tree, I really think you would like him if you thought about it

5/21/2007 5:24:59 PM

i agree with some of his stances more than any other candidate, but some of them are too over the top for me

and i personally didnt like the way he phrased his point about foreign policy influencing 9/11

5/21/2007 5:29:49 PM

I'm the same way, I don't agree with him 100%, but I agree with him more than I've agreed with any other candidate EVER

I also don't think OUR ACTIONS caused 9/11

but I do believe that while we've gone around projecting our power globally we've created people that want to be us, some that envy us and some that even hate us.

stepping on toes in certain places (even if it seems to be the right thing to do at the time) has started creating generations of people that hate us... if we don't take a step back and look at the world and re-evaluate our priorities, I'm afraid we'll end up fighting pissed off people until we break

It's a shame that his comments just give the mainstream conservative radio the fuel they were waiting to pour on the Ron Paul fire all along

there is no difference between left wingers and right wingers anymore when it comes to pissing on the everyday american's rights... they all stand in line at the same urinal

5/21/2007 5:42:42 PM

I don't like that he is staunchly pro-life.

5/21/2007 5:47:34 PM

Quote :

""life, liberty, pursuit of happines"

he's believes in the constitution, I'd say the term "life" could have something to do with his stance

he is also an obstetrician... I may be more pro-choice, but I understand why he feels that way... would he not also want abortion to be handled at the state level?

5/21/2007 5:57:23 PM

Quote :

"some of them are too over the top for me"

Which stances are too over the top for you? (besides his 9/11 points)

Quote :

"would he not also want abortion to be handled at the state level?"

Yes.. he supports the repeal of Roe v Wade and returning the issue to the states. Being a baby doctor, he is convinced that a fetus is a person with all the rights to life, liberty and happiness that post-birth people enjoy.

I don't know if anyone has thrown him the pro-choice folks favorite question about women having abortions in back alleys with wire hangers.

[Edited on May 21, 2007 at 8:03 PM. Reason : .]

5/21/2007 8:03:21 PM

Quote :

"I don't agree with him 100%, but I agree with him more than I've agreed with any other candidate EVER"

agreed

5/22/2007 1:26:00 AM

I met Dr. Paul after the SC debate, and he's a very down-to-earth, jovial guy. He answered a question of mine and signed my copy of the Constitution. I believe that he would definitely entertain running as an independent when there is an outcry of support if he loses the GOP nomination. Right now, he can't say, "Of course I'll run third party," because then he'll lose GOP support. His fundraising has gone through the roof in recent weeks, so he could possibly support an (I) run, rather than third party. Also, if he doesn't end up running, there will still be a write-in campaign for him.

5/24/2007 11:15:54 AM

Ron Paul sounds too much like RuPaul

5/24/2007 11:18:12 AM

Quote :

"I met Dr. Paul after the SC debate, and he's a very down-to-earth, jovial guy."

OK you're making me jealous now.

5/24/2007 11:25:15 AM

Quote :

"he is convinced that a fetus is a person with all the rights to life, liberty and happiness that post-birth people enjoy. "

If he believes that, why would he make abortion a state decision. That would be like making the legality of murder a state decision right?

5/24/2007 11:30:02 AM

^The constitution.

5/24/2007 12:05:22 PM

^

^^ i'm sick of that argument. one of the principles this country was founded upon, among many others, is keeping government OUT of personal lives. abortion is a PERSONAL decision. our legislatures are NOT supposed to make laws to regulate our personal lives, they are supposed to best represent our beliefs, check them AGAINST the constitution, and make laws in that manner

it's so funny. imagine if instead of republicans trying to make abortion illegal, you had democrats trying to make religion illegal. immediately the cry would be "stay out of our personal lives" and it would be a perfectly legitimate cry.



[Edited on May 24, 2007 at 12:30 PM. Reason : jank]

5/24/2007 12:28:34 PM

^

In some people's opinions, abortion is a personal decision that affects their own bodies.

In some people's opinions, abortion is a personal decision that affects another human life.




What you stated is OPINION, so don't treat it as fact.

[Edited on May 24, 2007 at 12:36 PM. Reason : .]

5/24/2007 12:35:39 PM

^it is fact that powers not expressly given to the feds in the constitution are left for state govs. that would allow for regional values and ethics to be applied in a case such as abortion, and imo would be much better for the country as a whole......

Damn interstate commerce clause.

