Congressman Ron Paul

[Sage]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
http://facebook.com/group.php?gid=2229718737
http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008

You know, even though I don’t agree with 100% of what he says, I agree enough that I probably wouldn’t consider voting for him a “lesser of two evils”. My concern though is that he won’t survive the Republican primaries.

 

[Joey D]

He seems kinda Libertarian to me, but I'm not exactly a rocket...errr political scientist.

 

[Duke]

(Shhhhhh... Ron Paul was the Libertarian candidate in, I believe, 1988. But don't tell anyone.)

 

[Joey D]

Probably should have read the wiki article better.

 

[YSSMAN]

I love the amount of grabbing that is going on in the GOP. Granted this is the first time that we've effectively had free-range for the Presidential position (remember, Cheney isn't running...), and thereby the party itself is up for grabs as well.

Quite frankly, this guy isn't even on the radar of the overwhelming majority of Republicans, and Americans in general for that matter, and furthermore, that could also be explained by his way of voting against his party.

Yeah, thats a good way to get the nomination...

Either way, I'd bet we're looking at Guliani to get the nomination. If the GOP wants to keep their grip on the White House, they're going to have to appeal to middle-America, and lets be honest, the majority of Republican candidates (McCain notwithstanding...) aren't that appealing to most 'regular' folks.

Best case scenario, like I have said before: Guliani & McCain run together, I'm sure that can stop the Clinton or Obama machine...

 

[Solid Fro]

Ron Paul is a nut. He knows nothing about Islamofascism.

 

[Max Powers]

He has my vote, it's nice to see a politician who actually seems to be in touch with the country. I think he will be able to make some noise, as he took 2nd even on the Fox News poll for the May 15th debate.

I also like how he's one of the few republicans who isn't being a complete puppet of the party and has a mind of his own. Guliani went after him with the old 9/11 excuse in that debate, and Paul basically said that the middle east hates us so much because we've been bombing them for 10 years now, they don't hate us because we're free, they hate us because we've been bombing them to kingdom come for too long.

I'm even switching from independent to republican so I can vote for him in the primarys.Also, Ron Paul is working to protect our constitution and our privacy, something that we sorely need.

 

[Zrow]

I was considering making this thread. Anyway, I like him a lot and will vote for him, even though I don't think he's really got a shot. The guy's got a mind of his own, though, and he's honest, which I don't think I can say for the Romneys and the Gulianis.

Honesty and character are whats gonna be steering my vote this election, I think - I'm even considering Obama, should he make it that far, just because he actually seems to be a good person.

 

[YSSMAN]

I also like how he's one of the few republicans who isn't being a complete puppet of the party and has a mind of his own. Guliani went after him with the old 9/11 excuse in that debate, and Paul basically said that the middle east hates us so much because we've been bombing them for 10 years now, they don't hate us because we're free, they hate us because we've been bombing them to kingdom come for too long.

Lets be honest here for a moment; You actually think because we've been bombing the hell out of Iraq since 1991 is the only reason why they hate us? Sure, he has a point in saying that our military involvement in the Middle-East has had much to do with where we are today, but thats only scratching at the surface. First and foremost is our outright support of the state of Israel and nearly everything they do, not to mention the fact that we fund their military, and many other anti-Islamic-fundamentalist movements around the world. Furthermore, our involvement in nations like Pakistan and Iran in the past have caused plenty of issues as well...

...But at the core, its a direct contradiction of ideas between Islam and the West, be it America or not. The Islamists believe in peace and prosperity through strict moral code, religious law, and the destruction of common, rational thought as mainstream ideas. Basically what it comes down to then is peace through absolute control, otherwise completely against everything that our country has fought for. Beyond that, their societies hate the fact that we treat women as equals, show them off in public, allow them to look us in the eye, make money, have an eduction, etc. We go on an on about gay rights in the United States, but if the Islamists had it their way, the gays would be wiped-out, thrown in prison, executed, etc. They just aren't as forgiving in that regard.

What it comes down to is that they hate us because of our social freedoms by which they view as immoral and against the very basic beliefs of their faith. The drastic steps backward in the given nations caused by strict Islamic law basically spells the downfall of a given nation's advancement in society... And lets be honest here, the nations that have been able to accelerate the greatest amount of social and economic freedom have been ones that generally accepted Western ideals (ie the UAE, the Saudis to some extent, even Iran to some extent).

...Sure, we can stick our tails between our legs and say "My bad!" and run for the hills hoping that we don't get attacked. Or, we can ease our way out, continue to fight for whats right in the world, and take care of business. At least Guliani identifies that there are different reasons as to why we were attacked, and actually seems to have a kind of commitment to getting rid of the problem. Strong-arm military action may not always be the best course, but as of right now, its one of the best options we have...

I'm sticking with Guliani and McCain on this one, sorry to burst everyone's bubble. The guy is a nutcase that doesn't stand a chance in hell to getting anywhere near the front of the pack. Sure, he may have a few good ideas, but as they say, Hitler did too...

