Dave wrote:

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:If you want to "Banish the IRS" you likely have little idea about what the Government actually does, or the fact that you wouldn't have clean water, police, roads, a military or 2/3 of all the fun stuff you take for granted... because no one would have been able to PAY for that.

Actually, it is you that have little idea about what the Government actually does.
Besides, the FEDERAL government DOES NOT provide clean water, police or roads... that is all provided by STATES and in some cases by PRIVATE or PUBLIC COMPANIES.

True:
- EPA regulates Potable water standards, and FEMA actually delivers it in the event of an emergency.
- Police are a state delivered service, but what of the FBI? ATF? Postal Police? Yeah... they're Federal... Dang... You know, the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill that put a little over 100,000 police officers was a Federal funding bill too...
- The roads are not federally provided at all... not one bit. The federal road improvement tax is just a cash grab, and the NHTSA, NTSB, DOT and NHWA are federal wastes of money as well.

Look, getting rid of Income Taxes is a fantastic idea, but it's not nearly practical. Pulling that income would mean you'd have no way at all to get out of the crushing deficit you're already in (no amount of government program slashing short of completely shutting down the military tomorrow and cancelling all state transfers will accomplish that). At that point, you'd see about 18% federal taxes on all goods and services, and assuming you could wrangle major corporations into picking up the slack (which, let's be honest, won't happen in our lifetimes when they're already bitching about having to pay 12 cents of every tax dollar the Fed and State takes in) you'll have a balanced budget at best... but you'll lose so much other wise.. Including likely the Roads, Police and water because about 30% of state's funding comes from Federal Funds transfer. The real problem would come when the roughly 2 million people that would be put out of work would have to find income elsewhere.

On top of all this: without federal oversight you'd likely see dirt roads in much of the south except for the areas that have major industry, and then, you wouldn't see them much outside of urban areas.... Potable water would likely resemble rum-punch (Crypto-sporidium outbreaks would have been far larger and wide spread)... and Police would end up not more than keystone kops.

Ron Paul has some really good ideas, but he has some real stinkers too. Get rid of the federal reserve? Let open market forces completely dominate prices? What I can only call fanatical opposition to abortion and near abandonment of women's rights? He needs to get acquainted with Keynesian economics, and what happens to most unwanted children before I would cast a vote for him.

Please don't presume to tell me I don't know how the US Gov't works. It's not all that different in structure and function from every other western government.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM are you a keynesiast?

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Ron Paul has some really good ideas, but he has some real stinkers too. Get rid of the federal reserve? Let open market forces completely dominate prices? What I can only call fanatical opposition to abortion and near abandonment of women's rights? He needs to get acquainted with Keynesian economics, and what happens to most unwanted children before I would cast a vote for him.

Thats pretty much where I stand on him too. Out of the Republicans, he's hand down the best. Obviously the only one of their candidates with a foot in reality's door.

Good news... He wants to get rid of excess bureaucracy and excess regulation.
Bad news... He wants to get rid of very necessary agencies and very necessary regulation as well.

Good news... He wants to cut moronic over spending on thing the government need not/should not spend on.
Bad news... He wants to cut spending on very necessary and/or good things the Government really should be spending on.

Good news... He wants us to have a non-hypocritical foreign policy that does not make us the world's hated "nanny-police force."
Bad news... He wants to take that a bit too far into an isolationist direction and pretty much cut our involvement in places that we should be involved.

Good news... He is a politician that ACTUALLY BELIEVES that we are obligated to actually follow the constitution. [/crazytalk]
Bad news... As far as I can tell he kinda doesn't believe in a "living constitution" where the government can change with the times.

Good news... He actually believes that we can be safe WITHOUT sacrificing our freedoms, and that at no time, for any reason, should we EVER sacrifice our freedoms...
Bad news... ...Unless those freedoms are something that he considers "evil" like women having rights to their own bodies (as GAM mentioned). This is the ONLY place I see him being inconsistent in his beliefs. The moment you limit someone's freedom - to what YOU BELIEVE is right - is the moment freedom dies.

Here are some great clips of him being interviewed on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

The Daily Show

Quote:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's what is so interesting about Ron Paul. You appear to have consistant principle integrity... uh the Americans don't usually go for that.