5/24/2007 1:07:11 PM

^

im assuming you meant to put ^^ because I agree completely with you

5/24/2007 2:33:02 PM

Quote :

"Ron Paul rocks Republican bigwigs James Pinkerton, Newsday.com May 24, 2007 One assumes that Ron Paul knows he is not going to be the next president of the United States - or even the next Republican nominee. Yet the Texas congressman is campaigning hard, aiming particular ire and fire at Rudy Giuliani. Paul is commonly regarded - by those who have heard of him - as more of a Libertarian than a Republican. That is, he believes in minimal regulation at home and minimal intervention abroad. Indeed, Paul took a detour out of the Grand Old Party back in 1988, when he ran on the Libertarian Party ticket for president; he received less than half of 1 percent of the nationwide vote. So it's little wonder, then, that Paul is viewed dimly by top Republicans - the party loyalists, social-issue-regulators and neoconservative militarists who have come to dominate the GOP. And while his campaign staff finds imaginative ways to measure his momentum - one recent release reported that Paul had become "the third most-mentioned person in the blogosphere, beating out Paris Hilton" - more conventional measures show him way back in the pack. He stands at 1 percent, or less, in polls of Republican presidential preference. But there's something liberating, for Paul, about being at asterisk-levels of support. There's also something inspiring in Paul's long-shot candidacy - to Republicans who think their party has lost its way during the White House tenure of George W. Bush. At a recent press breakfast organized by The American Spectator, Paul got right to the point: He wants to take the party back from those who would "spend more money, run bigger deficits and police the world." Indeed, the Texan is blunt about his own party's electoral prospects: "The Republicans cannot win next year with a pro-war position." He cites, as proof-parallels, the 1952 and 1968 presidential elections, in which the voters tossed out the party presiding over unpopular foreign wars - Korea and Vietnam, respectively. But, of course, before the general election comes the nomination. And for now all the other Republican presidential hopefuls - those who yearn to bask in honored glory at next year's national convention in Minneapolis - are mostly keeping faith with the Bush administration's Iraq war policies, still popular with the nominating cadres inside the party. And central to the Bush-centric worldview, of course, is the idea that our enemies in the Middle East are motivated by hatred - hatred of freedom. Paul has a different view, which he expressed at the May 15 South Carolina Republican debate: They don't hate us for who we are; they hate us for what we do, politically and militarily, around the Middle East. "Blowback," as it's called, is a controversial thesis, but it does explain why Osama bin Laden goes after America and not, say, Switzerland. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani reacted energetically to Paul in that South Carolina debate, scoring pro-Bush-brownie points on national TV. But Paul is unbowed; he cites, as supporting evidence, the 9/11 Commission report, and calls upon the expertise of friendly foreign policy experts, including former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, author of the 2004 book, "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror." Yet, for all his antipathy to Bush and the neoconservatives, Paul is no fan of the Democrats - regarding them as slaves to the same interventionist ideology. But he does cite one exception to the rule: Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio - the hard-core "peace" candidate who opposed not only the Iraq war but the Clinton administration's military campaigns in the Balkans. Like Paul the Republican, Kucinich the Democrat is at the bottom of his party's presidential rankings. And that's why, Paul says, the wars are likely to continue, no matter who next wins the White House. But in the meantime Paul campaigns on with his idiosyncratic message, inspired by motives that look a lot like altruism and genuine belief. "

5/26/2007 12:00:04 AM

I was at the Northwest Folklife Festival in Seattle this weekend.

there were several different groups of Ron Paul supporters near the various entrances holding signs and trying to pass out literature. i shit you not they all looked like some hillbillies straight outta the trailer park.

i mean they were all totally fat and dumpy, standing around smoking cigarettes and generally looking trashy. (realize, Seattle has one of the most anti-smoking cultures in the US, unless youre a grunge/punk/goth teenager, smokers look really out of place here)

and one guy actually was wearing a grungy wifebeater t-shirt.

the few times i observed these different groups, everyone avoided them like the plague. i remember one normal looking guy was approached by a Paul volunteer trying to hand him a leaflet, asking him "will you consider voting for Ron Paul"? the guy was like "No way!". the volunteer got all snarky, and said "Well, bad luck for YOU then!"



i swear these Ron Paul people are already starting to remind me of the perennial Lyndon LaRouche groupies.

5/27/2007 11:26:10 PM

FYI, I consider myself fairly liberal, and I really, really like Ron Paul.

5/30/2007 9:06:38 AM

Quote :

"i swear these Ron Paul people are already starting to remind me of the perennial Lyndon LaRouche groupies."

