http://youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ

This guy is on the money if you ask me.

We should all vote for him! :)

No thanks. Ron Paul is a libertarian kook (but I repeat myself)

:thumbs:

No thanks. Ron Paul is a libertarian kook (but I repeat myself)

:thumbs:
Makes him A-OK in my book!

Makes him A-OK in my book!

I prefer to be governed by people who believe in government.

At least Ron Paul respects the Constitution, though I can't agree with his desire to get rid of Medicare. He and Dennis Kucinich are about the only candidates who have read the Constitution.

I prefer to be governed by people who believe in government.
I prefer to be governed by people who believe that government is a necessary evil.

Diff'rent strokes, I guess...

My favorite Ron Paul video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ErBROBgERs

I prefer to be governed by people who believe in government.
i prefer to have people in government that realize i'm a citizen, not a subject..different strokes i guess:rolleyes:

I prefer to be governed by people who believe in government.

There's a difference between believing in as little government as possible (libertarian) and not believing in government. (anarchist)

Sedan, do you think Paul's online supporters will be able to bolster his horrendous name recognition for him to have a fighting chance in the primaries? He ranked second to last in the latest Gallup poll in February. Time is running out. YouTube is nice, CNN is much better. The networks seem to be avoiding him. Any idea on why this is?

Sedan, do you think Paul's online supporters will be able to bolster his horrendous name recognition for him to have a fighting chance in the primaries? He ranked second to last in the latest Gallup poll in February. Time is running out. YouTube is nice, CNN is much better. The networks seem to be avoiding him. Any idea on why this is?
he's getting more coverage than Duncan Hunter or Mike Huckabee...i think it's because the they don't have a real chance either.

Sedan, do you think Paul's online supporters will be able to bolster his horrendous name recognition for him to have a fighting chance in the primaries? He ranked second to last in the latest Gallup poll in February. Time is running out. YouTube is nice, CNN is much better. The networks seem to be avoiding him. Any idea on why this is?
That was February, a long time ago. I think he's gotten much more recognized since then. He's been on the Daily Show and a few "legitimate" news shows since then.

Like most people I give Paul little to no chance of getting the nomination -- but strange things happen in politics. Right now his political position reminds me a bit of Reagan's in 1976 when he challenged Gerald Ford. Few thought he had a chance but he damn near won it that year and cemented his position as the front-runner in 1980. Oddly enough, Ron Paul led the Texas delegation that cast it's ballots for Reagan at the 1976 convention.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Ron_Paul_and_Reagan.jpg

There's a difference between believing in as little government as possible (libertarian) and not believing in government. (anarchist)

That difference is minuscule.

No thanks. Ron Paul is a libertarian kook (but I repeat myself)

:thumbs: Yes and it is just that reason he will not be the republican nomination. To many people have that opinon of him! Personally I don't think he is as bad as all the other republicans running though. But at this point I'm am guessing it will be Hillary vs. Rudy in 2008!

Yes and it is just that reason he will not be the republican nomination. To many people have that opinon of him! Personally I don't think he is as bad as all the other republicans running though. But at this point I'm am guessing it will be Hillary vs. Rudy in 2008!

My guess is that it will be Hillary vs Thompson.

My guess is that it will be Hillary vs Thompson.

Hillary VS anyone would be like Christmas in November.

My guess is that it will be Hillary vs Thompson.
Or, as I would call them, Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

I know that many more people in my area have taken notice of Ron Paul in the most recent months and are leaning towards him. Fine by me...I'm there.

Based upon Paul's voting record (see link below), if elected, he would veto every bill submitted to him, regardless of which party backed them. He tends to vote NO,or NOT VOTE, on most issues.
He claims to believe in "small government", but his record indicates its more like "no government".

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929

Based upon Paul's voting record (see link below), if elected, he would veto every bill submitted to him, regardless of which party backed them. He tends to vote NO,or NOT VOTE, on most issues.
He claims to believe in "small government", but his record indicates its more like "no government".

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929
Yep. One of the many reasons I love him.

He claims to believe in "small government", but his record indicates its more like "no government".

Sounds perfect

Yep. One of the many reasons I love him.


Yeah, a number of people love anarchy, but I hope not enough to elect Paul.

Ron Paul does not support anarchy. Gosh, quit it with the melodrama, will ya? :rolleyes:

Ron Paul does not support anarchy. Gosh, quit it with the melodrama, will ya? :rolleyes:


Maybe not, but electing him would lead to it, at least thats what his voting record indicates. Anyone who votes NO, or doesn't bother to vote, on the majority of items, is not governing. He's abdicating.
Hopefully there are not many people who support his brand of inaction.

