Ron Paul for President?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ May 23 2007, 12:22 PM) [snapback]448450[/snapback]</div>

Yep, and they are also called "classical liberals" in some circles.

I think Ron Paul was the Libertarian Party candidate for President last time around, wasn't he? The OP might look into the Libertarian Party, as Paul's views are not unusual for a Libertarian (even though he is a Republican congressman and Republican candidate for President).

Libertarians fall on either side of the abortion issue, depending on when they think the individual life begins. There's no official party stance on that issue, as far as I know. I'd have to check again, but I think their view of LGBT issues is that government has no business even being involved with it, and that the benefits we extend to married couples should be eliminated as unnecessary government interference rather than extending them to the LGBT communities. The OP might like their view on national defense (all of our armies should be based on American soil, for instance, with no intervention anywhere unless we are directly threatened.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AndreJ @ May 23 2007, 09:58 PM) [snapback]448691[/snapback]</div>

I have to agree with Pinto Girl here... It's not sufficient for our government to just act on what is considered "most critical" or "impacting the whole". It's entirely possible for us to deal with these minority issues as well as the bigger ones you want dealt with at the same time. The bigger issues are ones that all the candidates are more or less going to agree on - how do you chose a president based on the big issues if everyone agrees? Instead, you focus on the smaller, more personal issues because that is where the differences come out.

As for the Federal Reserve System... I'm sorry to tell you but it IS government. It was formed in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Act. The board of governors is an independent federal government agency appointed by the president. The banks themselves are owned by private member banks, but that is just like most governmental offices today - you have some paper pushers sitting in some offices, and all the real work is contracted out. So it would be proper to say the federal reserve banks weren't government, but the system is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ May 23 2007, 08:32 PM) [snapback]448608[/snapback]</div>

You are incorrect. He did not "blame America" for 9/11. He pointed to our foreign policy as contributing to hatred of America, which inevitably leads to violence, and what the CIA describes as "blowback". He was making a case for reexamining our foreign policy in regards to 9/11. To many, this feels like "blaming
America". What actually happened on that stage is that Ron Paul's comments showed how "ill-informed" the rest of the candidates were, as well as everyone in the audience that clapped.

VW, do you know why Iranians held Americans hostage in 1980 during the Carter administration? It was not because of some 1,200 year-old conflict that we did not start, or because they hate us for our freedoms.

 

Additionally you are mistaken. Ron Paul understands history perhaps better than all the other 9 candidates on that stage. Your laundry list of events mostly in the past decade means nothing, proves no point, besides the fact that you provide zero evidence that Paul has forgotten them. He was the only one brave enough to question how our past actions have a direct impact on what happens in the present day.

Take a look at what a handful of your fellow citizens on CBS have to say....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13Ow1-1_aPU...ted&search=


And, try this one if you care to look a little further into why you are mistaken
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW6vDS7Zq1Y...ted&search=

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuNrCOrcn6k&NR=1

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 23 2007, 01:59 PM) [snapback]448320[/snapback]</div>

He is for overturning R v. W. He feels that the abortion issue is best left up to the states to
decide rather than the federal government. This falls in line with his beliefs in limited government.
He is for the original intent of the founding fathers, the constitution.

How sad what has become of our country. It was founded on the basis and belief of freedom from
foreign influence, and has since become the very thing we fought to free ourselves from.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NightRider @ May 25 2007, 10:01 AM) [snapback]449739[/snapback]</div>

I don't think you can say that Rudy Guiliani is ill-informed about what happened on 9/11.

I wish that I agreed with you and all that you said. It would be a much easier situation to "fix" if all we had to do was change. It would be so easy to fix if America was simply wrong, and America simply changed.

But the only change they want from us is to convert or die, and sorry, I won't go down that easily.

