If Ron Paul were to win the election, and wants to stay out of others buisness?

will he go down as the Nero of the world , standing by as the world burns ?

Too busy tooting his perverbial horn?

Use a Suggested Category Browse Categories

Entertainment & Music > Polls & Surveys

Entertainment & Music > Jokes & Riddles

Entertainment & Music > Celebrities

Society & Culture > Other - Society & Culture

Politics & Government > Law & Ethics

funny those are the topics every time i put ron paul in

(nero and his fiddle reference for those not getting my point)


he would sit back and not do a damn thing he wants to talk and when talks broke down he wouldnt have a clue what to do

Update 2:

fat head im neither by the way i am a republican but im not religious at all

17 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    crickets chirping from the RP supporters...not surprising!

    I'm surprised by fathead's response! maybe there is an imposter fathead..

    Anyway, this is what I have to say about RP....

    I believe that his supporters don't know EVERYthing about him...but think that he get's up before everyone and puts the Sun out!

    Probably won't get the Best Answer on This one will I?

    Why does so much of Ron Paul’s Campaign financing for his Congressional Seat come from out of state? (71% Out-of-State vs. 29% TX)


    Why does Ron Paul SUPPORT TERM LIMITS but NOT ABIDE by them as he once did?

    Ron Paul was first elected to Congress in 1978. Paul went on to be re-elected in 1980 and 1982. He was the first congressman to propose term limit legislation for the House of Representatives. In 1984, citing his term limits proposal, he did not seek reelection to the House, although he unsuccessfully contested the Republican primary for Senate. In 1985 he returned to medical practice as an OBGYN.

    In 1988, Dr. Paul won the nomination of the Libertarian Party for the U.S. Presidency. He placed third in the popular vote (with 0.3% of the total), behind George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis.

    In 1996, Paul was again elected to the House as a Republican. Mainstream Republican Party figures backed the incumbent, Greg Laughlin, a Democratic representative who had switched parties in the wake of the Republican takeover of Congress. Laughlin attempted to portray Paul's views as extreme and eccentric, but Paul won the primary and went on to win the general election.

    Leaders of the Texan Republican Party made similar efforts to defeat him in 1998, but Paul again won the primary and the election. The Republican congressional leadership then agreed to a compromise: Paul votes with the Republicans on procedural matters and remains nominally Republican in exchange for the committee assignments normally due according to his seniority. This is arguably similar to the deal that Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont has with the Democratic Party (though Jeffords was elected as a Republican and is now officially independent). Paul was convincingly re-elected in 2000 and 2002. He was elected unopposed in 2004 to his ninth term in the Congress.



    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 years ago

    Ron Paul isn't the subsequent President, nonetheless out of the pathetic applicants he would desire to be. He seems to be much less corrupt and greater easy. it fairly is a shame he's so previous. He seems to be a real previous time Republican no longer a NeoCon or Globalist. I many times vote Dem. through fact the perceived lesser of two evils. yet not one of the Dem's or Rep's will touch subject concerns that Ron Paul works to deliver to the vanguard (IRS,"Fed"Res, FEMA, NAU,etc.) those are maximum pressing concerns in my view. i will vote for him if he survives long sufficient to earnings the Rep. nomination and then chooses a Libertarian as a working-mate.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    He talks a good line but I doubt his ability to lead. I can see where he is coming from and evidently so do a lot of other people. He will not get the Republican nomination pure and simple, those supporters are smart enough to see that he really rocks the boat and that is not what the Republicans want.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Are you really that ignorant? You do realize that after 9/11 Paul voted in favor of entering Afghanistan? In case of an imminent attack Paul would take the necessary steps to protect this country, even military action.. nice try

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Get your facts straight. Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He wants a policy of non intervention. If I'm not mistaken that's the same policy Bush ran on 8 years ago. Remember, no nation building.

    And your Nero reference is so off base, I don't think you know anything about Roman history. Rome was burning, not the world...You would be more correct to equate Nero with Bush. Kind of like how Hurricane Katrina ht and Bush stood by and did nothing while New Orleans flooded. That would have made you look intelligent.

    Not to mention that because of the direction we are currently heading, when the world goes up in flames, I'm pretty sure America is going to be the one holding the match.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Ron Paul does not "blame America first". He has simply pointed out the fact that a bunch of people living in tents on the other side of the world couldn't care less how we live or about our "freedom". They hate us because we meddle in their affairs (Bases in the Arabian Peninsula, bombing the crap out of Iraq, etc.). Does anyone remember when Bin Laden was our ally during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, or how we aided Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war? He is not blaming America, all he is saying is that its our failed foreign policy that has created such a mess. No, he does not say that we deserved the attacks or any nonsense like that. All he is saying is that it is our policy that pissed them off. It had absolutley nothing to do with our "freedom" or whatever excuse the Bushites use.

    We pull out of Iraq, strenghen our national defense, SECURE THE BORDER!!!, then if the terrorists bother us again, we fight them in a real declared war, not in a police action. Instead of small arms against small arms, we use daisy cutters, or even a couple of nukes. Thats the way to fight a war!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    The idea that Nero watched Rome while it burned is a urban myth, in fact he was on a state visit elsewhere and rushed back when he heard adout it.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    if talks fail he would go to congress and ask for a declaration of war - he is not a pacifist or an isolationist -he has already stated he would need to negotiate many of his positions being that other politicians would be unwilling to go along with some of his ideas

    -you toot your own fiddle while the world burns I am voting for ron paul!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Well I figure Bush is like Theodosius, so we're a few periods beyond Nero...

    The Nero analogy might apply to the Guilded Era or the 1920s but I think we're past that now.

    You "cons" need to read about Theodosius - the last emperor to rule a united Roman Empire.

    His reign was marked by expensive foreign wars and his army became so over-extended that he had to hire private mercenaries to supplement the national army. In the meantime, the empire was unable to control immigration. Standard of living declined, lawlessness increased, and soon the invaders were looting the capital.

    Every empire reaches a moment of greatest extent and it is LITERALLY impossible for America to reach the relative peak it achieved from 1989 - 2001 UNLESS we oppress China, India, and the Middle East and turn back the clock of technology and progress there. It won't stop in Iraq or even Iran ... and it won't work.

    We can either repeat the history of empires in decline, or we can try to reclaim our constitutional republic. Its really that simple.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    ONE: more than anyone else, our prez owes his allegiance to us, we, the people of the USA, we, the taxpayers. it would be fantastic to entirely lock down our immigration for a while, to work on curing the woes and anger in the USA--while getting better intel out around the world.


    amongst all of the airhead candidates that we have to choose from (ron proves that he is not an airhead, which is so refreshing), who amongst them knows "what to do" on his/her own? do you think that they EVER work without their advisors? their advisors have their own advisors, and so on, down the line, until the real advisors are lobbyists protecting those that pay them, i.e., big business. do you think that GWB amazingly and immediately "knew" what to do on 9-11? let's hand it to him for doing SOMETHING, however, no matter how unpopular this so-called "war" is. it isn't a war, btw: it is a move to get oil and to get close to iran, to eventually kill bin laden. however, who is going to "know" what to do with all the post bin laden terrorist cells cropping up all over the world? no, ron paul, like all of them, must listen to advisors, talk to leaders of other countries to sniff them out, in order to be prez. there are only 24 hours in the day in the life of a prez, too.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.