What the hell is your point? Because someone agreed with Ron Paul, he is now the devil? "tendancy", what does that mean? You must be specific, but you fear being specific because in context you will be shot down. Put him in office and he will leave such decisions up to the states.... as it SHOULD be. And why is it not? Don't ask, don't tell, who would care and how would if affect anyone? Going against such a stance is homophobic... How about taking this in context? "takes issue", what does that mean? "Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable." Put the whole statement in there bud, you just defined out of context. You were alive at that time... you do remember the culture that developed over there... it WAS terrorism, it WAS madness, and it WAS enveloping the young black community. He wasn't blowin smoke out of his ass, those BLACK people were tearin the city up, and felt justified in doing so. Forget due process, lets burn OUR city down. That IS REAL terrorism. They ACTUALLY hated white people! Justifiable given the events over there, HELL NO... hate the people that cause your problems, not me because I'm the same color. There was a growing culture in that era... and Ron Paul wasn't scared to say it. Put things in context and that becomes clear. I wonder if you read it, or if you only saw what you were supposed to take out of context? Do you think you can pull part of what someone says and apply it as a wholistic statement? I assume you do, and I'll be the first to tell you you can't. YES, because the state can be controlled on an infinitely more LOCAL level... let the people stand up for what they believe. It goes without question... if you hand the states such power, some will ban gay marriage, some will allow it... if you don't support your state, speak up or take your tax dollers elsewhere where you can live more as you believe. Why do you want to take someone's choice away? Why are you forcing a totalitarian state? Is Europe not all for the better because it is many seperate countries, so that if you hate one, go next door and live as you wish to live? Is that not the American way? Is THAT not giving people a REAL choice, instead of parading a few agendas across everyone in the country? That is the only "questionable" vote, good job. Does that now mean he's a tyrant... hardly... if you spend 5 minutes putting any other candidate under the microscope you will undoubtedly find corrupt, close minded, INC influenced decisions that *really* are only there to grab the vote of a specifc people. Why does the US need to fund everything? Is this not part of the problem? let me keep more of my money and do as I please with it, and I will decide what I wish to pay for. The man is against abortion, I can live with that because he himself cannot and WOULD not use his power to go against the will of the people... mostly because he wants totake power *away* from the federal government, and hand it back where it belongs - so that such decisions are regional and accountable for by the people. I fail to see your point. Once again, this is something a state may decide if it even has such a say... if you don't like it, vote... at least in such an instance your vote actually counts for something. =Do you not want such power? Again, he stands somewhere... but he himself would not abuse his power to serve his own agenda. This is the only place where I disagree with him, but I can agree to disagree...particularly when the man stands for liberty and freedom... And what is the problem with this? Why should children not be informed of both sides of the story? If anything, they will see the horseshit theory of creationism for what it is...instead of being ignorant. Link? More info? Gotta be specific, this statement doesn't make much sense unless you have previous knowledge of such events. He does not want to the USA to be federally involved in such things. He is not anti-environment, he is anti federal government controlling the environmental choices of the country. Again, leave it up to the states, let the people who have to live next door choose what happens to them... not some guy who will visit to cut a ribbon, and never breathe in a breath of pollution. Again, this should NOT be left up to the federal government... why does big brother need to alert us to every missing child? Would we all not be better served if it was left up to a directly accountable donation driven foundation? Does that not close the doors on possible corruption? He has no reason to be ashamed of that, if you look at the bigger picture, he should be very proud. Once again, look at the big picture. Let the money come from where it will come, if anything it serves to make obvious a candidates true intentions and loyalties. How about you once again look at teh BIG picture... Do you have any idea how much more money would be put into the pockets of those people if the federal government is not held financially responsible for buying the entire country diapers? No income tax, buddy... gives yourself your entire paycheck and see where you can put that $, I bet, no, i KNOW if you wish to put it towards healthcare you will be able to afford it. And more importantly, if you wish to put it toward buying a spiffy new car, ITS YOUR CHOICE!!!!! WHY do I need to fund your endeavors? Keep your money, I keep mine... we as individuals do as we choose with it... instead of both of us paying out of our ass so that we may or may not benefit. That is the most important point of Dr Paul's campaign, in my eyes... WHY does someone at mcdonald's need $15 an hour to flip burgers???? You know what happens when the min wage goes up, prices on *everything* go up... and do you know what this does? It furthers the gap between rich and poor, it closes the door on the middle class, because the very cost of living is going up up up. Does it matter to someone who has millions sitting in the bank if a double cheeseburger is $5? Of course not... the ones who suffer are the ones making that $15 an hour min wage, and those who DID NOT get a raise because they were already making around that much. You see where I'm goin with this? You can't pay everyone more and expect prices to stay the same, its absolutely impossible. If you leave it up to the free market to decide wages we are all for the better. Its impossible for everyone to be rich, no matter how high you raise the min wage.