Yes, we don't want small government. We want a bigger government with more rules! Having maximum freedom is entirely overrated!

Maybe not, but electing him would lead to it, at least thats what his voting record indicates. Anyone who votes NO, or doesn't bother to vote, on the majority of items, is not governing. He's abdicating.
Hopefully there are not many people who support his brand of inaction.
So voting no is abdicating now? Maybe he just, you know, disagrees with the bills?

So voting no is abdicating now? Maybe he just, you know, disagrees with the bills?
No way! That can't possibly be it! Everyone knows that unless he votes YES, he wants our country plunged into government-free anarchy!!!! :eek:

Yes, we don't want small government. We want a bigger government with more rules! Having maximum freedom is entirely overrated!

Paul reminds me of G. McGovern, a lot of support from the young, but no substantial support. Thankfully.

The President can not give you "small government" only Congress can accomplish that, and Congress will never support a president who veto's everything.

Paul reminds me of G. McGovern, a lot of support from the young, but no substantial support. Thankfully.

The President can not give you "small government" only Congress can accomplish that, and Congress will never support a president who veto's everything.
Why is support from the young not substantial? Last time I checked there were millions of young people in this country... They just need encouragement to vote.

And of course Congress wants all their silly unnecessary bills passed...

Why is support from the young not substantial? Last time I checked there were millions of young people in this country... They just need encouragement to vote.

You'll have ask the youth of America about that, but I suspect it has something to with many of those between 18 and 30 just not giving as rats a$$ about politics.


And of course Congress wants all their silly unnecessary bills passed...

And thats just why Congress would not work with someone like Paul.

Paul reminds me of G. McGovern, a lot of support from the young, but no substantial support. Thankfully.
A more apt comparison is Barry Goldwater.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ

This guy is on the money if you ask me.


That's why he'll never win - not enough corporate backing - because he's a straight shooter:(

Paul reminds me of G. McGovern, a lot of support from the young, but no substantial support. Thankfully.

The President can not give you "small government" only Congress can accomplish that, and Congress will never support a president who veto's everything.

Likewise, I wouldn't think Congress would be so willing to increase the executive's power like they have in the last 5 years or so. If Paul is elected, it'll send a message to Congress that the American people want a small government. (why else would Paul be elected?) Considering how low their approval rating is currently, I don't think it's a stretch to say they'd be willing to cooperate for the sake of job security.

You'll have ask the youth of America about that, but I suspect it has something to with many of those between 18 and 30 just not giving as rats a$$ about politics.

Paul doesn't get much coverage. I'd say you'd have to give a rats ass about politics to bother learning about his stances. If they didn't care, they'd support a more popular candidate.

A more apt comparison is Barry Goldwater.


Forgot all about him. Guess that demonstrates how much of an impression he made on me, when I was in my 30's.

Paul doesn't get much coverage. I'd say you'd have to give a rats ass about politics to bother learning about his stances. If they didn't care, they'd support a more popular candidate.
Indeed, most of the people I talk to at school seem to support Obama, because they don't like Hilary and they think that since they're young they have to be liberal. They mostly have no idea about any of the issues, except maybe to know how they feel about abortion or gay marriage...

Indeed, most of the people I talk to at school seem to support Obama, because they don't like Hilary and they think that since they're young they have to be liberal. They mostly have no idea about any of the issues, except maybe to know how they feel about abortion or gay marriage...
My personal pick from the Dems would probably be Gravel or Richardson, if I had to choose between them. Obama would have to convince me to vote for him. Hillary, not in a million years.

Ron Paul does not support anarchy. Gosh, quit it with the melodrama, will ya? :rolleyes:

Sorry DF, but his idea of "smaller government" is so close to no government as to make little difference.

That is exactly the philosophy they have been relying on in Iraq. The privatized all the industry, they instituted a flat tax, they shrunk the Iraqi government to the size it could be "drown in a bathtub", they have been bringing in cheaper labor from Shri Lanka for the rebuilding projects, essentially they have attempted to turn Iraq into a Libertarian "utopia"... how is it all working out in Iraq? The unemployment rate in Iraq is around 50%. Is that what you really want here in America? That is what Ron Paul is offering.

Thom Hartmann gave a really good illustration of how these libertarian ideas actually work in real life in this article (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/11/3754/).

That is exactly the philosophy they have been relying on in Iraq. The privatized all the industry, they instituted a flat tax, they shrunk the Iraqi government to the size it could be "drown in a bathtub", they have been bringing in cheaper labor from Shri Lanka for the rebuilding projects, essentially they have attempted to turn Iraq into a Libertarian "utopia"... how is it all working out in Iraq? The unemployment rate in Iraq is around 50%. Is that what you really want here in America? That is what Ron Paul is offering.
Oh my gosh, dharma... You've really outdone yourself. How could you possibly even suggest that having Ron Paul as president will turn America into Iraq? I'm pretty sure you could find other reasons for the high unemployment rate there than the fact that it's a "Libertarian utopia". Or are you trying to suggest that everything in Iraq is fine and dandy?

