(R) Ron Paul(presidential candidate 2008)

[ksslemp]

The fact that Ron Paul has gotten enough monetary support to run for president is a SAD commentary on American Politics. If the race was between Ron Paul and Hugo Chavez, I'd have to think long and hard on who to vote for! And you know what i think about Hugo!

[dcowboys055]

Tommy T. in '08!

[reverend_kyle]

Ron paul wants all mexicans dead.

lol who is the one vote for bigger government? Has to be a liberal.

I feel we need big government so that gays can't marry, women can't have rights, we will be able to spy on our citizens to win the war, we will be able to torture our foes, and people won't be able to burn the flag.


We need a huge government to control all that.

[Anarchist]

unless you want to be ruled by and ruled for the financial elite of our country (and ours alone, f*ck the rest of the world, more or less), Ron Paul is not who you want for president.

Correct me if im wrong, but Ron Paul seems to be the opposite of that.
What you describe is the direction were going in now. If America were to isolate itself from the rest of the world(which I dont feel is his policy) it would force the country to become independent. Granted the damage has been done, but this would be a step in fixing some of the problems in America today.

No clue on T. Thompson.

As for you die hard republicans supporting the "Neo-Cons"
I think your all insane.

[reverend_kyle]

unless you want to be ruled by and ruled for the financial elite of our country (and ours alone, f*ck the rest of the world, more or less), Ron Paul is not who you want for president.

Correct me if im wrong, but Ron Paul seems to be the opposite of that.
What you describe is the direction were going in now. If America were to isolate itself from the rest of the world(which I dont feel is his policy) it would force the country to become independent. Granted the damage has been done, but this would be a step in fixing some of the problems in America today.

No clue on T. Thompson.

As for you die hard republicans supporting the "Neo-Cons"
I think your all insane.

If you're an anarchists, who are for tearing down the borders, why are you supporting someone who wants to build 300 ft concrete walls at the borders?

[Anarchist]

The walls can fall later, a nations soveriegnity is more important and will most likely lead to better relations to our neighbors, hopefully eliminating the need for borders down the road.(neutral countries have so many problems with their neighbors dont they? )

you do not fully understand what Anarchy means.

Ron Pauls approach of reinstating the US constitution and increasing individual rights, while limiting the federal government in its powers is a step towards further freedoms.

While your candidates want to play God. Passing laws that dictate to everyone, while they dont obey them. Not to mention all the money and oppertunities wasted by their constant wars and police actions.

[reverend_kyle]

The walls can fall later, a nations soveriegnity is more important and will most likely lead to better relations to our neighbors, hopefully eliminating the need for borders down the road.(neutral countries have so many problems with their neighbors dont they? )

you do not fully understand what Anarchy means.

Ron Pauls approach of reinstating the US constitution and increasing individual rights, while limiting the federal government in its powers is a step towards further freedoms.

While your candidates want to play God. Passing laws that dictate to everyone, while they dont obey them. Not to mention all the money and oppertunities wasted by their constant wars and police actions.

The point you don't understand(that spurgistan has been more eloquently saying than I) is that Ron Paul isn't the guy you think he is. He is quite driven by money and what is going to protect his money, the reason he opposes Iraq isn't because of the people dying its because of the impact on the wallet. We can't be run by another corporate whore.

[Nobunaga]

As for you die hard republicans supporting the "Neo-Cons"
I think your all insane.

... There aren't any Neo-cons running.

[Anarchist]

The walls can fall later, a nations soveriegnity is more important and will most likely lead to better relations to our neighbors, hopefully eliminating the need for borders down the road.(neutral countries have so many problems with their neighbors dont they? )

you do not fully understand what Anarchy means.

Ron Pauls approach of reinstating the US constitution and increasing individual rights, while limiting the federal government in its powers is a step towards further freedoms.

While your candidates want to play God. Passing laws that dictate to everyone, while they dont obey them. Not to mention all the money and oppertunities wasted by their constant wars and police actions.