So if you want to vote for a liberal-socialist-communist president, then who is stopping you? Go ahead and vote for Hillary, Obama or Kucinich. Most people don't want more nanny state government, though. They want less government and more freedom to decide for themselves. I think this is why Ron Paul is so popular with people. You can attack his character all you like, but I highly doubt you're going to change anyone's mind. Ron Paul is for less government and less bureaucracy, so it makes sense why he voted NO on these things. If you believe the government should have no say on a particular issue, according to the Constitution, you're not going to vote yes for more laws and regulations, or more government funding for those things. And I am sure if Ron Paul was to explain his reasoning behind why he voted the way he did, you would have a much better understanding than by reading something off the web that simply claims he is against something without explaining his reasoning as to why. You automatically assume it's bad because it goes against your indoctrination, but anyone who knows anything about Ron Paul, knows he strictly adheres to the Constitution. You just don't get it. When Paul votes, for instance, against gay marriage, it's not because he wants to outlaw it, but because he is against the government having a say in it. Paul has stated numerous times that the government should be out of all marriages -- gay or straight -- since marriage is a religious ceremony that is seperate from government.
not his best interview,he seemed to tire a little in the middle. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/10005061#10005061 i love how obvious it is that the press is on a mission to discredit him ,should be great fodder for the likes of libertine.
I thought it was a good interview, HH. As much as Russert tried to back him into a corner, Paul put it right back in his face every time with the facts, while remaining calm, clear and concise. Didn't you find it rather interesting that Russert said to Paul at the end of the interview, "Be safe on the campaign trail"?
why as a matter of fact i did.chilled is more like it. dilligaf and i have had a ongoing discussion as to whether or not he would actually survive long enough to win the election and be sworn in should his popularity grow much more. Also what would happen nationally should they choose to assassinate him. i wonder if he ends all his interviews with that phrase? doubtful.
Ron Paul does have a chance at winning. Bottom line. Dennis is ok, but has no chance. Nobody from ANY alternative parties has EVER won. There chances are about nil. Whoever wins, no matter what their intentions are, they will only be able to accomplish that which they are ALLOWED to accomplish by the REAL controllers. I think it would behoove us to at least vote for someone who HAS A CHANCE. As an experiment if nothing else. Just to prove that: 1. We have a voice 2. We WANT to be represented for the first time in what seems like an eternity 3. There are A LOT of us 4. No matter if one of the "good guys" does win or not, things will go on as usual because if anyone strays too far from the agenda, they will be put in their place. I think that the BEST statement we could all make is to vote for the ONE person who has a chance, and then show the world what happens next...
Hey anyone that follows Paul knows that his love of Reagan ended while Reagan was still in office. You and your buddies are running scared aren't you Libertine. He just might stand a chance. Sorry but not willing to vote for a Mormon or a snake handler.
Dam fine interview, Paul most def explained his stances and made the points he had to make while not cowering one inch to any question... well done. I just wish he had a more powerful way of speaking, it would make a *huge* difference, I think.... he sounds softer and less definite in everything he says, his true strength of opinion just doesn't come through. Be safe, yea that was a bit hairy... Paul says *he* is the true republican, which he is! But his party mates don't want people reminded of that.... they want the dem/repub parties to essentially serve the same purpose... same shit dif pigeon, instead of the *true* stances that set the parties way back when.... and after 9/11 "they" showed us they weren't scared to kill alot of inoccent people so that those of us lucky enough to survive come to them for protection, while relieving ourselves of every constitutional right in the process.
