Who is Ron Paul?

[Tac]

Originally posted by crockett
Sure less govt regulation is great, but it doesn't mean we need to get rid  of everything the govt does.

He isnt getting rid of everything. Just the things that the government has no right to rub their noses into or that are just a ridiculous beaurocracy that serves only itself.

Originally posted by crockett
I mean hell he wants to get rid of the Post Office and let it go commercial. What exactly will that accomplish? Does the US post office do a bad job? I don't think they do.

FedEx beats the USPS hands down.  FedEx is not funded by the taxes you pay. Hence, a non-gov entity can handle the mail without it draining the tax money. Letting the USPS become a commercial entity is a much better solution.

Originally posted by crockett
Do you really want some guy that's hired by some company to sift through your mail? At least with the govt in charge of it, their is accountability set in place if that happens.

As opposed to some guy hired by the gov to sift through your mail? You realize that practically every USPS employee comes from the same hiring pool as those in FedEx right? Govt? Accountability? hahahahah. Shows the USPS has never lost your mail. Trust me, you are an insect to them if you try to hold them accountable for losing a package. FedEx oth, has a lot to lose if they arent accountable for lost mail. Again, USPS doesnt need your money, FedEx does.

Originally posted by crockett
Sure private business can do things better in many cases I will never argue against that. However Ron Paul just goes off the deep end because he doesn't know where to draw the line.

I havent heard him say anything 'deep end'. I think the problem is too many people have grown accustomed to the gov. being a part of everything and its scary to think the world could be otherwise.

Originally posted by crockett
Look at health care in this country for a prime example.. Look how notoriously bad HMO services are by the majority and how expensive health care is in this country. It's pretty obvious that in countries where health care is provided by the govt, that more people get access to the health care. Not only that but it's cheaper.

Not really. Gov provided healthcare comes out of your taxes. You want gov. healthcare then be ready to lose a good portion of your paycheck through your entire lifetime. HMO services are bad because the government is involved in health services (see point below about lobbyists).

Originally posted by crockett

If private industry can do everything better and can be "trusted" to do it with out jacking up the price for profits. Well then tell me why medicines in Canada would cost me as a US citizen half of what it costs here in the US.

In a free market you would realize that if you cant make medicines CHEAPER and better than those from canada, you WONT be in bussiness very long. Free market means you can buy from Canada too!

Whereas in the US the medicine companies lobby constantly with the gov. so people in the US arent allowed access to foreign medicines because its bad for their bussiness. Its all about who lobbies the most to get priviledges. So tell me, what is preferable? that the gov. is denying you access to medicines because a US company lobbied for it so they can remain profitable (jacking up the prices of 'brand' medicines) -or- a US based company that has to compete with Canadian based medicine companies and you, the consumer, can choose to buy either.

Originally posted by crockett
Sure I'm' all for farming out certain things to private contractors with less govt involvement, but not everything. That's where Ron Paul loses my vote.

He didnt say hed get rid of everything. I'd suggest you watch the hour-long video of Ron Paul visiting the Google HQ .. he goes into detail on many things. Details not mentioned in debates or interviews he's had... heck the guy had a whole hour to talk.

Originally posted by crockett
Btw with less govt regulation, do you honestly think pollution would get better? This list could go on and on and on.. There are reasons in many cases why heavy govt regulation was put in place. The reason is because a lot of people don't care about anything but money. [/B]

Considering the US did not sign the Kyoto accord I dont think US gov. regulation on pollution has much credibility. However, private entities CAN regulate private companies because the government is still in charge of the judicial system. You can prove a company is polluting irresponsably to save some bucks? A private entity can investigate them and bring them to court on behalf of the affected.

Think about it.. look at all the stupid court cases over the years that made mega-corporations change. MacDonalds getting sued because a hot coffee burned a woman's tongue... or the wal-mart costumer that falls on the floor because the 'wet floor' sign was not visible to them, etc. Those are extreme examples but you get what I mean.

[SirLoin]

Originally posted by SteveBailey
His position is moot. His 9/11 comments were a candidate killer.  period... he's done as a presidential candidate.  

Anyone care to wager on it?

How much?

