far out of the mainstream.

I know he has great 2A views, but let's be realistic here. With all the money he's raised, he can't crack single digits. And if he wasn't anti-war, he wouldn't even be cracking low single digits, and he would have been lucky to have raised one tenth as much money.

He has cracked single digits more than once in the primaries. (From other posts you keep coming back to this point, its false, please keep track of the primary results.) Paul isn't anti-war, he's against the war in Iraq and has been from the start. What Paul is against is going to war without a formal declaration from congress. And wouldn’t you know, that just happens to be unconstitutional. (I feel another donation coming on.)

When the general election rolls around, anybody who doesn't vote Republican has only themselves to blame when the FCC wipes out free speech on TV and radio (via the so-called The Fairness Doctrine) and wipes out both the 1st and 2nd amendments to the constitution via a couple of SCOTUS appointments.

Sounds like fear-mongering to me. Does Bill O’Reilly send you fan mail?

The Left knows what it it is doing.

Do we?

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m still voting for Ron Paul.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

lawrnk wrote: In theory, I love Ron Paul.

In reality, he is frightening and unrealistic Mr. Magoo lookalike, and nothing more. He votes against a bill that helps kidnapped kids, since it is not "constitutional."

More accurately, because he doesn't think it's constitutional. (And let me add, the bill you refer to may or may not be AFAIK. I know nothing of it.) Like many "absolutists", he is convinced that his interpretation of the constitution is the only possible correct one. If others interpret the Commerce Clause differently, for instance, he is right and they are wrong (to him).

In his own way, he is a legislator who feels he has his own built in SCOTUS majority. While he fancies himself as some kind of constitutionalist, his view of the constitution is not the only one.