Oh my gosh, dharma... You've really outdone yourself. How could you possibly even suggest that having Ron Paul as president will turn America into Iraq?

How can I suggest it? Simple. Because that is what his (libertarian) policies would lead to. Read the book "fubar' sometime. It explains all about they had no Plan B for Iraq because of the neocon libertarian fantasy about how the mythical "free market" would fix all the problems in Iraq.

Here we are, five years later, and the non-existent "Free market" still hasn't done anything to help the Iraqis.

What they need is the Marshall Plan in Iraq. Something that is proven to work.


I'm pretty sure you could find other reasons for the high unemployment rate there than the fact that it's a "Libertarian utopia". Or are you trying to suggest that everything in Iraq is fine and dandy?

Obviously I was being sarcastic when I said "libertarian utopia".

Nothing in Iraq is "fine and dandy".

That is the point.

:thumbs:
DB

How can I suggest it? Simple. Because that is what his (libertarian) policies would lead to. Read the book "fubar' sometime. It explains all about they had no Plan B for Iraq because of the neocon libertarian fantasy about how the mythical "free market" would fix all the problems in Iraq.

Here we are, five years later, and the non-existent "Free market" still hasn't done anything to help the Iraqis.

What they need is the Marshall Plan in Iraq. Something that is proven to work.
There's a large difference between a Muslim country ravaged by war, and a large Western nation that hasn't been in a real war since the 40s. You cannot compare the two when discussing economic theory.

By the way, I think the New Deal was the best possible thing for the country at the time.

There's a large difference between a Muslim country ravaged by war, and a large Western nation that hasn't been in a real war since the 40s. You cannot compare the two when discussing economic theory.

The european nations were all ravaged by war at the time of the marshall plan. There is no reason not to draw that comparison.


By the way, I think the New Deal was the best possible thing for the country at the time.

I wasn't talking about the new deal, but whatever. I agree.

How can I suggest it? Simple. Because that is what his (libertarian) policies would lead to. Read the book "fubar' sometime. It explains all about they had no Plan B for Iraq because of the neocon libertarian fantasy about how the mythical "free market" would fix all the problems in Iraq.

:confused: Is your beef with the libertarian policies or just not having a plan B?

Is your beef with the libertarian policies or just not having a plan B?

Both. They didn't have a plan B because they believed so strongly in their libertarian fantasies.

The european nations were all ravaged by war at the time of the marshall plan. There is no reason not to draw that comparison.
They were also Western nations, unless you believe that Muslims are more likely than Americans to take to laissez faire economics easily.
I wasn't talking about the new deal, but whatever. I agree.
It was intended to counter your "neocon libertarian fantasies" bit.

By the way, don't lump neocons in with libertarians. They are entirely opposite from each other in all but a couple ways. Neocons are big statists.

They were also Western nations, unless you believe that Muslims are more likely than Americans to take to laissez faire economics easily.

There was nothing "laissez faire" about the Marshall Plan. That would be like referring to the Stalin regime as a peace movement.



It was intended to counter your "neocon libertarian fantasies" bit.

Didn't work.


By the way, don't lump neocons in with libertarians. They are entirely opposite from each other in all but a couple ways. Neocons are big statists.

Like most libertarians they talk a good game but reality ends up making them into "big statists" when it runs into their laissez faire economic policies.

There was nothing "laissez faire" about the Marshall Plan. That would be like referring to the Stalin regime as a peace movement.
I am well aware of it. Read my post again. I was contrasting laissez faire economics with the Marshall Plan.

I thought Libertarians were all about big government and redistribution of wealth.

Wait.... no.... my bad...

That's Demolists and Socialcrats... I mean, Democrats and Socialists...




Sorry, continue on.

My main problem with libertarians is that most of them have a myopic view of what it really means. I've rarely heard any of them talk about the government being able to shut down/fine/imprison corporations and their operators. If there are no regulations then there must be stringent enforcement on a breach of anothers life, liberty etc. This should include pollution, running water etc. Suits filed by individuals who have far fewer resources than corporations do not start out on the same footing.

Libertarians also believe that the government should only exist for organized violence. They believe in only regulating organized violence through the police and military. Now if individual rights are strictly enforced this may work.

That being said, I prefer libertarians to almost all the bastards current inhabiting our government.

