Quote :

"His foreign policy: ‘Mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend our country, defend our borders.’ After Mr. Paul spoke, it seemed half the room booed, but the other applauded. When a thousand Republicans are in a room and one man of the eight on the stage takes a sharply minority viewpoint on a dramatic issue and half the room seems to cheer him, something’s going on. “Ron Paul’s support isn’t based on his persona, history or perceived power. What support he has comes because of his views. As he spoke, you could hear other candidates laughing in the background."

Seriously, I couldn't figure out what Paul said that was so boo-worthy. And I kept wondering who those giggly little schoolgirls were, as well.

[Edited on September 9, 2007 at 1:58 PM. Reason : 10]

9/9/2007 1:49:03 PM

i just want paul to get some tv ads out

9/9/2007 2:22:12 PM

Quote :

"Paul got fucking pwnt by Huckabee, that was hilarious. Paul doesn't have the spine to be president, nuff' said."

you sir have the competency of a 9 year old.

9/9/2007 2:24:07 PM

^^^ I'm sure a lot of the righties didn't like the "bring our troops home" coupled with "defend our country" because they have swallowed the line for the past 8 years that the war in Iraq is somehow defending our country.

[Edited on September 9, 2007 at 11:57 PM. Reason : ^]

9/9/2007 11:57:15 PM

we've been in iraq for 8 years now?

9/10/2007 6:47:38 AM

Aha, Ron Paul's kind of a badass.

9/11/2007 10:03:21 AM

i like the last little clip where rosie o'donnell and tim robbins represent the "far left". i'd be willing to bet nearly all halfway intelligent liberals groan whenever these two douches start talking politics. i know i sure do.

9/11/2007 10:19:52 AM

I hate watching intelligent people go on that stupid show because they never get a chance to actually state their opinion and bill just acts like a giant douche that thinks he knows everything.

9/11/2007 11:23:10 AM

How is staying in Iraq going to keep Iran from obtaining Nuclear weapons?

9/11/2007 12:06:17 PM

They're scurred we'll cross the border!


OR


It gives them an easier target if they do get one.

9/11/2007 1:14:42 PM

9/11/2007 1:23:04 PM

my fav part is when ron paul spoke about us defeating the soviet union without firing a shot and oreilly said that's because of the "mutual deterence" with regards to nuclear weapons. iran wouldn't give nuclear weapons to terrorists for the exact same reason. they KNOW that if one was used on us or an ally we would trace it back to them and destroy them. not to mention the fact that if they know anything about history, including their own, they know you don't give weapons to someone because 10 years down the road they'll be using them on you (us and iraq, us and iran, etc)

9/13/2007 5:23:32 PM

Quote :

"PAUL: How come we got through the Cold War when the Soviets had 40,000 of them? O'REILLY: Because it was a mutual destruction. PAUL: I was in the Air Force... O'REILLY: It was mutual destruction. Now you can handle any weaponry or any kind of thing to surrogates, who will do your killing for you. Look, if you don't think Iran is sponsoring terrorism, you're living in the land of Oz, congressman. "

Sounds like O'Reilly is saying that they didn't have terrorists back then.

9/13/2007 5:45:52 PM

Ron Paul won't get elected because the Israelis don't want him to be elected.

9/13/2007 7:07:22 PM

Quote :

"not to mention the fact that if they know anything about history, including their own, they know you don't give weapons to someone because 10 years down the road they'll be using them on you"

now, if only people in the US gubment could figure that shit out...

9/13/2007 7:31:52 PM

jesus christ i couldn't make it through that clip.

why the fuck do people even go on o'reilly

[Edited on September 13, 2007 at 8:12 PM. Reason : ;]

9/13/2007 8:12:09 PM

American leaders have such ADD when it comes to foreign policy. They waver back and forth, always looking for the short-term quick fix.

Paul simply points out that we should stop giving foreigners reasons to hate us. O'Reilly and the neo-cons ignore the years of other countries' frustrations with our crazy policies and CIA antics and simply want to squash anyone who gets fed up enough to fight back.

9/13/2007 9:21:19 PM

jesus christ o'rly is a moron. Thank god ron paul called him out. Honestly, despite that I am liberal I would not be dissatisfied with ron paul in the oval office

9/14/2007 12:46:07 AM

Here's a much better short interview with Ron Paul on "Brian and the Judge"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9I1O13hRFLo

9/16/2007 10:29:59 AM

too smart to be president

9/16/2007 7:20:53 PM

i just want him to do well in the primaries soooo bad

9/17/2007 3:28:07 PM

Quote :

"too smart to be president"

Very much so.