The Colbert Report

Overall as a candidate, I like him ALOT. He is the long lost soul of The Republican Party - everything that they USED TO stand for. I think that many Republicans dislike him for that very reason. He is a bitter reminder of every belief that the modern GOP has betrayed and forgotten. No one likes someone who points out their own failures and shortcomings - even if he is only pointing them out by being an example of what they are meant to be.

He reminds the GOP of a past that is in major contradiction with their current heading... Worst of all, he's forcing people - people who just want to vote party lines and spout the party's "rhetoric of the moment" - to actually THINK about what they believe in, what does it mean to be both a Republican, and what does it mean to be a patriotic American. ...And people don't like being forced to think.

So yes, there are alot of people who don't want Ron Paul in any spotlight. They want to shove him into the nearest closet, lock it, and throw away the key - so they can get back to their usual business of fondling their young male interns while loudly shouting about "moral issues" and liberal terrorist boogymen under your bed. All these "neo-cons" like to make know that they "are from the party of Abraham Lincoln." Well then maybe these "neo-cons" need to heed his words.

Abraham Lincoln wrote:America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we faulter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

You can tell the people who remember what the Republican party has always stood for - they are the same Republicans who punished their party in 2006 for its failures, and most all of them are backing Ron Paul. But they aren't in the Republican majority. For these reasons, I can only forsee him actually winning the Republican primary if... enough Independents and even center-ist Democrats register Republican and vote for him. If that doesn't happen, he has no chance.

I think he knows that, and I think he's running knowing full well that his chances aren't good. I think that he's not running primarily in hopes of being president, but in hopes of at least getting people to think, and speak loudly what they REALLY think(instead of standard partisan "us vs them" rhetoric). I think his greatest intent is this race is to correct the heading of the Republican ship he knows is way off course. Only fools "stay the course" in the face of disaster. The captain of the Titanic "stayed the course," and the Titanic was - at the time it was built - the greatest ship in the world. I think that is a pretty good parallel to America today. No matter how great we are, we are not immune to the consequences of foolish decisions.

break in ideas wrote:

After reading all that, you'd think that I'm voting for Ron Paul, and you'd be wrong(unless he's running against GWB Jr aka Hillary Clinton). I plan to vote for Barack Obama. I'd orgasm if the Presidential race came down to Ron Paul vs Barack Obama though. I recall that America's first presidental races didn't have pre-named Vice-Presidents. The VP was the guy who came in second in electoral votes. So if we revisited those days, we'd end up with either...
1. A Republican President and Democratic VP
or
2. A Democratic President and Republican VP

That would really restore some balance to our govenment. While I wonder if Obama would have the tenacity to do such a thing(supposing the idea has even crossed his mind), but at the very least he is a guy who actually works WITH Republicans on his goals instead of AGAINST them on his goals. That is exactly what this country needs. I think Ron Paul would mainly just fight with everyone(Republicans and Democrats), have some great ideas that never get off the ground, and end up a "lame duck president." Obama is a guy who could actually get things accomplished. And pretty much everything I like about Obama is also pretty much what I like about Ron Paul, but without all my reservations about Ron Paul. Meanwhile I can't think of any downside to Obama.

In my dream world, Barack Obama is President, and Ron Paul is VP - I think great things could be accomplished.[/dream] In reality we'll probably end up with Rudy Giuliani VS Hillary Clinton. In that case, no matter who wins, we all lose... again.




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

I think the reason the VP wasn't the candidate from the other party was because they tended to cut the president off at the knees if the opportunity presented.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Ron Paul has some really good ideas, but he has some real stinkers too. Get rid of the federal reserve? Let open market forces completely dominate prices? What I can only call fanatical opposition to abortion and near abandonment of women's rights? He needs to get acquainted with Keynesian economics, and what happens to most unwanted children before I would cast a vote for him.

Actually, though he himself is against abortion, his stance is not to regulate it at the federal level, but leave it up to state regulation, as is the case with many other issues. The federal government is too big of a regulator as it is. And by doing so, they take away power from states that would allow individual states to do a better job (look up the EPA/CAFE debacle right now between several states and the feds).

Bastardking3000 wrote:Good news... He wants to get rid of excess bureaucracy and excess regulation.
Bad news... He wants to get rid of very necessary agencies and very necessary regulation as well.