[lazs2]

crok-it..  I believe that you are getting it... you are also seeing why I would want ron paul in and you would not...  no socialist here... no lefty would ever want him in.

the reason that some democrats and lefties here want him is.. they seen he wants out of the war and he will let em smoke pot.   farther than that.. they haven't looked.

you are just a little faster to realize that ron paul is the end of the great socialist commie American experiment if he gets in than most of your socialist friends..

have no fear tho... if ron paul get's anywhere near being a candidate....  his ideas will be front page and you will need smelling salts to revive the lefties who read it.

The libertarians here are also being a tad dishonest about him... saying that he only wants to get rid of "some" government programs and agencies.. the truth is that he has some he wants to get rid of right off the bat... but that he will get rid of every socialist program he can.   he will work to that end.

I am in agreement on this with him but I don't see how being dishonest is gonna help..   It will come out anyway.

lazs

[bsdaddict]

I'm sure that SOME dem/liberal RP supporters will be turned off by SOME of RPs platforms.  Likewise, SOME dem/liberals yearn for a return to the constitutional principals that made this country great and are tired of POLITICS AS USUAL.  It's not just RPs anti-WoD stance that attracts dems to RP, it's also habeus corpus, eminant domain, posse comitatus, warrantless wiretaps, rendidtions, waterboarding, freedom of speech, etc...  The entire spectrum of civil liberties is big with them.  Certainly, there's SOME hard-core socialists (some who might not even know it) among the dems who would gladly trade their freedoms for a monthly check, but there's also SOME principled voters who see past the polarizing nature of politics in America today and are tired of bought-and-paid-for politicians.

I'm not really all that concerned about Ron Paul losing supporters due to them learning more about him.  What concerns me is the people who base their decisions on who sounds the best, or who has the snazziest commercials.  Basically, the people who aren't paying attention and who's voting decision is based on what they hear from the MSM.  There's 50 people who know about the latest Brittney news for every one who knows about Ron Pauls positions.  That's what scares me.

[Tac]

I found his debate clash with Giulanni about the 9/11 to be a perfect example of how biased the media is and of just how low and desperate the other candidates are to gather support.

The whole debate RP was saying that the 911 attacks were influenced by many years of bad foreign policy and the guy holding the debate and Guilani and other candidates were doing their damn best to twist his words to saying that the attack was something the US 'deserved' because of their foreign policy. Even the idiot newsman interviewing him at the end went out of his way to warp what RP was saying.

All I see other candidates do is exploit tragedies and the current situation to make false statements on their positions on an issue (saying 'i was against the war' but they voted FOR it for example) and making contradicting promises to different audiences to gain votes. RP is the only candidate who'se actions in the past match his words today and does not change his position or flip-flop things for votes.

Too bad I cannot vote (not US citizen) , or i'd vote for him.

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Tac
RP is the only candidate who'se actions in the past match his words today and does not change his position or flip-flop things for votes.

just wanted to repeat that...  

(possibly Kuchinich (sp?) has been as steadfast in his principles as RP.  gee, is it any surprise that he gets dissed just like RP does?)

[moot]

Face it, some people aren't just stupid or not paying attention.  They know the media's censoring Paul, and they don't mind it.  They're in on it.. They don't mind the fraudulent BS like Giuliani's 911 slant and his fooling the crowd with that middle east blowback sleight of hand in that debate a few months back, so long as they have their favorite toilet paper to go home to.  They don't mind not understanding what the flippin heck RP's on about because there's other politicians who look and sound "good enough".
They're as good as the corrupt politicians and bloated bureaucracy that RP wants to get rid of.

[lazs2]

guys... get serious... how much do you think the lefties will want him when they weigh the effects of say... waterboarding compared to... oh.... getting rid of the board of education?    or cutting funding to students?   or cutting any give away program?

I mean.. seriously..  he is talking about some huge social changes.   Not only that but he is a right to lifer.  

When it comes right down to it...  even tho they are beyond evil.. most of us do not feel our rights of free speech or whatever are infringed..  what people do feel is that the government is "not doing enough for us"

This is exactly 180 degrees from what his platform is.. he, like myself.. thinks the government is doing (pretending to do) WAY more than it was ever intended to do.