Sedan, do you think Paul's online supporters will be able to bolster his horrendous name recognition for him to have a fighting chance in the primaries? He ranked second to last in the latest Gallup poll in February. Time is running out. YouTube is nice, CNN is much better. The networks seem to be avoiding him. Any idea on why this is?
Ron Paul will be toast after the first primary the only people supporting DR DOPE is the dope addicts and they will be too stoned to vote and if they do vote they will probably screw it up and vote for the wrong candidate anyway:woohoo:

I thought Libertarians were all about big government and redistribution of wealth.


No they are about tiny, useless government and redistribution of wealth.

:thumbs:

First, one of the main reasons the Marshall Plan was so successful was that it broke down the previous trade barriers between the european nations. Thus, once their industry started working, they could export to each other, giving fuel to their economies. It proved to be an effective tool at unifying Europe and was a big step towards the Europe we see today.

Second, I'm reminded of the old quote, "There's nothing so close to immortality as a government program." I don't think it's even possible anymore to make the government small, but we can stop it from growing for a while. Paul's got my vote! (I need to register first)

Just my 3 cents.

Oh, and Sedan, it seems you're a student of history. Do you take classes/have you majored in it? Or is it a personal passion?

I don't think it's even possible anymore to make the government small,

Sure it is, if you are willing to make sacrifices... or at least force others to make sacrifices.

Sacrifices like peace, prosperity, security and equality... to name a few.

A more apt comparison is Barry Goldwater. I knew Barry Goldwater And Ron Paul is a pimple on Barrys ass HELL Fred Thompson is more like Berry Then Ron Paul :lolhit:

No they are about tiny, useless government and redistribution of wealth.

:thumbs: And letting the states tax you to DEATH

I knew Barry Goldwater And Ron Paul is a pimple on Barrys ass HELL Fred Thompson is more like Berry Then Ron Paul :lolhit:
Fred Thompson is one of the candidates I would never ever vote for. Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul are some of my political heroes, as well as Richard Nixon (pre-Watergate) and Calvin Coolidge. So, calling Fred Thompson like Goldwater is pretty specious.

Ron Paul won the straw poll in my home state of Maryland. Unfortunately, MD is firmly a blue state, but it's encouraging nonetheless.

Ron Paul Wins Maryland Straw Poll (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2007/09/the_choice_of_the_maryland_gop.html)

A curious thing happened this year at the Maryland Republican Party booth at the State Fair: A GOP presidential straw poll was won by Ron Paul, the idiosyncratic congressman from Texas who is a fierce critic of the Iraq war.

Perhaps just as curious was the Maryland GOP's decision to trumpet the results in a press release yesterday with the headline: "Maryland GOP Presidential Straw Poll Is A Big Success; Grassroots Candidate Wins Surprise Upset."

According to the release, Paul received 263 votes, while former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (the candidate for whom former governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) is toiling) was second with 220 votes. (Ehrlich received three write-in votes himself.) Former Tennesse senator Fred Thompson -- who had yet to declare his candidacy -- finished third with 188 votes. No other candidate cracked 100 votes.

Unfortunately straw polls don't mean a whole lot. John Edwards has been winning straw polls here for a while now, but the media still treats him like he doesn't have a chance because he is a white male and the media is determined to make sure the Democratic nominee in 2008 is either a woman or a black man.

As Robert Novak pointed out the right wing desperately wants that for the next election.

"Leave it to the Democrats to think that this is the year to run a woman or a black man for President. That gives Republicans like me hope." - Robert Novak on Meet the Press.

Unfortunately straw polls don't mean a whole lot.
I was thinking that too. Gives him good publicity, though.

I was thinking that too. Gives him good publicity, though.

True dat. :)

I think it does say a lot about the field of Republicans that he is doing so well against so many better known people.

Unfortunately straw polls don't mean a whole lot. John Edwards has been winning straw polls here for a while now, but the media still treats him like he doesn't have a chance because he is a white male and the media is determined to make sure the Democratic nominee in 2008 is either a woman or a black man.

As Robert Novak pointed out the right wing desperately wants that for the next election.
Of course, but Ron Paul's main problem is publicity. Most of the people I know have never even heard of him. If he can gain some support outside of the internet he might have a chance...

True dat. :)

I think it does say a lot about the field of Republicans that he is doing so well against so many better known people.
There's really no clear front runner out of the Republicans now. I keep hearing that Giuliani is losing support, and no one else really had much in the first place.

There's really no clear front runner out of the Republicans now. I keep hearing that Giuliani is losing support, and no one else really had much in the first place.

A conservative friend of mine recently admitted to me that he was pulling for Thompson specifically because he is a tabula rasa. I assured him that once he got into the race, that would not remain the case for long.