And I never said that they hate us for our freedoms. They don't even understand the concept.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ May 25 2007, 08:11 PM) [snapback]450124[/snapback]</div>

I am saying that Rudy's comments, if he truly understood what Ron Paul was saying, shows a lack to some degree of being "informed" about the history of our foreign policy, and how our actions are perceived by others,
and what our actions can and often do lead to in the form of retaliation. Perhaps Rudy misunderstood him, but I have not heard him come out and say so.

 

Ron Paul was on "Real Time with Bill Maher" tonight. He was on the show once before, but Maher had to have him back after the controversy over Paul's remarks at the Republican debate. As Maher said, it was the biggest ovation any Republican got from that audience.
Paul said a lot of things that make sense. It seems that it's the "fringe" candidates of either party (e.g. Kucinich for the Democrats) who have the stones to speak the plain truth, not what they think the voters want to hear. I guess that's why they're fringe candidates. Paul gave the examples of our backing of bin Laden and radical Muslims in an effort to get at the Soviets, our role in getting the Shah of Iran put into power, and our support of Saddam Hussein against Iran. Every time we interfere in the affairs of other countries, it comes back to bite us in the nice person. Paul said that we should be non-interventionalist, and get our own house in order- e.g., restore civil liberties at home. He makes a lot more sense than Giuliani, who portrays himself to be the big fighter against terrorism but when you listen to him closely, doesn't have a clue. Giuliani jumped on Paul's comments about 9/11 and took it out of context, questioning his patriotism- this what happens when you are a politician and you have the temerity to ever suggest that America sometimes does something wrong. Well, we do things wrong sometimes, and pointing that out and saying we need to change IS patriotism- that doesn't constitute supporting the bad guys.
I don't know that Paul is necessarily my choice for President, but if having him in the debate causes us to stop the platitudes and the BS for a moment and think about what is wrong with our policies here and abroad and what we can do to make it right- that is a good thing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 26 2007, 02:27 AM) [snapback]450282[/snapback]</div>

Oh, so someone besides me, watches my cousin, Neat.

I think that Ben was right: He's a nice guy, but he doesn't have a chance. No $100 million in his war chest. Pity. Since he may have some good ideas.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ May 26 2007, 04:37 AM) [snapback]450308[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, I watch Maher's show every week. Last night at the end of "New Rules", when he talked about Jimmy Carter and the flap over his criticism of the Bush administration, he was spot on.
No question- Ron Paul doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination, let alone get elected. It's already predetermined for us that the next President will be one of a handful of people.
But when I look at what the Republican party is offering for candidates, Ron Paul is the only one who says anything that makes any sense. You've got a couple of right-wing religious fundamentalists (Brownback, Huckabee); Guiliani who is campaigning on how great he was after 9/11 (we're supposed to forget about Bernie Kerik); John McCain, who once at least had integrity but I lost respect for him after he kowtowed to Falwell and the fundamentalists to appeal to the right-wing base, and also lately has been reinforcing his "crazy" image every time he opens his mouth; and Romney- I don't know where he stands on anything- depends on which day it is (campaigning as a flip-flopper from Massachusetts is an intersting strategy, but it didn't work out too well for the last guy who tried it). Ron Paul is being portrayed as the "fringe" candidate, the crazy guy- the GOP actually tried to exclude him from future debates after his exchange with Guilinani over 9/11. If you listen to what he is actually saying- that we should examine our role in the world and consider the consequences of our actions- well, he's right there. But in the Bush era, everything is black and white- America good, other guys evil. Paul did not blame 9/11 on Americans. He said that our interventionalist policies led to a state in the world that precipitated terrorist attacks against us. That does not in any way diminish the tragedy of 9/11 or change the fact that those responsible for it (who, BTW, we gave up going after LONG ago- Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11) committed a despicable act and should have been brought to justice.

 

I wonder how Fred Thompson will change the GOP playing field when he enters the race.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 26 2007, 02:27 AM) [snapback]450282[/snapback]</div>

You must not have watched the debate. Ron Paul had about six people clap for him. Guiliana got the ovation for saying to Ron Paul what everyone else was thinking. Guiliani conveyed the outrage of the whole auditorium.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May 26 2007, 01:25 PM) [snapback]450452[/snapback]</div>

Also Newt.