The point you don't understand(that spurgistan has been more eloquently saying than I) is that Ron Paul isn't the guy you think he is. He is quite driven by money and what is going to protect his money, the reason he opposes Iraq isn't because of the people dying its because of the impact on the wallet. We can't be run by another corporate whore.

Could you point one out that isnt a corporate whore?
also if its the right course of action, its still the right course of action no matter your personal reasons behind it.

[GeneralUnderhill]

Do you like Thompson? Of the top 3, the one I like least is McCain, and I really doubt he'll get the nomination anyway. I'd vote for Guiliani, or Romney, for that matter, but wouldn't really be excited about voting for either. Thompson though interests me... of course he's not in the race yet.

You mean Fred Thompson? Not really. He kind of came off as a deranged actor to me, but so do most actor-turned-politicians. His name also reminds me of Jack Thompson, but that's irrelevant.

So I did some searching, and here's some stuff I found:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4309.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4243.html

http://abcradionetworks.com/article.asp?id=395162&SPID=15663


I'm an anti-Federalist, FYI. There's only one guy in the race that I can vote for, should I decide to vote.

Fred Thompson doesn't interest me that much.

[spurgistan]

unless you want to be ruled by and ruled for the financial elite of our country (and ours alone, f*ck the rest of the world, more or less), Ron Paul is not who you want for president.

Correct me if im wrong, but Ron Paul seems to be the opposite of that.
What you describe is the direction were going in now. If America were to isolate itself from the rest of the world(which I dont feel is his policy) it would force the country to become independent. Granted the damage has been done, but this would be a step in fixing some of the problems in America today.

No clue on T. Thompson.

As for you die hard republicans supporting the "Neo-Cons"
I think your all insane.

Err.. you're wrong (ineloquent, yes; incorrect, no)

Ron Paul is an old-timey isolationist conservative, albeit rather young himself, from before the Neo-Cons came in to roost and destroy our country. Isolationism, as attractive as it can appear to a public that has seen its foreign policy end in no small number of complete clusterf**ks, would have a disastrous effect on the world economy, never mind our place in it. Never mind his wish to destroy international institutions such as the UN (think John Bolton *100) which would only have the effect of adding to the clusterf**ks. This isn't even regarding his domestic policy, which as he a strong economic conservative, I promise you you don't agree with.

[Anarchist]

Let me state for the record that some of the other candidates promoted here, I could not support for that they are also only interested in wealth and power.

Spurg you would agree that our current leaders are unworthy of there positions?

While I agree that Isolationism would effect the economy, I see world trade as less important then local trade. To pull out off the world market(to the degree, a slow and delicate process) would be to promote an independent America, one that isnt owned by China.This would not only increase jobs, but our security aswell. Foreign trade would not be lost alltogether, just our dependency of it.

While the UN is founded on good ideas, its become diluted by politicians and is now more of an elite country club. It has no teeth, and its progress to its mission is minimal. Humanitarian aid aside,they could be doing much better.

I like laws being passed at a local level, why should Washington tell us how to live our lives. I agree with what I know, but dont remember off the top of my head what his economic policies are. However they do sound like they are heading in the free market direction.

Could you enlighten me?

[vtmarik]

Do you like Thompson? Of the top 3, the one I like least is McCain, and I really doubt he'll get the nomination anyway. I'd vote for Guiliani, or Romney, for that matter, but wouldn't really be excited about voting for either. Thompson though interests me... of course he's not in the race yet.

You mean Fred Thompson? Not really. He kind of came off as a deranged actor to me, but so do most actor-turned-politicians. His name also reminds me of Jack Thompson, but that's irrelevant.

So I did some searching, and here's some stuff I found:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4309.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4243.html

http://abcradionetworks.com/article.asp?id=395162&SPID=15663


I'm an anti-Federalist, FYI. There's only one guy in the race that I can vote for, should I decide to vote.