9/17/2007 5:08:46 PM

Quote :

"i just want him to do well in the primaries soooo bad"

Me too. It'd basically guarantee the Democrats the presidency.

9/18/2007 6:25:16 AM

^ That would suck.

Here is video of Ron Paul's closing statement at the recent Values Voters Debate. It was not a very sympathetic crowd for Paul but he gets his points across.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WRi8tswSkB4

9/18/2007 10:54:29 AM

^^No, it would guarantee Ron Paul winning.

Because he appeals extremely well to fundamentalist Christians, as well as the large majority of the Republican base. Stupid people like him, because his points are simple and he protects their interests.

He also appeals extremely well to MANY independents and moderate Democrats.

If he, by some fluke of nature, gets the nomination, he will not only carry the Republican vote, he will also steal a significant base from the democrats.

9/18/2007 12:16:36 PM

You know, maybe that will happen and I'll say that you were right and I was wrong, but I seriously think there is no way in hell that that would be the case.

9/18/2007 12:34:51 PM

I'd vote for him in the primary just to see the circus it would create.

9/18/2007 12:51:49 PM

^^
Spooky has a point but perhaps because of other reasons.

Many Americans have gotten used to expecting the gov't to solve their problems. Many see the gov't as the best way to fixing the inequities of life.

Paul's message of smaller gov't, more liberty & responsibility might not do well with those who want to use the gov't to force their social and economic agenda on everyone else. And there are plenty of those types of people all over the political spectrum.

9/18/2007 1:21:56 PM

awsome video of ron paul basically describing the problems with the Federal reserve system

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8327695139643041382

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8

[Edited on September 18, 2007 at 7:08 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2007 7:02:19 PM

I really like Ron Paul's platform. The only things I did not agree with were...


- his pro-life stance
- Completly withdrawing from UN
- and withdrawl from NAFTA

9/20/2007 11:42:38 AM

^Just for clarity on two of them, as he is often misunderstood. You probably already knew this, but others reading may not...

He believes abortion should not be a federal issue at all. Of course, he would like to see it illegal in every state, personally, but as President he understands that there isn't much he could/would do other than revert the issue to the states (as much as he could, as President, anyway).

And on NAFTA, Ron Paul is staunchly against it because he is so strongly in favor of free trade, while he believes NAFTA is government-managed trade and gives away some of our sovereignty. I'd venture to say he's the most ardent supporter of free trade in Washington.

[Edited on September 20, 2007 at 12:40 PM. Reason : s]

9/20/2007 12:39:25 PM

Quote :

"He believes abortion should not be a federal issue at all."

yeah i picked up on that. Even if no direct action is taken there is still the issue of judicial and supreme court nominations which would likely also be pro-life but no necessarily intent on keeping the federal gov't out of the issue.

9/20/2007 1:02:38 PM

With regards to Ron Paul's Positions...

Like:

1) Iraq - Get out, stop meddling in the Middle East
2) Repeal "Don't ask, don't tell" and restrictions on gays serving in the military (Already covered by Code of Military Conduct)
3) Rejects pre-emptive war doctrine
4) Eliminate the Dept. of Homeland Security (a waste of space)
5) Repeal the Patriot Act
6) Fiscal conservatism - gotta have it to avoid bankrupting the country

Don't like:
1) Eliminate the Fed, use gold standard - This has drastically reduced the impact of recessions
2) Environmental views - wants to eliminate govt oversite (EPA), but we need the EPA to determine who's at fault for what, set standards, etc. We can't assume people will understand enough about the environment to govern themselves. There's too many nuances about what is an environmental problem and what isn't.
3) Eliminate (fill in the blank) department - extreme maybe?

Not sure:
1) Flat Tax - can this transition be made, much less work?
2) Abortion - not sure, but willing to listen
3) Social security reform - people should be allowed to opt out, but outright repeal may be extreme.


Probably forgetting some...

9/20/2007 2:27:54 PM

I think the flat tax is the best part of his platform

9/20/2007 2:56:00 PM

If you two are referring to a flat tax on personal income, then I'm happy to inform you that it is NOT part of his platform He wants to get rid of the income tax completely, and not replace it with anything, whether a so-called Flat Tax or a FairTax.