Like the Department of Homeland Insecurity, the biggest bureaucratic garbage ever? How about the CIA, without which the middle east would not be such a mess right now?

Bastardking3000 wrote:Good news... He wants to cut moronic over spending on thing the government need not/should not spend on.
Bad news... He wants to cut spending on very necessary and/or good things the Government really should be spending on.

Like federally funded health care? There's a winner of an idea. People fight adamantly to keep the federal government from making health decisions for them (ie abortion), but those same people demand for the federal government to establish a health care system? As bad as insurance companies are these days, I won't ever allow the federal government to make health decisions for me.

Bastardking3000 wrote:Good news... He wants us to have a non-hypocritical foreign policy that does not make us the world's hated "nanny-police force."
Bad news... He wants to take that a bit too far into an isolationist direction and pretty much cut our involvement in places that we should be involved.

How do you figure? Because he believes in free trade with everyone, how is that in any way being isolationist?

Bastardking3000 wrote:Good news... He is a politician that ACTUALLY BELIEVES that we are obligated to actually follow the constitution. [/crazytalk]
Bad news... As far as I can tell he kinda doesn't believe in a "living constitution" where the government can change with the times.

Because there should NEVER be such a thing as a living constitution. If there is a problem or error with the constitution, the solution is to amend it, of which there are currently 27 of. If you allow the government to have the power to change at will, you will no longer live in a free country. The government is of the people, for the people, it is not supposed to be us vs them.

Bastardking3000 wrote:Good news... He actually believes that we can be safe WITHOUT sacrificing our freedoms, and that at no time, for any reason, should we EVER sacrifice our freedoms...
Bad news... ...Unless those freedoms are something that he considers "evil" like women having rights to their own bodies (as GAM mentioned). This is the ONLY place I see him being inconsistent in his beliefs. The moment you limit someone's freedom - to what YOU BELIEVE is right - is the moment freedom dies.

That is not right. If you can legislate whether abortion is legal or not, why can't you legislate that Catholicism will be the national religion? You can't legislate that the sky will be green, because it is a fact that it is blue. But I personally believe (as to many others) that abortion is NOT about a woman's right to her own body, it is about her right to make decisions about another human being. So, there is more to the issue then basic facts. Because of this, none of it should be legislated.




"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about
the former." - Albert Einstein

Dave: I didn't know that's where his stance was, but lets be honest here: the Red states would never allow that kind of thing.

The other thing: The CIA has been hamstrung since the mid-70's when Ford signed an edict forbidding acts against foreign power heads (basically an assassination ban, but it also prevents other actions) it's been pretty gun shy about operations with the notable exception of Afghanistan in the late 70's and 80's. BTW, the mid-east is equally messed up because of the Saudis, Americans, Brits, Russians, Chinese, Israelis... It's a furball, not all on the backs of the CIA.

The HSA is another matter... but at this point, it's a bureaucracy that is too enmeshed in the national security apparatus: it needs to be reformed less than 10 years after it was created.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Dave: I didn't know that's where his stance was, but lets be honest here: the Red states would never allow that kind of thing.

And therein lies the problem for both sides of the issue. Both pro-life and pro-choice sides want the federal government to decide one way or another, because it would make their life easier. But when you talk about red states vs blue states, aren't you just saying that morality, or what people think is right and wrong is different from one state to another (as it might be from one country or another)? If thats the case, then why not give the states the right to chose? We live in a huge country, and popular opinion could be drastically different in one place then another.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:The other thing: The CIA has been hamstrung since the mid-70's when Ford signed an edict forbidding acts against foreign power heads (basically an assassination ban, but it also prevents other actions) it's been pretty gun shy about operations with the notable exception of Afghanistan in the late 70's and 80's. BTW, the mid-east is equally messed up because of the Saudis, Americans, Brits, Russians, Chinese, Israelis... It's a furball, not all on the backs of the CIA.

The HSA is another matter... but at this point, it's a bureaucracy that is too enmeshed in the national security apparatus: it needs to be reformed less than 10 years after it was created.