We're the people that actually thinks the rules should be followed instead of broken routinely by aristocrats to serve political purposes. So it is normal for the second group to think we're nuts. Put simply, libertarians believe in democracy that the Constitution states should occur, Republicans and Democrats only believe in democracy when it suits their overall purpose of winning.

Give both parties 20 years and the Republicans will move toward a fascist philosophy (some already have) and the Democrats will move toward a socialist philosophy (some already have). If you don't believe me, you are more than welcome to go read the viewpoints of each party's activists. In both cases, the individual is suppressed and the central government is very strong and makes all decisions. The country will have an election in the future between Francisco Franco and Hugo Chavez types. And when that election occurs, Democrats and Republicans would still state "don't vote for the moderate independent, it's a wasted vote".

As for the whole "groupie mindset" you bring up. We believe in what we say. It's our country. If you and I don't have the balls to stand up for what we believe in, who will?

[Edited on May 30, 2007 at 10:22 AM. Reason : .]

5/30/2007 10:02:57 AM

Quote :

"Republicans will move toward a fascist philosophy (some already have) and the Democrats will move toward a socialist philosophy (some already have). "

Damn. My thoughts in a nutshell. Well done.

5/30/2007 11:20:39 AM

Quote :

" The GOP would be wise to listen to Ron Paul's message Bruce Ramsey, Seattle Times, 5/30/07 Two-thirds of Americans can now see that starting a war in Iraq was a mistake. The majority of Republicans still do not see it. Eventually they will, but it's hard to go against their own president unless one of their own makes them do it. That may be the usefulness of Rep. Ron Paul. There is no way this libertarian medical doctor from Texas is going to win the Republican nomination. His strict noninterventionist policy is too radical a change for Republicans. But on foreign policy the Republican Party could use a dose of criticism that gets to the root of things, and that is what Paul has to offer. Paul says his party will lose the presidency in 2008 if they are still supporting the war, and he is probably right. He does not waste time arguing about surges or timetables. He says America ought to get out, and that America ought to adopt a general policy of staying out of other countries' wars. Paul rejects President Bush's gum-drop idea that the terrorists hate us for our freedom. They hate us because of what our government has done in their part of the world. In the May 15 debate, Paul said America was attacked on 9/11 "because we were over there." At the debate, Rudy Giuliani disingenuously declared that he had never heard such a statement, as if it were ridiculous on its face. After the debate, Paul went on Fox's "Hannity & Colmes" show, and Sean Hannity barked at him: Did he think America was to blame for 9/11? No, Paul said, though really he was saying something like that. When your government acts as an imperial power, the natives bite back. They are responsible for what they do, but theirs is not the only responsibility. When a Saudi zealot kills Americans, you can blame the deaths on the Saudi because he did it, or on the U.S. government for stationing soldiers in the Saudi's homeland, which aggravated him. Paul's point is that if you don't aggravate folks, you don't get bit. In the debate, he said, "The conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy." It hasn't recently, but it did have a faction like that until the Cold War. There was a revival of it in the 1990s, particularly in opposition to Bill Clinton's undeclared war on Serbia. Then came 9/11. In October 2002, only six Republicans in Congress — including Ron Paul — voted against starting a war with Iraq. It is fairly clear now that America will leave Iraq, and not in triumph. It will be tempting for the Republicans to blame the result on the Democrats, because that would mean that the Republicans were "right" in some theoretical way. But they were not right. They did not understand Iraq, or the history of imperialism or much of anything beyond knocking over Saddam Hussein. In foreign affairs, the Republicans are our nationalist party, and there is a role for that. But they need to question the idea of a "global war on terror." The 9/11 attacks were acts of desperation by 19 men with box cutters. What these men did looked and felt like acts of war, but really it was an audacious crime, planned and executed by a political gang financed with private money. Fighting such gangs is the job of cops, security workers, customs agents, G-men, diplomats and alert citizens. It is an important task, but we are not at war. America hasn't been attacked in nearly six years. Republicans need to settle on a foreign policy that asserts American interests in a realistic and humane way. Whether they go as far as the noninterventionism of Ron Paul is another question, but they have to jettison the Bush policy of preemptive war. That the leading Republican contenders refuse to question that policy is a sign that they have not learned and, 17 months from now, will not win."

5/30/2007 11:42:03 AM

Which one of you was on the corner of Western and Avent Ferry with a Ron Paul sign today?

