Paul was elected to Congress in Texas in the 1970's, but he took several years off and returned to Congress in the 90's. It was when he ran in the 90's that Newt campaigned against him.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Newt versus Paul: Round 2
- Thread starter Ruiz
- Start date
Paul was elected to Congress in Texas in the 1970's, but he took several years off and returned to Congress in the 90's. It was when he ran in the 90's that Newt campaigned against him.
What was the extent of Newt's campaigning against Paul?
I'm thinking perhaps--at best--an appearance on behalf of the other GOP candidate in that district that was running against Paul in the primaries. I seriously doubt it was a one minute attack TV ad.
The characterization that Paul is starting round 2 of a campaign fight by comparing a Congressional election 15 years ago to running for President is a stretch, IMO.
Military protection. NOT nation building and foreign aid. Giving 3 billion dollars to Israel, for instance, while giving 7 billion to their enemies surrounding them, is not only stupid and wasteful, it hurts Israel, who is supposed to be our ally. Notice in the video the poll quoted that 2/3 of Americans agree with Paul's foreign policy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jFZpL8F4FgU
First, I would not call this an attack ad as it is issues focused. There are clearly issues that divide the two. Ron Paul has called both Dems and Republicans out of using their position to profit and he has opposed the individual mandate. I am not sure this is an attack ad as much as a serious issues ad. It is also not a false ad, as it is rooted in the serious issues.
Newt paid special attention and spent a lot of his own focus ensuring that Paul was not the Republican nominee. I am not criticizing him, this is his right. However, this makes this round two of an ongoing head-to-head. You trying to make light of it when all I was trying to point out was what Newt did seems strange. I didn't criticize him for doing this, just noted it.
The ominous music, the black and white motif, the rapid cut photo editing, the theme of the ad is "SERIAL HYPOCRISY".
That's not an attack ad? C'mon.
Asking again: What was the extent of Newt's campaigning against Paul?
Whether or not it is an attack ad is irrelevant. Gingrich SHOULD be attacked on these issues. It is not an unwarranted attack to say, "These are the issues you have supported...why should we want you as president?"
He solicited the opponent to Paul, then rounded up fifty congress members to oppose him, and endorse Paul's opponent. He also sought, and received, George Bush senior's endorsement for Paul's opponent. Lastly, he spoke out against Ron Paul, and for Paul's opponent.
Look at the thread title...
Totally fair to attack him on these issues. The method leaves a lot to be desired.
At the time was Newt Speaker of the House? If so, I guess he didn't want Paul in Congress. Thanks for the answer.
Right. It admits it was an attack..."Round 2"? Hello?
I think it was pretty much spot on. Apparently from what I have read, it has been quite effective in getting the truth out.
Guess not. He threw the first punch though. Now, apparently, Paul doesn't want Gingrich in the presidency.
Thread title, "Newt vs. Paul, Round 2", sounded like a description of a boxing match to me.
Yeah, and what is a boxing match? A series of _________.
(Hint: Starts with "a" and ends with "ttacks.")
glfredrick
New Member
Are we nation building? Not that I can see, but perhaps your definition is different than mine. I do agree that we should be more judicious with our foreign aid. We are trying, in a lot of cases, to purchase loyalty, and history has proven time and again that we cannot do that. But of course, the moment you cut off aid, you ABSOLUTELY need to increase military presence, and that is where Paul is off the deep end. One cannot eliminate both foreign aid and military might at the same time unless one really wishes to learn a foreign culture and language instead of counting on remaining American for the near and far future.
Paul does not want to eliminate the military at all. He wants to bring them home, to defend our country (instead of Pakistan...). He has said, time after time, that he does not want to cut defense spending one penny.
I, however, would be hugely in favor of cutting military and defense spending. Why do we feel it is necessary to spend ten times the next closest country in our defense? N
NE is going to attack the U.S. directly. We would nuke them out of existence. The only way that we are going to be attacked is through terrorism. The fact is, as history shows, time and again, our involvement in the middle east makes terrorism worse. Entangling ourselves in other countries affairs, not only makes us poor, and hurts our citizens, it just breeds more terrorists. You cannot fight hate with hate.Imagine for a moment that we had a weapon, that would target every single terrorist in the world, and blow them up right now. If we used it, you know what would happen? In fifteen years, we would have ten times the terrorists we have now. Why? Because their sons, daughters, aunts, and uncles, brothers and sisters, would all be saying "Those evil people from the U.S. killed my daddy, mommy, brother, son," etc.