 

I grew up in the 60's and remember a lot of things you have only read about. I don't see you trying to consider the rights of others unless they believe in the same "rights" as you. Just how do you think your freedom to express your rights came to be? Did you ever hear that freedom isn't free? It's won with blood - or would you rather have grown up in East Berlin? Russia? How about China? Do you even know what East Berlin was? I never should have read this thread. Puleez.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ May 26 2007, 02:48 PM) [snapback]450485[/snapback]</div>

So what. A bunch of Republican supporters in South Carolina is hardly representative of the nation. I'm judging the guy on what he said, not how many people clapped for him.
**edit** I just re-read what you said, and realized from your comment that you might have misunderstood what I said, and thought that I was saying that Ron Paul got an ovation from the crowd at the Republican debate. No, I am aware that he got a tepid reponse there. What I meant was that Paul got the most positive reaction of any Republican on Bill Maher's show (that's not really saying much, I suppose).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ May 26 2007, 02:48 PM) [snapback]450485[/snapback]</div>

Just what we need. :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Neicy @ May 26 2007, 03:17 PM) [snapback]450504[/snapback]</div>

I love it when people jump into a thread and act as if they are the only one who knows anything. B) Yeah, I also grew up in the 60s. You're not the only one here who "remembers things". I also served in the military, defending not only your right to speak your mind but mine as well. I wonder if you did- usually its the guys who never put their own butts on the line that are so quick with the "freedom isn't free- it's won with blood" type remarks. The one thing that we absolutely owe the young men and women who are putting their lives on the line to defend our freedom is to never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. War should only be considered as a last resort when all other measures have failed. This administration jumped into a war against a nation that was never a threat against us. To this day, the Republicans STILL conflate 9/11 and Iraq. Just a few days ago, John Boehner (or Boner, as I like to call him) gave that pathetic performance on the House floor, choking back tears when he said, "3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to stand up and take them on?". Good question, Boehner- when are we going to take them on? We let bin Laden get away at Tora Bora in December 2001, and have made no serious effort to get him since. For those of you who don't "remember things" very well, it was a group of Saudi radicals, under direction of bin Laden, who attacked us on 9/11. It was NOT Iraq! But I suppose as long as we "win with blood", it doesn't matter whose blood it is, does it!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 26 2007, 11:37 AM) [snapback]450516[/snapback]</div>

If people really supported what Ron Paul said, they would be libertarians. And while people give lip service to libertarian ideals, most people in this country are not libertarians.

The philosophy has a certain appeal. I agree with the libertarians on many issues, especially the size of government, and somewhat on defense issues. But people do not support those issues, no matter how much they cheer on Bill Maher's show. When it comes to something they are interested in, they want government support.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ May 26 2007, 04:04 PM) [snapback]450520[/snapback]</div>

True- Bill Maher's audience is about as representative of the nation as the cheerleaders at the Republican debate in South Carolina. And despite all the rhetoric from the Republicans about "small government", spending has been bigger under this administration than ever before.
Government should be big enough to function as necessary but no larger. Of course, no one agrees on what government should do- everyone wants government to do what they want. So, we have a huge government to make everyone happy, but no one is.

 

Larkinmj,

I was not saying I am for this war or any war. In fact I probably agree with most of your comments, most especially regarding the blaming of Iraq for what bin Laden did. And yes you did fight for my right to express my views. So did my spouse. And my father. And for that I am thankful. What I was trying to say is that 20 yr olds look at the world through rose colored glasses I guess. And yes I did jump in because reading this post made me aggravated. I don't want to see people forget how hard it was to get the rights we have today. And yes the ones who usually want a war are the ones that got the educational deferral. I am sorry if you took offense. But as a woman and mother I don't want to see the younger generation believe that the freedom we have came easily.