5/30/2007 7:02:21 PM

Quote :

"Immigration ‘Compromise’ Sells Out Our Sovereignty by Ron Paul The much-vaunted Senate “compromise” on immigration is a compromise alright: a compromise of our laws, a compromise of our sovereignty, and a compromise of the Second Amendment. That anyone in Washington believes this is a credible approach to solving our immigration crisis suggests just how out of touch our political elites really are. The reality is that this bill will grant amnesty to virtually all of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in the country today. Supporters use very creative language to try and convince us that amnesty is not really amnesty, but when individuals who have entered the United States illegally are granted citizenship – regardless of the fees they are charged – what you have is amnesty. What is seldom discussed in the immigration debate, unfortunately, is the incentives the US government provides for people to enter the United States illegally. As we know well, when the government subsidizes something we get more of it. The government provides a myriad of federal welfare benefits to those who come to the US illegally, including food stamps and free medical care. Is this a way to discourage people from coming to the US illegally? Additionally, one of the most absurd incentives for people to come to the US illegally is the promise of instant US citizenship to anyone born on our soil. That is why when Congress returns next week I will be re-introducing my Constitutional amendment to deny automatic citizenship to individuals born on US soil to parents who are not US citizens or who do not owe permanent allegiance to the United States. There are many other very troubling items buried deep in the Senate’s immigration compromise. The bill explicitly calls for an “acceleration” of the March 2005 agreement between the US president, the president of Mexico, and the prime minister of Canada, known as the “Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America.” This somewhat secretive agreement – a treaty in all but name – aims to erase the borders between the United States, Canada, and Mexico and threatens our sovereignty and national security. The SPP was agreed by the president without the participation of Congress. It should be eliminated, not accelerated! According to the pro-Second Amendment Gun Owners of America, the legislation also makes it easier to target gun dealers for prosecution. Even gun clubs could find themselves targeted under this immigration reform legislation. Immigration reform should start with improving our border protection, yet it was reported last week that the federal government has approved the recruitment of 120 of our best trained Border Patrol agents to go to Iraq to train Iraqis how to better defend their borders! This comes at a time when the National Guard troops participating in Operation Jump Start are being removed from border protection duties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas and preparing to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan! It is an outrage and it will result in our borders being more vulnerable to illegal entry, including by terrorists. I will continue to oppose any immigration bill that grants amnesty to illegals or undermines our liberty and sovereignty. "

6/2/2007 10:33:49 AM

Ron Paul will be on the Daily Show tonight.

6/4/2007 8:28:45 PM

good to know

6/4/2007 11:17:06 PM

I saw this guy on the daily show last night. And let me say, I was very impressed. Im a strong democrat, but it was nice to see a republican who actually supports what the original ideals of the republican party were with the smaller government, financial conservatism, isolationsim, etc. He is a breath of fresh air from the conservative side that has been drowning in the bullshit type of conservatism that has been developing since Ronald Reagan and has just continued to go down the tubes ever since.

6/5/2007 3:12:23 PM

Video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=8qrwy3mR3Mo

6/5/2007 6:50:31 PM

i loved just about everything he had to say tonight

6/5/2007 9:51:23 PM

On Colbert Report next Wednesday.

6/6/2007 12:10:54 PM

that should be interesting....the one thing I have noticed is that his sense of humor is a bit dry.

[Edited on June 6, 2007 at 12:13 PM. Reason : d]

6/6/2007 12:13:26 PM

I dunno, on the daily show he seemed to have a decent sense of humor. More of one than I would expect those other jokes of candidates like romney or guilani would have.

6/6/2007 3:39:06 PM

He had a sense of humor, it was just very dry imo.

also, quick question.....a registered independent can vote in one of the 2 presidential primaries, right?

[Edited on June 6, 2007 at 4:00 PM. Reason : question]

6/6/2007 3:58:52 PM

Yeah.

6/6/2007 4:46:02 PM

Here's a question, that goes along with the one above, how can you find out what you are registered as? And if wrongly registered, how do you change? Reason being, I registered when I was 18 and knew little to nothing about politics, my political views have changed.

6/7/2007 5:03:16 PM

^ Don't worry. People change their registrations all the time. If I'm required to be a Republican to vote in the Republican primary, next year, I'll change mine from independent temporarily.

It's not a big deal. In the county where you are registered as a voter, go to the election office personally and get a form and change your registration. I think every county also has the form online which you can download, but you have to hand deliver it I think. Some might let you mail it, not sure.

