Thinking of supporting Ron Paul?

[CultureKing]

Liberatarians scare me more than probably any other political group in the US right now.

Because they have so much influence? Even if you consider them to have the worst views, they are nowhere near the most dangerous due to how much success they've had in implementing those views.

I know that they dont have very much influence at the moment but they are a fringe movement that I could see people actually go to in good numbers. At least with the Republicans we are sure that they won't go to far out of the mainstream and at least they have some experience in actual governing positions (also they can work together with others, even if it is to a limited degree at times). And yes their ideals/views while I dont by far view them as the worst I do see them as very impractical/threatening.

[David S]

As of midnight, just over $4 million was raised. That's quite impressive for a grassroots campaign. The record for one day campaign fundraising is $5.7 million by John Kerry in 2004, I believe. Considering that Paul doesn't yet have the name recognition that Kerry had this is a huge result. BTW the Paul campaign didn't orchestrate this. It was a group of his supporters who came up with the idea and promoted it. This campaign is gaining a life of its own.

Now for you folks who say Ron Paul scares you, I can only ask what are you afraid of? What's so scary about freedom? Have you become so dependent on big government that freedom now scares you? What's so scary about the constitution? It  protects our rights. What's so scary about ending the war in Iraq? It was ill-conceived and sold to the public on the basis of false information, and you Democrats who speak out so vehemently against Ron Paul know that this is true.

[2952-0-0]

You're preaching to the crowd, just to let you know. Practically no one thinks the Iraq war is a good idea, and the non-libretarians here are already more so than the average Joe Blow. And by the way, you still haven't addressed my points about Ron Paul's actions that perhaps indicate he's not the independent voice he claims to be.

[MODU]

OH and for those Ron Paul supporters out there: Tone it DOWN, if you want to appeal to the general public you are going to need to not seem like a bunch of crazies (basically Paul supporters remind me alot of LaRouche Gore v2.0 supporters).

Better example.

[Wakie]

You know, I may disagree with Ron Paul but he and his supporters don't terrify me the way the Bush people did.

[bgwah]

For those of you who want socialism Ron Paul is not your man. For those who want to continue this idiotic war in Iraq indefinitely Ron Paul is not your man either. But for American voters who  like the idea of peace, freedom and adherence to the fundamental law of the land, he is the only choice.

Ron Paul supports the right of poor people to remain poor!  What a freedom fighter!

Ron Paul supports the right of people to keep the fruits of their own labor. Hillary and the other Democrats believe in taking money from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn't earn it. Nice trick to buy votes.

People like you keep on pushing my economic score leftward...

[Ban my account ffs!]

For those of you who want socialism Ron Paul is not your man. For those who want to continue this idiotic war in Iraq indefinitely Ron Paul is not your man either. But for American voters who  like the idea of peace, freedom and adherence to the fundamental law of the land, he is the only choice.

Ron Paul supports the right of poor people to remain poor!  What a freedom fighter!

Ron Paul supports the right of people to keep the fruits of their own labor. Hillary and the other Democrats believe in taking money from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn't earn it. Nice trick to buy votes.

I guess your idea of "earning" something is a lot different than most peoples.

Your completely self centered notion of the way economies should run would eventually erode the economy into a shell where the rich make huge profits off the poor in the short term but eventually even lose their ability to make money as the poor lose their ability to live even the most meager existence and their small spending on things like gas and cheap, broken down cars, and other expensive-over-the-long-term items comes to an end.

With Libertarian principles in practice, the U.S. will be reduced to third-world standards in the long term, and even the rich will only remain so in relative terms as their foundation (the poor and middle class) begins to crumble and they inevitably fall with the crowd.

Productivity will begin to decline once people fully realize that their hard work is not resulting in a better quality of life, and people will begin to accept a lower quality of life, and will begin to adopt the attitude of "work as little as I need to and still survive".. the economy will be drug along at a snail's pace and our government will become even more mired in debt as revenues fall.

The libertarian philosophy has nothing to do with freedom.  It has everything to do with holding the status quo for the well-off that have enough money and security to be libertarian in the first place.

[John Dibble]

Your completely self centered notion of the way economies should run would eventually erode the economy into a shell where the rich make huge profits off the poor in the short term but eventually even lose their ability to make money as the poor lose their ability to live even the most meager existence and their small spending on things like gas and cheap, broken down cars, and other expensive-over-the-long-term items comes to an end.

With Libertarian principles in practice, the U.S. will be reduced to third-world standards in the long term, and even the rich will only remain so in relative terms as their foundation (the poor and middle class) begins to crumble and they inevitably fall with the crowd.

Productivity will begin to decline once people fully realize that their hard work is not resulting in a better quality of life, and people will begin to accept a lower quality of life, and will begin to adopt the attitude of "work as little as I need to and still survive".. the economy will be drug along at a snail's pace and our government will become even more mired in debt as revenues fall.

Do you have any proof to back up these doomsday predictions, Snowguy?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So things like protecting free speech, personal property, political rights, etc. have nothing to do with freedom? Since when?

[2952-0-0]

In all honesty, I can't see any difference between the rhetoric of Ron Paul die-hard supporters and the supporters of the Chinese Communist Party in 1940. Both say they would make the country into a perfect utopia where everyone is free. Both say they would bring prosperity to the country. Both call those who criticise them as reactionary stooges of imperialism or socialists who want to destroy freedom. Both refuse to answer criticism. Both seem to worship their leaders as if he were the second coming of Jesus. Both seem to be oblivious to the fact that they are human and not robots. Both seem to rely on slogans that have been used a zillion times. Both are "my way or the highway" people. Having read so much of Mao's propaganda in the original language, I think I'm not invoking Godwin's law here.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Having read so much of Mao's propaganda in the original language,

What's it like in its orginal language?