Oh, no doubt the mid east is screwed up no matter what, my point is the CIA is just about completely unnecessary. But then consider how much overlap there is between local and state police, the FBI, the secret service, DHS and ATF. The whole system needs to be streamlined. DHS did not do that, it just added yet another level of complexity to the whole thing. Truth is, all these organizations do good stuff, but they can almost never do it efficiently. DHS won't help that. The police have trouble communicating with the FBI, instead of making it easier, they stick someone in between, making it even harder.




"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about
the former." - Albert Einstein

Dave:

The CIA is necessary, it's the foreign information agency, local police, the FBI, Secret Service, etc don't go there. I don't think you mean to say it should be destroyed as much as it should be "fixed" so that it actually works. Also keep in mind that Iraq isn't the only think the CIA does, and that the only time you hear of them is probably going to be when they screw up and it effects a big situation like Iraq. Otherwise, as a department that acts secretly it would be ineffective.

However, I don't see the point of DHS when we have the FBI.

GAM:

About the CIA not being able to assassinate foreign powers: Pablo Escobar, don't think for a second if he had reached high government power that it would have changed the out come. It doesn't mean the CIA can't do anything, it just changes the way it gets done.

Dave wrote:If thats the case, then why not give the states the right to chose? We live in a huge country, and popular opinion could be drastically different in one place then another.

Why not leave it as the individuals' right to choose? Popular opinion means nothing when you're dealing with your own body, why not leave it up to the individual to decide what's right for them? One way or the other: women will have abortions if they so choose to, so why not allow them to do it in a medically controlled environment?

I think we're looking at it from different points of view: I rather believe that the state (no matter what level) has no business nor right to legistlate morality.

Dave wrote:Oh, no doubt the mid east is screwed up no matter what, my point is the CIA is just about completely unnecessary. But then consider how much overlap there is between local and state police, the FBI, the secret service, DHS and ATF. The whole system needs to be streamlined. DHS did not do that, it just added yet another level of complexity to the whole thing. Truth is, all these organizations do good stuff, but they can almost never do it efficiently. DHS won't help that. The police have trouble communicating with the FBI, instead of making it easier, they stick someone in between, making it even harder.

The CIA has it's place, but the thing that I've seen with the US Government (especially the national security apparatus) is that the duplication and secrecy between agencies is endemic. No one wants to co-operate because everyone else is incompetant, ineffective or incapable. The overlap between agencies is good to a point, but there needs to be more definite rules about who does what and where, and who's responsible for what. Right now, the CIA is caught in that shear, and because of "peace dividends" they were scaled back and scaled back throughout GHW Bush, Clinton and GW Bush's presidencies.

My thoughts would be to make ops and intel their own discrete directorates and have relevant foreign intel disseminated through the NSA/DSA and their directorates and have return analysis and raw intel flowed back to CIA intel. The Ops would have to be internal with assistance from Defence and other agencies.

Just my 2 cents: After reading a few books on how the national security apparatus got so freakin' screwed up, DHS (we still use HSA here... *shrug* Sorry if there's confusion) was mandated, but it wasn't implemented nearly properly, and it was a new bureaucracy that was implemented on the cheap. There's no way you could get about 30 agencies' worth of communication in one big department without creating havoc, and there was nothing existing previous to it. One more layer was absolutely not needed, DHS was supposed to be an information conduit... someone should tell that to Chertoff...

Emor8t:

Quote:

About the CIA not being able to assassinate foreign powers: Pablo Escobar, don't think for a second if he had reached high government power that it would have changed the out come. It doesn't mean the CIA can't do anything, it just changes the way it gets done.

True, but you'd have likely seen a Red Brigade group pop him off. The CIA has to use locals or unaffiliated contractors which is just as bad as doing it yourself, and leaves it open for greater possibility for things to go wrong.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

I'm voting for Ron Paul. I'm glad I'm still a registered Republican at this point so I can vote in the primary.

Why am I voting for Ron Paul? Because he's SURE to veto further expansion of the federal government, at the very least. He'll never get all that he wants, even in 8 years, and I'm actually counting on that.

But he can be a huge roadblock to further big government. Hopefully he can get some of his cuts. The fact is all these big government agencies all have their proponents and their reasons for existing. But we're too big, folks. SOMETHING has to be done, and all I ever hear is how we can't do it.

The democratic congress has already failed me. They're already spending tons on pork, caving into the president just like the previous congress... to hell with them.