If you moved counties, all you have to do is re-register in your new county and on the form it asks if you're registered elsewhere, and if you say you are, they'll take care of deregistering you in your last county.

6/7/2007 5:10:46 PM

^ Thanks!

6/7/2007 5:17:24 PM

Quote :

" Charles Davis: Why are you running for president? Ron Paul: I’m running to win and to promote the cause of individual liberty and limited government. And my goal is to shrink the size of the government and maximize the freedoms of each individual. CD: Finally, I was talking to Congressman Duncan (R-TN) and he told me that, more than anyone in Congress, he probably agrees with Ron Paul the most. But yet he still says he’s going to endorse Fred Thompson because he has a chance to win. How do you combat that mindset that says "well, you know, I might agree with you but these other people have a better chance?" RP: We have to convince them by our campaign getting bigger and more credible, and that we go up in the polls. So only time will tell."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/davis4.html

6/8/2007 2:20:15 AM

Quote :

"a registered independent can vote in one of the 2 presidential primaries, right?"

its totally up to the political party, determined new for each primary season.

IIRC, in 2000, Republicans decided to allow Independents to vote in their primary, but Democrats did not. so you could vote for the republican primary or not vote at all.

If both parties allowed independents to vote in their respective primarys, the independent could choose one or the other.

6/8/2007 2:30:36 AM

i think independents should be allowed to vote in both dem and repub primaries. they vote for the person they like best from each side and then have to choose between them

6/8/2007 2:34:07 AM

that would be a good idea, if it wasnt totally stupid.

6/9/2007 12:46:49 AM

consider me an official Ron Paul supporter

6/9/2007 7:11:55 PM

consider me an official Ron Paul supporterdouble poster

6/9/2007 8:17:33 PM

Guys, for this election I think it is important to bite-the-bullet and register Republican. Paul is making headway (word is his quarter 2 fundraising is up to $5 million! donations coming in faster than they can keep track of), and the worst possible event would be the NC GOP closing their primary, to shut down Paul supporters.

Of course I sent in to change my affiliation with Wake County, and they sent me back a new registration card with the same exact information...

6/9/2007 10:54:29 PM

*vote*

6/9/2007 11:09:15 PM

Quote :

"“Congressman Ron Paul’s surprising second place finish in Fox News’ debate watchers text message poll was just the start of his increasing popularity. Paul had received little mention as a true contender for the GOP nomination, yet he earned 25% of the vote and is leaving political analysts scratching their heads. “It is not just the Fox News poll that shows a jump in support for Paul since the second Republican Debate last month in South Carolina. According to TechPresident.com, Paul‘s MySpace support has jumped over 20% to 15,000 ‘friends.’ Moreover, Paul’s YouTube stats have increased 621.2% with 533,314 video downloads. Nearly one million people have visited the Ron Paul YouTube Channel, which is second only to Barrack Obama."

It's exciting watching history in the making. This is the first chance a libertarian candidate has ever recieved this much national attention.

People are thirsting for something different in politics. When voters take a look at the ideas of smaller gov't and personal freedom, they like it. These are core American concepts that are woven into the DNA of our heritage. They just feel right because they are the very ideas our country was founded upon.

6/10/2007 11:01:10 AM

^^^He makes a valid point - it would be very simple for them to just exclude independents for that very reason, so I too think it might be worthwhile to register Republican, just to ensure that you can actually vote for your candidate in the primaries.

6/13/2007 8:20:35 AM

they have to give some kind of notice if they're doing that, right?

6/13/2007 9:04:32 AM

Quote :

"I was at the Northwest Folklife Festival in Seattle this weekend. "

I'm so jealous I was there in 2004, by far the best music festival I've ever been to and I'm not even that into folk music.

Back to Ron Paul, I think the idea is nice, but for some reason I can't bring myself to support him. I guess one reason is because he is trying to align himself with the GOP even though he doesn't fit their ideals. It pisses me off that in order for anyone to be a "valid" candidate for president they have to align with one of the two crappy parties in our country. We are in dire need of some political upheaval in the US to get rid of our current two party system. To see a candidate that actually has some potential align himself with a party that really doesn't even share the same views as him seems like selling out to me.

6/13/2007 10:23:41 AM

Quote :

"I guess one reason is because he is trying to align himself with the GOP even though he doesn't fit their ideals."

he's the epitome of what the republican party was and is meant to be.....imo it's the other candidates that don't align with the ideals of the republican party.

6/13/2007 10:36:17 AM