what do you think of Ron Paul?

I`m just curious, because I think he`s the truest one out there running for president. I think he would be pretty great for this country. Note: I`m not a republican or a democrat. I honestly hate politics, but I want what`s best for the country & to stop pointless war.:daisy:

 

There are some points I disagree with him on but overall I think the guy's the best candidate by a huge margin. Shame it'll either be Romney or Obama that get it.

 

90% awesome, and ridiculously level-headed and down-to-earth for a politician
10% batshit crazy

 

Yeah I'm not sure I like the idea of the president being a pro-life creationist, but so long as his policies aren't I can let it go.

 

Well, he supports the states' right to make their own choice on abortion. Which would really suck for non-conservatives in the South, but isn't something I can disagree with too much..

 

It's "We the People"...not "We the States". We had a civil war over it.

Fuck state's rights.

 

There, fixed your post

 

Eh, I think that he`s right.. it should be the states rights. Everyone in certain states do kind of come together with their thought processes & some states are different than others.... so.. yeah. I think he`s better than most I`ve seen. Romney is just another fuck head like Bush. Atleast Ron Paul can back his shit up. Not once have I seen Ron Paul look like a complete ass.... he`s super intellegent. I love everyone`s opinions & thanks for your input. I just think he`d be the best. OBAMA isn`t doing shit.. so, move over my brothahh & let someone else in (Ron Paul because the rest of them are complete morons.....)

 

I like Ron Paul. He's the only politician in decades that seems to understand the Constitution and the very framework this country was founded upon.

He's pro-life in his personal beliefs, but politically he follows the constitution and not his personal beliefs. I don't think his view of abortion would ever be an issue politically.

We had a Civil War over a state's right to secede.

States' rights make sense. Not everyone in this country is going to agree on every single issue. I don't personally like the fact that I could be arrested in my state for possession of pot, but at least I have the option to move to another state if I wanted to.

 

I`ve changed my mind about Ron Paul. I`m 1OO% going to vote for him if he runs against OBAMA for president. He is so righteous. He`s actually following what America is truely about & I`m glad there are people here well educated on it that can help back him up! OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE! Ron Paul is what Amercia needs; he`s doing what`s right, not what people want to see or hear. Righteous man 2O12*

 

Ron Paul is a good guy. I hate the fact that many are putting the weight of humanity on his shoulders since they declared him "The man who will change America for the better". Other candidates are a joke, if he gets into office i pray to be wrong and hope for a prosperous tomorrow. In other news, have you guys heard of AmericansElect.org

 

It takes not just him, but us too; as Americans we must stand together.

 

Ron Paul, is that the guy who's running for president who said he would have voted against the 1964 civil right act? Simply because its an infringement on personal liberty. No, it couldn't possibly be the same Ron Paul who believes so strongly in personal freedom and liberties now could it boys and girls.

And the truly sad part is: his son is cut from the same cloth.

 

If you're going to make a definitive statement about why Ron Paul did or did not vote for or against something; get it right. It is abundantly clear that your directive for participating in the Ron Paul threads is one of interjecting inaccurate information about him; aimed towards the goal of discrediting his character. So, your misinformation compels me; once again; to set the record straight - 'cause you certainly are anything but the straight and narrow; right, pal?

From Ron Paul's own mouth, (I quote him):

"In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty."
...... Ron Paul

Get it, WE1? His objection was because the law served to expand
Federal Power instead of promoting racial harmony. Expanding their own power is something the government has proved to be very good at doing. Little by little, over the last century, the government has insidiously infiltrated our lives via passing this law or that rule; that will shortly result in their total control over us as citizens - it's called 'fascism' or 'communism'.

Ron Paul has consistently and faithfully abided by the principles that this country was founded upon - and that our Founding Fathers set down in the Constitution. Countless lives were lost in the Revolutionary War to acquire the liberties and rights the Founding Fathers set down as being law and the rules to live our lives by; in the Constitution. They said, "this is the way this country shall be run - limited government intrusion in "We The People's" lives." They also warned that approximately 200 years down the road, they predicted that the government would get way out of hand by that time, and that the current day people would have to pull them into check.

How you could find fault with a gentleman such as Ron Paul, who is in alignment with the principles and values of our Founding Fathers - and who seeks to uphold the very foundation upon which this country was created, is inconceivable. I'm going to be gracious, and give you the benefit of the doubt (against my better judgement) and
presume that you're just not fully educated on the platforms of the
various candidates; and that you're not a shill. That said, it would behoove you to take a brush-up History course - and while you're at it, go to Ron Paul's website and see what he really stands for - do it for you, not me - because, believe me - any of the other candidates will just continue to drive the car in that downward spiral into the ravine - only they're not gonna be in it; one of us will be the driver.