On the Federal Reserve, here is an excellent summation of his view as it stands currently.
This is Ron Paul, today, on CNBC http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/015470.html

As to Social Security Reform - you understand him partially. He wants to allow anyone to opt completely out of the system, if they wish, especially young people. But, any promises already made must be kept, and would be funded out of the remaining SS taxes + some of the others, until the program almost becomes negligible in size over time. Nobody will have their SS checks/promises abandoned completely.

As to the EPA and regulatory agencies, again, he simply wishes to send the issue to the states, and have no federal EPA, mainly because the Constitution doesn't grant the feds that regulatory power. But, the right to an EPA is retained by the people and the States, if they so wish. If the federal EPA were abolished, especially with sufficient notice ahead of time, there would be a pretty smooth transition to (likely) state or city-run EPA's. Bureaucratic waste would be greatly reduced, the Constitution would be followed, and the people would have more direct control over what their regulatory conditions are like. Now that sounds good to me.

Basically, if you love "the departments," as Ron Paul calls them, there is still all the reason in the world to vote for him, as he is running for Chief Executive of the federal government, not king of the nation. This is why many Greens and Democrats are getting behind him


[Edited on September 20, 2007 at 4:43 PM. Reason : s]

9/20/2007 4:33:42 PM

Quote :

"He wants to get rid of the income tax completely, and not replace it with anything"

on the premise that states should be the only governments to tax income directly

9/20/2007 4:43:29 PM

Well, obviously the States would retain the right to do that, but he certainly would argue that they shouldn't. He doesn't support abolition of federal income tax just so States can steal from their people just as much.

9/20/2007 4:44:37 PM

^^^ iirc he supports the fair tax

I'll have to go back and look


either way, I'm all about the fair tax

9/20/2007 4:59:00 PM

Quote :

"He wants to allow anyone to opt completely out of the system, if they wish, especially young people. But, any promises already made must be kept, and would be funded out of the remaining SS taxes + some of the others, until the program almost becomes negligible in size over time."

By letting young people opt out of the system, you wouldn't be able to sustain any promises made to the baby boomers. We're going to have a hard enough time just trying to keep the current system afloat with all of the people paying into it now.... (not saying the system isn't flawed, cause it is...but thats not going to fix the problem)

Also, along the EPA stuff. Is Paul in favor of getting rid of all independent government agencies (the EPA, as well as FEC, FTC, NASA and even the federal banking system are all classified as independent government agencies)? Or just some....?

9/20/2007 5:23:00 PM

Quote :

"By letting young people opt out of the system, you wouldn't be able to sustain any promises made to the baby boomers."

Yeah, I have no sympathy for 90% of the baby boomers, they lived through the longest era of sustained prosperity in United States history, arguably the most widespread wealth distribution era ever . . . and they want me to fund their retirement?

Piss off.

[Edited on September 20, 2007 at 7:24 PM. Reason : ^ not you, the baby boomers.]

9/20/2007 7:13:45 PM

Ron Paul Answers Your Questions:

Quote :

"Don't like: Eliminate the Fed,"

Paul:
"We’ve been headed in the wrong direction since 1971. This week marks the 36th anniversary of Nixon’s decision to close the gold window, which convinced me to seek public office to call attention to the runaway money train that would come in the aftermath of that decision. The temptation to print and spend money with impunity, like the temptation to max out lines of credit, is too strong to for government to resist. While Nixon brokered exclusivity deals with OPEC to prop up demand for the tidal wave of green pieces of paper the Fed pumped into the markets, the world is tiring of marching to the beat of our drum in order to secure their energy needs. The house of cards Nixon built is now on the verge of collapsing on our heads, and on our children’s heads.

As the dollar weakens, it becomes ever clearer that we need a return to sound, commodity-based money for a secure future. Money based on real value, not empty promises and secretive backroom machinations, is the way to get out of the current calamity without causing even bigger problems."

Quote :

"Eliminate (fill in the blank) department - extreme maybe?"

"In a free society, government is restrained – and therefore political power is less important. I believe the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else. In other words, the state as referee rather than an active participant in our society."

Quote :

"Abortion - not sure, but willing to listen"

"Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion.

There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.

Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves."

Quote :

"Flat Tax - can this transition be made, much less work?"