Securing our borders (to keep the bad guys from coming in), and redefining the U.S. image globally, along with a strong national defense, and a well trained and streamlined investigative force right here, are the ONLY things that are going to keep us safe. Attacking more people, just makes more enemies....
glfredrick
New Member
You are wrong for SO many reasons, but you have imbibed the RP kool aid, so I doubt that anything I am saying will matter anyway.
Just imagine if the battles of the last decade were brought to our soil -- and they will be if we retreat and try to wall in America -- then we will know true misery that we can only imagine right now. It will be Pearl Harbor Day and 9/11 multiplied by thousands fold!
Just imagine if the battles of the last decade were brought to our soil -- and they will be if we retreat and try to wall in America -- then we will know true misery that we can only imagine right now. It will be Pearl Harbor Day and 9/11 multiplied by thousands fold!
You are wrong on SO many levels, but you have imbibed the Republican RHINO Kool-aid, so I doubt anything that I am saying will matter.
The battles of the last decade would never come to our soil. That is an absolutely RIDICULOUS statement. That is more absurd than any conspiracy theory that I have ever heard, in fact. The ONLY thing that will come to "our soil" is crime, which is already here, which we cannot prevent by blowing people up 10,000 miles away, and which has ONLY been increased by our actions overseas. To even state that a country would actually come over here and try to fight with us, is mind numbingly crazy.
FYI: My beliefs did not come from Ron Paul. They come from common sense. I don't even agree with him, since I believe defense spending should be slashed, and he does not.
glfredrick
New Member
For what it is worth, I ABHOR the RINO and the Eastern Establishment Republican who is no more the conservative than Clinton is the great savior of America.
That being said, I will remind you that Paul gravitated to the Republican Party because he knew that he had no hope while wearing his true colors -- pure libertarian with views apart from mainstream America. He, in another sense, defines RINO as well, for he is no Republican either.
That being said, I will remind you that Paul gravitated to the Republican Party because he knew that he had no hope while wearing his true colors -- pure libertarian with views apart from mainstream America. He, in another sense, defines RINO as well, for he is no Republican either.
Statements like this is exactly why RP and his supporters are considered out there on the lunatic fringe.
That, of course, is also false. Things that the Republicans have always stood for, like reducing or eliminating taxes, eliminating the Department of Education, and so on, are all things that Paul agrees on.
Paul does NOT agree with the Libertarians on much, which is why he left the party. A big issue, is his disagreement over the issue of abortion, which the Libertarians believe should be legal, but which Paul has referred to as "murder" and "an act of violence." Paul also believes that drugs should be regulated at the state level, while libertarians believe that they should be explicitly legal.
Paul, in fact, is the most traditionally Republican person on the Field ATM.
glfredrick
New Member
Then why was he not in the party from the start? And why do so many informed people think he is a nut job? That is not all PR spin...
Paul has been tried and found wanting and I do not believe that he can carry a national election. So far, he has been unable to carry a primary vote in a state. One can pin that on the Republican machine, or one can say that the good ideas Paul has are offset by his lunacy on other issues, especlally national defense and foreign policy, hence his self-defeat.
FWIW, I did and do support his son. He is more mainstream. Daddy Paul should take a few lessons from Rand.
Paul has been tried and found wanting and I do not believe that he can carry a national election. So far, he has been unable to carry a primary vote in a state. One can pin that on the Republican machine, or one can say that the good ideas Paul has are offset by his lunacy on other issues, especlally national defense and foreign policy, hence his self-defeat.
FWIW, I did and do support his son. He is more mainstream. Daddy Paul should take a few lessons from Rand.
Which ideas are "lunacy"? The notion that we should eliminate foreign aid, and substantially reduce or eliminate troops overseas, is CERTAINLY not what would keep him from getting elected in the general election, since polls have shown that 2/3 of Americans agree with him on that...
So which other idea is the "lunacy" that would keep him from being elected?
Also, YES, the Republican establishment is clearly, and has been, keeping Paul down. There have been numerous people who have testified that they were silenced at Caucuses, etc. The continually "circle the wagon" rhetoric doesn't help him either.
Personally, I think their are a bunch or Republicans who are actually liberals, who give lip service to issues like abortion, while not actively supporting them, and I think Gingrich is one of those. I think these Republicans are scared that should Paul get in, something might get done about the issues which they SAY they support...
glfredrick
New Member
Paul's package, in an electable person, would be a dynomite combination, but America is not about to elect the whacky mad scientist from Back to the Future... Most of his positions are tenable, save for his libertarian view on illegal drugs and his crazy notions on national securty through protectionism.
The Republican establishment has not crafted the Ron Paul we've watched in action since before the 2008 election. Sorry, he has done that all on his own.
I agree...