The sad fact is that most of us.. and lefties most of all... want the government to do more.. to be more intrusive into our lives... not less.

How is that gonna shake out in a national debate?   Hell.. they are even afraid to talk about gun control or abortion...

I think ron paul picks the war because it is a relatively safe topic.. many that think it is a good thing don't really care that much.. those that think it is a bad one.. well... it really doesn't affect them that much anyway.

It is a great lie and media lie that people even care that much about it.

But.. talk about taxes or abortion or gun control or abolishing all these government services and then you will see some real heat.

ron paul is doing exactly the same as every other politician.. he is talking about the safe things in the debates.

lazs

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by lazs2
guys... get serious... how much do you think the lefties will want him when they weigh the effects of say... waterboarding compared to... oh.... getting rid of the board of education?    or cutting funding to students?   or cutting any give away program?

not all Dems are hard-core lefties.  not all Reps are neo-cons.

Not only that but he is a right to lifer.

only at the state level and in his own personal view.  He wants the fedgov to stay out of it.

what people do feel is that the government is "not doing enough for us"

not the people I know.

he, like myself.. thinks the government is doing (pretending to do) WAY more than it was ever intended to do.

then stop trying to turn people against him.

The sad fact is that most of us.. and lefties most of all... want the government to do more.. to be more intrusive into our lives... not less.

I don't think you speak for the majority.  Hopefully I'm not wrong about that.  If I am, then yeah, we're screwed.

How is that gonna shake out in a national debate?

I believe it has been.  RP's numbers have been growing as more people hear him.  There's a spike in donations after every debate or television appearance.

Hell.. they are even afraid to talk about gun control or abortion...

I'm sure Ron Paul would LOVE the opportunity to debate Hillary (or anyone, for that matter) on the 2nd.  Abortion, he's talked about his stance repeatedly.

I think ron paul picks the war because it is a relatively safe topic.. many that think it is a good thing don't really care that much.. those that think it is a bad one.. well... it really doesn't affect them that much anyway.

The concept that he would shy away from an "unsafe" topic is, IMO, laughable.  Have you heard some of his speeches on the House floor or bothered to read any of the multitude of his writings?

It is a great lie and media lie that people even care that much about it.

if you say so...

But.. talk about taxes or abortion or gun control or abolishing all these government services and then you will see some real heat.

can't wait...  

ron paul is doing exactly the same as every other politician.. he is talking about the safe things in the debates.

You certainly have a unique take on RPs debate performances.  The amount of heat he's taken up till this point and you say he's been playing it safe?  I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

[Torque]

the man has written more books on economic than all of his collective counterparts have probably read.... and he still managed to deliver 4000 babies... that makes for a good balance.

he is open and honest when debating the core issues... uses the constitution to expose and then crush his opponents.

hope he can avoid the kennedy virus... a bullet.

[SD67]

From an outsiders point of view, I like RP.
I want him to run for PM here but the elections only 6 days away.
WoD was a waste of time and money when it started and it will continue to be until it's scrapped. Organised crime would all but disappear once the profit from illegal drugs dries up.
I also like his stance on the abortion. Don't be expecting the government to pay for it, and they'll not be telling you you can't have one. If the local authorities decide that they'd rather not have it in their backyard then that's an issue for them to deal with.
The war, well, I made comment back in the 1980's when I first began to really take notice of the growing situation in the Middle East that everyone should leave them well alone, eventually they will run out of people to shoot at and things will work themselves out. Hell even then the oil wasn't a good enough reason.
War is EXPENSIVE.
Our current King Johnny is walking around beating his chest and wiggling his impressive eyebrows over his "great economic surge" with reference to the US$. The truth of the matter is it is not that our dollar has gained, it's just that the enormous expense of some 30+ years of attempting to influence the politics in the Middle East and the latest instalment; the "War against Terrorism" has drained the US economy to it's limit.

Guys it looks like you've got an honest down to earth straight shooting politician. He's the kind the media hate, because he won't dance to any of their tunes and big business won't like him either because he won't be bought. Don't let him get away!

[Rolex]

I'll start by restating something I said long ago: I think Ron Paul is the only Republican who can defeat Hillary Clinton.