A REAL Republican will do it. Ron Paul is that guy, in my eyes. Guys like him is why I signed up for the party in the first place. He wants to get the federal government out of lives. Let the states deal with things like they're supposed to. That way, we'll all have 50 versions of American to choose from if the state we live doesn't fit our liking.




---

AGuSTiN wrote:I'm voting for Ron Paul. I'm glad I'm still a registered Republican at this point so I can vote in the primary.

Why am I voting for Ron Paul? Because he's SURE to veto further expansion of the federal government, at the very least. He'll never get all that he wants, even in 8 years, and I'm actually counting on that.

But he can be a huge roadblock to further big government. Hopefully he can get some of his cuts. The fact is all these big government agencies all have their proponents and their reasons for existing. But we're too big, folks. SOMETHING has to be done, and all I ever hear is how we can't do it.

The democratic congress has already failed me. They're already spending tons on pork, caving into the president just like the previous congress... to hell with them.

A REAL Republican will do it. Ron Paul is that guy, in my eyes. Guys like him is why I signed up for the party in the first place. He wants to get the federal government out of lives. Let the states deal with things like they're supposed to. That way, we'll all have 50 versions of American to choose from if the state we live doesn't fit our liking.

I agree 100%. I'm still voting Obama though.


I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

For the first time in my voting life have I actually chose a party and registered as a Republican because of RON PAUL. I registered as a republican JUST so I could vote in the primaries because I believe so much that Ron Paul CAN make a difference if nothing else as said by someone else, he can provide a road block in our government. I do not entirely agree with some of his views but its rare to agree with ALL of someones ideals. For the first time a candidate has raised an eyebrow for me and that candidate IS Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a cookie that does not fit the mold of all the other cookies and thats what makes him GREAT. Ron Paul supporters are REAL supporters and have real passion for his campaign. Its proven consistently across the country and sadly not covered or twisted by our media (television). Go somewhere you do not see Ron Paul banners........... oh yeah there aren't any. Theres a reason for that. Hes bigger than media or other candidates give him credit for. GO RON PAUL, GO RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



ASE Master Certified Automotive Technician

at first i didnt like ron paul just because he was republician but i started to listen to his speech..

to bad the government wont let him win...

you realize he is anti-government to a point and that doesnt go very well with the ones in control...

So do you guys have to choose to register as either Republican or Democrat, but you can't be both?

That sucks. Least in Canada you can be a member of any party and multiple parties. But we also don't vote directly for
our leader, so I guess that's the trade-off. If we couldn't be a member of multiple parties we couldn't vote for our leader.

CaliforniaDomestics wrote:For the first time in my voting life have I actually chose a party and registered as a Republican because of RON PAUL. I registered as a republican JUST so I could vote in the primaries because I believe so much that Ron Paul CAN make a difference

great to hear. i know youre not alone.....i just hope we can make a difference!





Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Tuesday, December 25, 2007 2:00 PM

The most recent news
Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays

CNN link
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html
The New Repulic Link
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
Selection of Newsletters.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129

Take it with a grain of salt. Information is out there and I still think he has no chance of winning.

I said I support Ron Pual but I am no longer sure. After hearing him say that we should stay out of it and let Pakistan who has nuclear wepons fight off Al-Quida themselves. That worries me alot.There is too much at stake to gamble on it. If Al-Quida takes over Pakistan THEY WILL USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO KILL US! We need a hands on approach to dealing with terrorists and radical muslims.



FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

Bastardking3000 wrote:

AGuSTiN wrote:I'm voting for Ron Paul. I'm glad I'm still a registered Republican at this point so I can vote in the primary.

Why am I voting for Ron Paul? Because he's SURE to veto further expansion of the federal government, at the very least. He'll never get all that he wants, even in 8 years, and I'm actually counting on that.

But he can be a huge roadblock to further big government. Hopefully he can get some of his cuts. The fact is all these big government agencies all have their proponents and their reasons for existing. But we're too big, folks. SOMETHING has to be done, and all I ever hear is how we can't do it.

The democratic congress has already failed me. They're already spending tons on pork, caving into the president just like the previous congress... to hell with them.

A REAL Republican will do it. Ron Paul is that guy, in my eyes. Guys like him is why I signed up for the party in the first place. He wants to get the federal government out of lives. Let the states deal with things like they're supposed to. That way, we'll all have 50 versions of American to choose from if the state we live doesn't fit our liking.

