Quote:
Quote by: Clarence  there need not be specific answers because he hasn't promised to tear these beuracracies down. He's only suggested that these agencies are unconstutional when prompted. |
Semantics. Paul wants those intel agencies--and anything he deems "unconstitutional"--replaced with something. What? If he breaks double digits and really does threaten to take one or more of the Republican primaries, he'll have to answer questions like that with something close to specifics.
Quote:
Quote by: Clarence please. Tactic noted. When you join the upcoming clinton debate you're effectively neutralized before it starts. |
Neutralized from what?
Quote:
Quote by: Clarence because he's the man that makes it tough for the democrips. You and others are splitting hairs over issues and taking aim. It's plain to see. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just plain to see. |
I don't see any Democrats struggling over Ron Paul. Some of us agree with his stance on the war, the Patriot Act, and some other issues. But worry? About what?
Quote:
Quote by: Clarence It would seem you would want him to be the republican candidate so if you lose you're not faced with Rudy McRomney. |
Not really. I enjoy watching Paul make things interesting during the Republican debates. I respect Paul for his courage and willingness to articulate unpopular policies in his political party. I wish Mike Gravel had a fraction of Paul's genius with clear words and ideas. But desiring Ron Paul for the Republican nomination? I have no doubt that he would lose to Hillary, Obama, or Edwards after the Republican base deserts his candidacy in droves. But that's unprovable speculation and sheer fantasy. Rudy or Romney will win the Republican race as things stand now and I don't think they'll win the general election either. Even Hillary with her high negatives does well in head-to-head matchups with both men.