A Giuliani vs. Clinton election is a nightmare. Both are frighteningly disingenuous creatures, and there would be no winner, since 300 million American people would be losers. Only Dr. Paul offers a clear difference to the two families that have ruled the nation in the last two decades. Adults under 30-years old only know of two families and a Clinton presidency would extend that to a quarter of a century of a bizarre, teeter-totter monarchy.

Four years ago, John Kerry was polling at less than 4% in the Democratic nomination media polls. That's lower than Ron Paul is polling now, yet he went on to win the nomination. I don't think it wise for anyone to discount Ron Paul before a single voter has cast a ballot.

I'm not convinced Giuliani will even be in the nomination race at convention time. He has too many skeletons that can rear up to bite him. Romney is no different than Clinton. They sound the same. Where is the choice Republicans can offer voters who, I'm convinced, are going to repudiate this administration next year? Who can disgruntled voters turn to? The Republican Party must either embrace Ron Paul, or accept defeat next year.

This may be the last gasp for Americans to seize the nation back before the minions outnumber the population. Every other candidate, except Ron Paul, panders to the minions. When I say minions, I mean government employees, contractors and employees of companies that sell to the government.

35 million Americans are paid directly from the local, state or the federal government as either employees or contractors. Add in the people who receive government benefits, grants and subsidies, subcontractors, employees of companies in the defense industry and retirees, and one half of all households in America are supported by the other half of America. Their income now exceeds income for private industry workers doing comparable work, and their benefits, job security and retirement are all higher than private industry. That was part of why the Soviet Union collapsed.

Ron Paul's message to rein in government expansion and spending is the only choice. All the other candidates bring nothing to the table except fiscal irresponsibility and policy disasters, both foreign and domestic.

[rpm]

If it's a Clinton v Paul race, Ron Paul wins in a landslide. I don't agree 100% with his agenda, but he has the least objectionable platform
and without a doubt he's the most believeable candidate.

He is an enigma, an honest politician.

[lazs2]

bsd.. I am not trying to "turn people against him" as you say... I am just trying to ease your fall.

He isn't going to be in the race.  

I will vote for him up until he becomes an independent or write in.  then I will vote for the republican.

I see rolex's point but it is not quite true..  there is a HUGE difference between hillay and osamabama and any of the republicans.   never have the democrats feilded a more far left group.

One difference will be who gets to appoint federal judges and the other will be what bills come before the next pres and what he signs..    

Do you want hillary or osama appointing SC or federal judges?  most of the bad stuff that affects us all on a daily basis is because billary appointed all those federal judges.

With a democrat pres... there will be a flood of bills sent to the pres to rubber stamp.

But back to ron paul..  no one that votes has every heard his speeches on the house floor... they hear the debates and they will read in print that he is some absent minded professor whack job with nutball ideas.  "he wants to take away my what?"

If I am so wrong.. how does a socialist like hillary get so far along... just answer me that.   If I am wrong about so many wanting more and more goodies and more and more dependent on the government...

Then how the hell did we get in this mess in the  first place and how come ron paul is the only one to make it this far...  and only then.. by being an exceptional man and not really being talked about much in the press yet.

I wish I was wrong but I am not... we are decadent and the younger generation is soft and stupid on public education and the tube.

lazs

[bsdaddict]

First, I don't need you to ease my fall.  I know this is a longshot.  You say you're not trying to turn people against him, I'll have to take you on your word regarding that, but for sure you're not trying to convince people to vote for him either.  Worried about how people might perceive Ron Paul by what they hear in the MSM?  Then DO SOMETHING about it, tell people why YOU like Ron Paul, address the misconceptions the MSM likes to propagate.  Why do you think I'm taking the time to update this thread, for my own benefit?  No, I'm doing my best to try to educate and get past the BUT HE CAN'T WIN crap.

I know one thing for certain, if every Ron Paul supporter took your attitude then he'd definitely have no chance.  None, zero, ziltch, nada.  As it is, he's got a slim  chance, IF enough people get past the MSM's disinformation campaign and understand where hes coming from.  Are you with us or are you against us, Lazs?