Fred Thompson doesn't interest me that much.

To be fair, he's a politician-turned-actor-turned-politician-again.

How about Thompson-Paul? Or better yet, let's turn the whole thing on its ear, Obama-Paul '08!

That way the libs get their lib and the moderates get their moderate.

The problem with any of this is that these people want to be in power. I don't trust anyone who wants to be in power.

George Washington was chosen and accepted the position, he didn't want it but he accepted his nation's call.

Why can't we do the same things? Oh right, people aren't informed enough to look at the field of people in the nation and select the best choice. They'd most likely just vote for Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert...

Besides, by the time the election gets here, all of the candidates save one on each side drop out. And why do we need primaries? Anyone?

I renew my objection to the electoral college. Maybe it was a good idea before telephones were invented, but now we can send data around the world in a matter of seconds. Why do we need a body of 300-400 people interpreting what the votes in their states mean? Why not just "One person, one vote?"

Is the concept of a popular vote too much to comprehend?

[Anarchist]

Im with you.

[nagerous]

"The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked."


Sorry but this guy sounds like a bit of a prick. Although I admit he has some solid thought over increasing individual civil liberties.

[Anarchist]

So you would rather have terrorists inside your country, but not in a foreign country(whom weve invaded? creating more terrorists...)

[nagerous]

since when did illegal immigrants immediately constitute terrorists?? Border control should not be limited, all Americans were immigrants once unless you are a native. your name/sig is an oxymoron for your actual beliefs. You claim to be an anarchist but you are happy with oppression when it comes to letting people in to your country. Thats not anarchy.

[Anarchist]

good point,

However that remark was related to the terrorist issue, but also includes illegal immigration. However theres a debate on youtube,(see link page 1)
where he adresses that illegal immigration is only a problem due to our current system, it would be less of a problem if we had a free market(no outsourcing either)

I fully support the elimination of all borders, but other issues need to be adressed first before it can become a viable option. Thats what Ron Paul is saying(not that hes suggesting the elimination of borders, however he is addressing other areas)

Hes suggesting a defensive military over an offensive one, an offensive one only creates more enemies.Agree?

[nagerous]

I'm not American by the way I'm British but I don't trust anyone whos under the guise of the republican party. In regards to a defencive military, hes right. Iraq war was a serious miscarriage of justice but so is appeasing dictators when they are ruling in terror so you can look at it at either angle.

[Anarchist]

I agree, I ussually hope a miracle will happen and someone from the green party gets elected(not that their perfect) Did like Obama till he turned into a superficial poster child(IMO)

I happen to like Ron Pauls Constitutionalist approach, and getting out of foreign countries personal business. Not to forget his push in the direction of free market.Lots of problems in this country that need to be fixed, take a lot of work to do it too.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I've been sending emails to friends about Ron Paul for about three months now. I really think this guy could pull it off, if the Republicans would just give him the damn nomination. He's not getting much TV coverage, but he's a big player in cyberspace- he's got huge amounts of support on every political forum I've been on for the past few months.

This guy's basically a moderate libertarian. Not only do I like most of his policies, but I think he's really the only Republican candidate with a chance of winning against any candidate the Dems might choose.

[chewyman]

While I agree that Isolationism would effect the economy, I see world trade as less important then local trade. To pull out off the world market(to the degree, a slow and delicate process) would be to promote an independent America, one that isnt owned by China.This would not only increase jobs, but our security aswell. Foreign trade would not be lost alltogether, just our dependency of it.

Isolationism is the mistaken economic policy that led to the first World War. A free global market is the best option for everybody with a phased gradual reduction of all tariffs. The perceived threat of China owning a substantial portion of American bonds is highly over exaggerated. It's theoretically true that if China (or Japan and a few other countries) decided to sell off their bonds America would definitely suffer from depression however this is simply not going to happen. China's economy is just as reliant (well actually much more so) on the USA's as the USA's is on China.