"It’s doubtful that former politicians and tax bureaucrats will propose meaningful tax reform. After all, we’ve heard this song before. Remember the big tax reform bills of 1986, 1997, and 2001? We were promised a simpler tax code each time, but it never happened. Some slight progress has been made in terms of very modest rate reductions and a slow phaseout of the estate tax, but even those changes may be reversed by revenue-hungry future congresses.

True tax reform is as simple as cutting or eliminating taxes. No studies, panels, committees, or hearings are needed. When reform proposals seem complicated, they almost certainly don’t cut taxes. Government spending is the problem! When the federal government takes $2.5 trillion dollars out of the legitimate private economy in a single year, whether through taxes or borrowing, spending clearly is out of control. Deficit spending creates a de facto tax hike, because deficits can be repaid only by future tax increases. By this measure Congress and the president have raised taxes dramatically over the past few years, despite the tax-cutting rhetoric. The real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform."

9/20/2007 9:09:29 PM

Quote :

"By letting young people opt out of the system, you wouldn't be able to sustain any promises made to the baby boomers"

We pay social security to support the current recipients. I think the best course of action is too slowly phase out social secuirty personal deductions in favor of a mandatory retirement saving program with the money instead.

Just letting people all of a sudden "opt out" of the system would be a disaster.

9/21/2007 11:29:12 AM

Quote :

"Ron Paul Answers Your Questions:"

with good answers too

9/21/2007 3:39:18 PM

Quote :

"As to the EPA and regulatory agencies, again, he simply wishes to send the issue to the states, and have no federal EPA, mainly because the Constitution doesn't grant the feds that regulatory power. But, the right to an EPA is retained by the people and the States, if they so wish. If the federal EPA were abolished, especially with sufficient notice ahead of time, there would be a pretty smooth transition to (likely) state or city-run EPA's. Bureaucratic waste would be greatly reduced, the Constitution would be followed, and the people would have more direct control over what their regulatory conditions are like. Now that sounds good to me."

I would support reforming the EPA, but totally abolishing it... I dunno. Having to go through the regulatory approval process of 50 state EPAs would be an immense burden on a company, which could slow product development considerably. Then theres the extra bureaucracy that states will have to bear when the federal government relinquishes it. Sounds kinda like a clusterfuck to me. All for the sake of upholding the Constitution?

[Edited on September 23, 2007 at 2:10 AM. Reason : .]

9/23/2007 2:01:12 AM

Quote :

" All for the sake of upholding the Constitution?"

by their political stances, i know most people feel this way

but it just strikes me as funny when someone comes right and says "Fuck the Constitution and doing things the way we're supposed to! We'll just do whatever, whenever, and however!"

9/23/2007 3:55:45 AM

Quote :

"Having to go through the regulatory approval process of 50 state EPAs would be an immense burden on a company, which could slow product development considerably"

Most highly industrial states already have their own regulatory laws. The EPA does a pretty shitty job of enforcement or forward-looking policy, because it's vastly understaffed and underfunded. Gviving the responsibility to states ensures that the areas and people who are affected are the ones to pay for it. Having it done state by state would only even affect a VERY small percentage of companies in the US, and most companies would likely love to see this happen, because it gives them more market opportunity for relocating.

9/23/2007 5:31:26 AM

^ ahahahahahaha jesus christ you're ignorant

9/23/2007 9:47:51 AM

Quote :

"but it just strikes me as funny when someone comes right and says "Fuck the Constitution and doing things the way we're supposed to! We'll just do whatever, whenever, and however!""

Who's saying that?

9/23/2007 6:41:31 PM

you, sir, that's who

9/23/2007 8:40:42 PM

Quote :

"Most highly industrial states already have their own regulatory laws. The EPA does a pretty shitty job of enforcement or forward-looking policy, because it's vastly understaffed and underfunded. Gviving the responsibility to states ensures that the areas and people who are affected are the ones to pay for it. Having it done state by state would only even affect a VERY small percentage of companies in the US, and most companies would likely love to see this happen, because it gives them more market opportunity for relocating."

1) I'm sure Enron had it's own self-regulatory policies too.

2) I'd appreciate some form of evidence describing the EPA's "shitty job of enforcement."

3) Eliminating the federal EPA calls into question how to settle disputes stretching across states. Who's policies apply?

4) Private industry generally loves little to no regulation. That doesn't mean it's a good thing.

9/23/2007 11:26:11 PM