One Of The Difference
---------------------------------------------------------------------


"The purpose of the Government is to protect the personal liberty of it's citizens - not to run their personal lives, not to run the economy, and not to think that we can tell the world how they ought to live."
.... Ron Paul

"I am convinced the best formula for preserving the American way of life and giving us all peace, is Freedom, Limited Government, & Minding our own business overseas."
.... Ron Paul
"We dare not forget that we are the heirs of that first revolution."

.... John F. Kennedy
---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty."


So now its freedom reduces liberty is it...Ron Paul is pathetic.

It took federal power, and the national guard to integrate Arkansas schools in 1954. And it took federal power to integrate Maryland schools in 1964, when I was in the 9th grade, so I remember segregation well. I remember the fear and hatred whites had for those who were different, simply because they had a different skin color. I remember the White Only signs on bars and restaurants in our community, where blacks couldn't even get a drink of water if they offered to pay for it! These were shameful times for America especially considering the fact America had already fought a war with itself that was supposed to change all this, but it didn't. So, occasionally, federal power is beneficial. Too bad idiots like Ron Paul and yourself who condone racism under the guise of abuse of federal power fail to see that.

You know what Ron Paul's biggest problem with the 1964 civil rights act is? Its the fact the law took power away from property owners. Who's property just happened to be human beings, and you're defending this.

Shame on you, and all those who think like you. Thankfully, the vast majority of America rejects this. Which has allowed for peace and harmony among black and white Americans, because we're all one nation now. And not a nation divided, as we were before this law was passed. Remember Lincoln's House Divided speech from 1858? Where he warned "A house divided against itself cannot stand" Remember that? Those were wise words that Ron Paul seems to have forgotten in his repeated quests for the presidency.

Oh, but that's right, the Civil Rights Act of 64 is unconstitutional because the founding fathers owned slaves, according to Paul's ideology. And you're attempting to defend this.

So, yes, we are the heirs of that first revolution, but we're also the heirs of the civil war.

I hope you never forget that fact. Because, I can assure you, President Kennedy was no racist.

And one more thing Paulite: Nothing is unconstitutional if Congress wills it, and the Senate approves it. Because our legislative branch has the power to make changes within the Constitution, they're called amendments. And they're completely legal whether Ron Paul likes it or not.

 

Thank you OneOfTheDifference for setting the record straight. Pay no attention to the neocon insurgents that will continually make us TRUE patriots try and look bad. It's happened to me before in here. When I mentioned Alex Jones and someone thought he was crazy, and tried to smear me based on the fact that I listen to him. I truly believe that some of these people are hired by the FBI to come to these type of forums and create problems. I believe the best thing to do is ignore them, which is what I will do, along with giving them bad votes to their posts and in general making sure that everyone else can see that they're wrong. You have done the best job of doing that and I take my hat off to you::scholar::

As far as the thread goes, to czarpoesia: I am glad you are on board and convinced of Ron Paul's candidacy. Did you know that he wants to put a third party in the White House? This would be great because it would give us a lot of our checks-and-balances back. Please stay on board and if you want to get some really good insight on his campaign, here's a couple links to see it through:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/

http://rtr.org/

The latter of the two, (Restore the Republic), is a really great site. Since I boycott Facebook I found that this satiates my social networking needs. I have the same username as I do here, so maybe I'll see you around?!

 

We also have this thing called The Constitution, in which, the Federal Government is supposed to be restricted to protecting our borders, defending our freedoms, regulating our currency (not the Federal Reserve), etc. Anything else belongs to the States.

I like this idea, because it allows for the changing of laws to be much easier, and it allows for people who disagree with a particular state's policy to move to one that suits their lifestyle more.

I don't mean to start any arguments right now (I'm pretty new here, and I just really want to make friends), but, I can't stress enough that we should be concerned more about the rights of the individual (Individual>Local Government>State Government>Federal Government), and make sure our government officials abide to The Constitution (which they have blatantly been violating for too long).

 

States Rights is a euphemism for Jim Crow, segregation and racial discrimination. When millions of blacks fled the South for the big cities like Chicago and Detroit it wasn't because those places 'suited their lifestyle more'.

 

Then, why was it?

 

States' Rights is why California can prescribe weed for medicinal purposes and the state I live in cannot.