While the UN is founded on good ideas, its become diluted by politicians and is now more of an elite country club. It has no teeth, and its progress to its mission is minimal. Humanitarian aid aside,they could be doing much better.

I completely agree (although for different reasons no doubt) except for your comment that it is an "elite country club". The UN is well known as a chance for the little African and South American countries to team up against the global powers heavily outnumbered in the General Assembly. If the UN really was an "elite country club" then there wouldn't be so many Republicans criticising it. In fact, it's exactly the opposite.

I like laws being passed at a local level, why should Washington tell us how to live our lives. I agree with what I know, but dont remember off the top of my head what his economic policies are. However they do sound like they are heading in the free market direction.

I'm a centralist. What is the point of having so many small local governments when one central one will suffice? It's inefficient and only leads to further conflicts of interests.



Incidentally, I'm very surprised nobody started yelling at me for advocating flat tax on the first page.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Isolationism is the mistaken economic policy that led to the first World War.

I'm interested in how ISOLATIONISM led to the first world war. I was under the impression that America was drawn into the war because of a break in isolationist policies.

And certainly, the CAUSE of the first world war (if we're not talking about America's entry into it) was a chain reaction of secret alliances coupled with imperialistic European leaders.

I hardly see how you can blame the whole thing on isolationism. Quite to the contrary in fact...

I'm a centralist. What is the point of having so many small local governments when one central one will suffice? It's inefficient and only leads to further conflicts of interests.

I'd argue that it's MORE efficient. A massive federal government would have difficulty governing the affairs of citizens from all across a nation whose parts have quite different cultures and values. State and municipal governments are essential in that they keep sectional differences cool. Blanket federal laws cause a distinct black-and-white mentality.

[reverend_kyle]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Fred_Thompson.htm

fred thompson is probably one of the worst candidates out there fwiw.

[chewyman]

Isolationism is the mistaken economic policy that led to the first World War.

I'm interested in how ISOLATIONISM led to the first world war. I was under the impression that America was drawn into the war because of a break in isolationist policies.

And certainly, the CAUSE of the first world war (if we're not talking about America's entry into it) was a chain reaction of secret alliances coupled with imperialistic European leaders.

I hardly see how you can blame the whole thing on isolationism. Quite to the contrary in fact...

Believe it or not the first World War didn't actually begin when America joined in. WW1 was a colonial war in which the central powers (especially Germany) wanted to increase their colonial powers and Great Britain wanted to maintain the status quo (the British Commonwealth being the largest empire the world has ever seen). All the European powers had isolationist policies that restricted trade to their own respective empires. The desire for gain a larger portion of what seemed at the time to be an infinite expansion of available resources led to conflicts between these enormous colonial empires. So you are right that imperialism was a cause of WW1, but if the empires had been willing to trade amongst each other there would not have been such a level of competition between them. That's a very brief explanation, hope it answers your question for you.

I'm a centralist. What is the point of having so many small local governments when one central one will suffice? It's inefficient and only leads to further conflicts of interests.

I'd argue that it's MORE efficient. A massive federal government would have difficulty governing the affairs of citizens from all across a nation whose parts have quite different cultures and values. State and municipal governments are essential in that they keep sectional differences cool. Blanket federal laws cause a distinct black-and-white mentality.

For federalism to exist there must be multiple local governments and one central administrative one. If there are multiple local governments where just one is enough then that obviously means there are an excess of bureaucrats and a confusion of laws between states. Thus, federalism is less efficient because you have more people doing exactly the same work. Do you honestly believe the varying laws in different states represent the true wishes of those state's citizens? Wealthy citizens just travel to a state that legalises something they wish to do while poorer ones are forced to either do it illegally or not at all. Admittedly there are some laws that are genuinely different, others (the vast majority, such as road laws) are just needlessly complicated by federalism.