Economic "Libertarianism" is another word for CAPITALISM RUN AMOK. You guys have a few good ideas about civil liberties, your opinion that the "market" will take care of itself is not only foolish, but more foolish.
Please explain. Do you want big brother to hold your hand, give you a big fat min wage paycheck, and keep you in poverty by inflating the price of everything while devaluing the dollar? Free market is the best way, if the government has a hand in things you will without question have corruption... in *anything* the government controls. Why do we need to allow for *more* corruption? We are big boys, we can take care of ourselves.
Your idea that RON PAUL is always right and can do no wrong is kind of frightening. It's sort of cultish. The idea that you spit on poor people's rights, women's rights, support racist policies, and get behind a candidate endorsed (once) by Ronald Reagan is more frightening. Your idea that the "market" will control itself is not only ridiculous, but EXTREMELY nutso! I am really amazed at how many Capitalist Libertarians run apeshit on the political threads pushing their cult leaders like Ron Paul (and Ayn Rand). You "libertarians" don't give a shit about civil liberties, all you care about is your CAPITAL. And it's obvious. Capitalism is a horrible system. And you believe in it -- just like Reagan/Bush/Paul. CAPITALISM SUCKS ... LITERALLY LUCKILY, I believe this world sees that HUMAN RIGHTS are much more important than capital and your "property." Flesh and blood is more important than your property. So get to lovin' it!
Capitalism, huh? The "only" way. Maybe you need to go back to your cubicle on Wall Street, "big boy." The haves and the have nots. Do you understand that capitalism is defined by WHO OWNS THE MOST CAPITAL? Do you know that? Do you realize that it this sort of system is UNSUSTAINABLE and it is, essentially, THEFT. There are no "self made" men or women, pal. We are social creatures. Money is an illusion of value loved and cherished by the capitalist. It denies human rights in favor of capital.
the people who support a government that turns their backs on the less fortunate will be the first to scream when something happens to THEM that impacts their ability to survive. nobody is invulnerable. you're ignoring reality.
what the hell are you talking about? thats opposite of what we believe and that is the exact reason we are trying to get paul in. to take back control of the monetary system so those who control the market no longer can manipulate it.
What in God's name are you talking about? Why do you continue to make new threads... and make blanket statements without backing one bit of it up? "Your idea that the "market" will control itself is not only ridiculous, but EXTREMELY nutso!" explain "You "libertarians" don't give a shit about civil liberties, all you care about is your CAPITAL. And it's obvious." Explain, and make this one good. "LUCKILY, I believe this world sees that HUMAN RIGHTS are much more important than capital and your "property." " Is your head on straight? "The idea that you spit on poor people's rights, women's rights, support racist policies, and get behind a candidate endorsed (once) by Ronald Reagan is more frightening." Actually I wish to give poor people (ME!) the right to make something for themselves, without dealing with a corrupt hiring process... and without taking handouts from the government. I am by all definitions POOR... why in the world should *you* be paying to keep me POOR? Welfare state my man... go to the soutside of chicago, you'll see people a generation deep into welfare, with no intentions of getting out of it. Why? They know how to work the system.... I see them in walmart, buyin a shitton of groceries with their link card, while they drive off in a lexus and wear a fur coat... thats just free money to those who need to make their own way, and are entirely capable of doing so. Sorry but I don't want to pay for people like that to do nothing but take my money, if you do, I'll take $1000, thanks.
Thanks for making my point. It's ALL about money. And you are not "self made". You are selling your labor to a capitalist for his profit and YOUR survival. You need things that TAXES pay for. With the way that the religious social conservatives have paired with the capitalists, you may be standing in the UNEMPLOYMENT LINE until that runs out and you choose to work at McDonald's for beans or have to use food stamps for a little while. Why do you people HATE saftey nets? It is apparent you guys for history real easily. Go back to Reagan's grave and plant your flowers.
