Ron Paul Wins Presidential Straw Poll at CPAC

reply to post by Aggie Man


I never suggested the pemsion plan was the rationale behind term limits. It was an "and he also" statement.

I read the info about term limits in the link you provided and Paul definitely reasserts the same position with Russert as he did back in '97. I'd have to go back and see what the votes on term limits were for. Paul espouses voluntary term limits at the present. I like this statement in the link you provided:

REP. PAUL: But voluntary term limits is a lot different than compulsory term limits. It's good to have a turnover, but that isn't the solution either. It's the philosophy of government that counts. It's only...

MR. RUSSERT: But if you believe in the philosophy of term limits, why wouldn't you voluntarily...

REP. PAUL: Well, it's, it's one of those, it's one of those things that's not on--I mean, you don't see that out I'm campaigning on that. I mean, I don't think it's--I don't think it's the solution. Philosophy is the solution. What the role of government ought to be, so if you have a turnover and the same people come in and they believe in big government, nothing good is going to come of it.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


I suppose it's a matter of perspective. TO ME, it's nothing more than political doublespeak. You are entitled to view it any way you want, but I would dare to speculate that you are biased towards RP...

reply to post by Aggie Man


Whatever. I'm not on here to change your mind. I don't like having my words taken out of context. I think Paul is unelectable but has ideas worth voting for. Fact is, his ideas SHOULD be the ideas of the Republican party.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


You make a good point.

He is "unelectable" as current media portrays him in most light.

Whether you agree with the media or not it really doesn't matter because your neighbor is most likely brainwashed.

Ron Paul is not only electable, he will become our next President. He will be allowed to dismantle the executive branch back to a more limited role the framers of the constitution had in mind.
I say, ALLOWED.
He will insist upon the balance of powers, but will have no real influence on the sitting supreme court or the congress.
Those will remain corporate controlled, but the president will be the lead complainer for the people.
What better way to deflate populism, than to give a president what he wants, less power.
If the people continue to exercise their clout even after congress turns over in midterms, by staying actively engaged in government, real change could happen. The powers that be are not banking on that happening.
Just my view.