[2952-0-0]

Having read so much of Mao's propaganda in the original language,

What's it like in its orginal language?

It's somewhat different than in English, since entire ideologies and actions can be compressed into a single character. So entire slogans can be expressed in maximum seven or eight words. That's why when they are translated into English they appear as long and awkward. It's just something lost in translation. In languages that require alphabets, this is equivalent to words like Gestapo, Nazi, KGB, Gulag, Cominterm, and so on.

[Sam Spade]

Since when did this board become a fundraiser for the Ron Paul campaign?  It already annoys me enough to have Google ads.  This thread should have been removed.

[David S]

So we have people here having absolute faith in someone, who, after all, is HUMAN. Do you honestly believe everything he says? After all, he's a politician, and politicians aren't known for being faithful to their word.

Couldn't you say that about any candidate? And yet you as a Democrat support Hillary or Obama or whichever Democrat, with the same conviction that I support Ron Paul. And wouldn't you agree that Hillary is as phony as a 3 dollar bill?
 She was always a Yankees fan!
 She's part Jewish! (At least when she is running for Senator of New York)
 Her recent speech before African Americans in which she adopted  an Ebonics accent.
 And her claim  that her husband was the first black president.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ron Paul made a very pragmatic decision years ago. He decided that its better to run as a libertarian Republican, get elected and then have an input to government rather than be a Libertarian and sit on the sidelines.  BTW Michael Savage, a Republican neo-con once criticized Michael Badnarik for running as a Libertarian because it pulls votes from the Republican. He said the Libertarians should become Republican and work to change the party from within. So Ron Paul did it that way and now you criticize him for it! We can't win either way can we? The basic issue is that neither you nor Savage want Libertarians in office. So I'd say you can both go pound sand. We'll do whatever works.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In Ron Paul's opinion it is the other Republicans who have abandoned the Republican principles of small government.

BTW since you're are a Canadian and too young to vote too, why do you care who we elect?

[2952-0-0]

Couldn't you say that about any candidate? And yet you as a Democrat support Hillary or Obama or whichever Democrat, with the same conviction that I support Ron Paul.

I don't really care, since the current field of candidates don't seem very inspiring.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now how does Hillary tie into Ron Paul again?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This kind of reminds me how Kim Jong Il needs to leech on Chinese aid in order to survive, while also selling Juche to his people. Just to let you know, there's no law requiring you to be a partisan in order to run for office. He could just as easily run as an independent and sell his own ideas. Running as a Republican inevitably ties him with the people that started the Iraq war, trampled in freedoms, spent like drunk sailors, and other things that Ron Paul supposedly opposes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now you're taking the words of a "neo-con" as the truth. If the Republicans are scared of their votes getting stolen by a Libertarian Party, then they should nominate someone with more libertarian ideology. Problem solved (except for the fundie vote, so the Republicans will just have to decide whether fundies or small-government people are more important to them).

[quoteSo Ron Paul did it that way and now you criticize him for it! We can't win either way can we? The basic issue is that neither you nor Savage want Libertarians in office. So I'd say you can both go pound sand. We'll do whatever works.[/quote]
I think you need to ask Mr. Perot from 15 years ago.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough. He has the right to chart his future and say whatever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fine. You stop posting articles from the Daily Mail or Torygraph, or comment on anything outside the US borders, and I'll stop posting about US politics. And the second part will be false in less than three weeks.

[David S]

Couldn't you say that about any candidate? And yet you as a Democrat support Hillary or Obama or whichever Democrat, with the same conviction that I support Ron Paul.

I don't really care, since the current field of candidates don't seem very inspiring.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now how does Hillary tie into Ron Paul again?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This kind of reminds me how Kim Jong Il needs to leech on Chinese aid in order to survive, while also selling Juche to his people. Just to let you know, there's no law requiring you to be a partisan in order to run for office. He could just as easily run as an independent and sell his own ideas. Running as a Republican inevitably ties him with the people that started the Iraq war, trampled in freedoms, spent like drunk sailors, and other things that Ron Paul supposedly opposes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now you're taking the words of a "neo-con" as the truth. If the Republicans are scared of their votes getting stolen by a Libertarian Party, then they should nominate someone with more libertarian ideology. Problem solved (except for the fundie vote, so the Republicans will just have to decide whether fundies or small-government people are more important to them).

[quoteSo Ron Paul did it that way and now you criticize him for it! We can't win either way can we? The basic issue is that neither you nor Savage want Libertarians in office. So I'd say you can both go pound sand. We'll do whatever works.

I think you need to ask Mr. Perot from 15 years ago.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough. He has the right to chart his future and say whatever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fine. You stop posting articles from the Daily Mail or Torygraph, or comment on anything outside the US borders, and I'll stop posting about US politics. And the second part will be false in less than three weeks.
[/quote]

Your comments go around in circles. If I don't answer your comment you think I owe you an answer. If I do respond you seem to forget what it is that I responded to.

With regard to Roth Perot you are missing two rather important points.
First, Perot was a billionaire who funded much of his campaign with his own money. Ron Paul doesn't have that luxury. Secondly Perot lost.

I didn't say you couldn't post comments about US politics, nor do I have the power or desire to stop you. (Your freedom of speech is one of those rights Ron Paul defends.) I only asked why you care who we elect.

You criticize Libertarianism for being like communism when in fact it is the antithesis of communism. You criticize Ron Paul for running as a Republican rather than a Libertarian. If you have specific criticisms of Ron Paul's policies then tell me what they are.

[Hash]

Since when did this board become a fundraiser for the Ron Paul campaign?  It already annoys me enough to have Google ads.  This thread should have been removed.