I agree 100%. I'm still voting Obama though.

You realize that the size of government is WAY too big and that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate even talking about shrinking it. You realize (hopefully) that democrats and republicans that are there for the party, not the people, are causing a problem that may just bankrupt the whole @!#$ united states.You STILL insist on voting for another partisan politician who will grow the size of government exponentially and bring us one step closer to disaster. I can't understand it and I see it all of the time. People say "I'm voting for Paul or Hillary" or "I'm voting for Paul or Obama". WTF? Those candidates, along with most of the others, are the complete opposite of Dr. Paul.

Socialism and fiscal irresponsibility, two of our BIGGEST enemies.


________________________
Ron Paul in 2008!
Constitution > Politics

eskieadam wrote:So do you guys have to choose to register as either Republican or Democrat, but you can't be both?

In the presidential primary you may have to register as a republican or a democrat, according to which state you are in. Your state would either have a "closed" primary or an "open" primary. The democrats also have super delegates, so they can vote to nominate the party favorite, IMO it's BS. The actual presidential election is open.

eskieadam wrote:That sucks. Least in Canada you can be a member of any party and multiple parties. But we also don't vote directly for
our leader, so I guess that's the trade-off. If we couldn't be a member of multiple parties we couldn't vote for our leader.

We do not vote directly for our leader either, we vote and our representatives in the electoral collage cast their vote to reflect ours. One could actually win the popular vote but lose the election. The electoral collage is there to equalize the power of the states, if not, populous states would have a lot more power and candidates would only have to win in a few states(California, Texas etc.). This would cause them to ignore the other states and pander those with large populations.


________________________
Ron Paul in 2008!
Constitution > Politics

mclonedogmcwad wrote:The most recent news
Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays

CNN link
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html
The New Repulic Link
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
Selection of Newsletters.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129

Take it with a grain of salt. Information is out there and I still think he has no chance of winning.

Yes, take it with a grain of salt.

SALT
SALT 2

I also wouldn't say that he has no chance, I would say that he must overcome a huge hurtle. That is, the American people elect their politicians and decide on very important issues using the lies, half-truths and incomplete stories fed to them by the TV. Few do any research and virtually none do extensive research and look up the views/voting records of those they vote for. The election has become a test of ones ability to say things that are vague, non-specific and safe in an effort o fool the most people into believing that they have the same beliefs. You can ruin your campaign by making a strange noise, it's a game ruled by sound bites, talking points and feel good positions. Everyone stands for change because that's what people want to hear. Half of them stand for socialized medicine, but almost none will tell the people that we will have to mortgage our future to get it. It's BS.


________________________
Ron Paul in 2008!
Constitution > Politics

Wade Jarvis wrote:I said I support Ron Pual but I am no longer sure. After hearing him say that we should stay out of it and let Pakistan who has nuclear wepons fight off Al-Quida themselves. That worries me alot.There is too much at stake to gamble on it. If Al-Quida takes over Pakistan THEY WILL USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO KILL US! We need a hands on approach to dealing with terrorists and radical muslims.

What should we do, jump in every time a nuclear power goes to war? Fight every fight for everyone? We have nuclear weapons, should Pakistan and every other nation that would prefer to go without a dose of radiation help us fight "terrorism" based on that alone? No. al qaeda will never take over Pakistan and even if they did, then would be the time to step in, not before there is a threat to us.


________________________
Ron Paul in 2008!
Constitution > Politics

I liked many Ideas that Ron Paul has. I just didn't like his ideas on the "War on Terror" and other world policies.

After the Debate last night....... He is an Idiot !!! Next.

what was wrong with the debate last night???

Nice HIGHLIGHTS. Did you watch the whole thing? I did twice. Like I said he has great points, But then there is stuff he just stumbles on and rambles on like a machine.

And yes Lets have a vote by text where everyone can vote multiple times. Lets declare a Victory for Ron Paul on just that. lolz

sorry...i dont watch tv. all i can do is scan youtube and similar sites for highlights. but do you think that was the only one ive seen? if you have others, post em up. all im saying is that RP actually gives his ideas (good ones) unlike most candidates who just try to give ambiguous sound bites that dont actually address or answer the questions posed.