 

[Max Powers]

Lets be honest here for a moment; You actually think because we've been bombing the hell out of Iraq since 1991 is the only reason why they hate us? Sure, he has a point in saying that our military involvement in the Middle-East has had much to do with where we are today, but thats only scratching at the surface. First and foremost is our outright support of the state of Israel and nearly everything they do, not to mention the fact that we fund their military, and many other anti-Islamic-fundamentalist movements around the world. Furthermore, our involvement in nations like Pakistan and Iran in the past have caused plenty of issues as well...

...But at the core, its a direct contradiction of ideas between Islam and the West, be it America or not. The Islamists believe in peace and prosperity through strict moral code, religious law, and the destruction of common, rational thought as mainstream ideas. Basically what it comes down to then is peace through absolute control, otherwise completely against everything that our country has fought for. Beyond that, their societies hate the fact that we treat women as equals, show them off in public, allow them to look us in the eye, make money, have an eduction, etc. We go on an on about gay rights in the United States, but if the Islamists had it their way, the gays would be wiped-out, thrown in prison, executed, etc. They just aren't as forgiving in that regard.

What it comes down to is that they hate us because of our social freedoms by which they view as immoral and against the very basic beliefs of their faith. The drastic steps backward in the given nations caused by strict Islamic law basically spells the downfall of a given nation's advancement in society... And lets be honest here, the nations that have been able to accelerate the greatest amount of social and economic freedom have been ones that generally accepted Western ideals (ie the UAE, the Saudis to some extent, even Iran to some extent).

...Sure, we can stick our tails between our legs and say "My bad!" and run for the hills hoping that we don't get attacked. Or, we can ease our way out, continue to fight for whats right in the world, and take care of business. At least Guliani identifies that there are different reasons as to why we were attacked, and actually seems to have a kind of commitment to getting rid of the problem. Strong-arm military action may not always be the best course, but as of right now, its one of the best options we have...

I'm sticking with Guliani and McCain on this one, sorry to burst everyone's bubble. The guy is a nutcase that doesn't stand a chance in hell to getting anywhere near the front of the pack. Sure, he may have a few good ideas, but as they say, Hitler did too...

I never said it's the only reason they hate us, but it is certainly one of them, even Osama has said that our involvement in the middle east was one of the main reasons that they attacked us, this has been backed up by the CIA's 911 report. Obviously it is not the sole reason, as every action usually has a myraid of reasons to explain it. Iraq is a big part of it, but I completely agree that it has to do with our unwaivering support of Israel as well as all of our involvement in the middle east.

I still disagree that the main reason that they hate us is our freedoms, that is not part of it, they hate us because of our support of Israel and the fact that we've been involved in business that is not our's there for way too long.

If they really hated us for being so free, don't you think they would be attacking one of the many other nations of the world who are just as free as we are, they aren't. They're going after us because we've been there for way too long.

Now I don't know if leaving Iraq immediately is the best course of action, and I agree that "easing out" is an equally logical action, but spending more time there is going to do nothing to help our cause.

 

[Zrow]

You really buy that terrorism is caused because of our liberal society? Our acceptance of gays and our gender-equal society is what causes things like 9/11?

No way. The WTC attacks, or the London subway bombing were terrible, cowardly and unjustified, but they did have their own twisted reasoning for it, and there's no way "we hate their freedoms" was at the top of the list.

 

[Duke]

No, the top of the list is "We hate Israel and the Jews, and America supports one and is full of the other."

The fact that American pop culture is popular worldwide (even while it is being made fun of) and threatens their rigidly conservative way of life is probably second to that, by a good distance.

 

[Joey D]

No, the top of the list is "We hate Israel and the Jews, and America supports one and is full of the other."

The fact that American pop culture is popular worldwide (even while it is being made fun of) and threatens their rigidly conservative way of life is probably second to that, by a good distance.

Wow I thought I was the only one on this planet that thought that. Everytime I bring up Israel and the Jews I'm labeled as anti-semitic by someone and they call me little Hitler.

 

[Swift]

Wow I thought I was the only one on this planet that thought that. Everytime I bring up Israel and the Jews I'm labeled as anti-semitic by someone and they call me little Hitler.

You mean you're not little Hitler?

But yeah, this guy has the basics down. McCaine is a puppet chump, Gulliani is pretty decent in my mind and has actual executive experience. Something sorely lacking in ANY presidential candidate. But he's not as conservative as I'd like.

I'll probably end up going with this guy or maybe Tom Tancrao(sp) just to make a statement. I know that it'll end up being Gulliani or McCaine, but I'd just like to make a statement.

 

[Solid Fro]

Fred Thompson!

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm late to the game, but I've been busy.

I like this guy. I don't agree with his war policy of pulling out immediately, but many of his domestic issues I like. However, his comments in that debate were clarified later on Bill Maher's show. He explained that there are many reasons they attacked us, such as our support of Israel and other foreign policies, most of which (Israel for instance) he does agree with, but he thinks that the war is only fueling the fire and it only adds to the negative image we already have as invaders among those that don't like us. It doesn't mean that he thinks we did it to ourselves or any of that kind of stuff, but that we may need to seriously examine why they don't like us instead of just assuming it is because they are crazy.

I honestly believe that if Republican voters examined all his ideas and heard his name that he would get the nomination. but he is being played as an upstart in the Republican party. Even the Fox News moderator asked the right questions to get things started up and draw a response from the audience. Then at first I thought Giuliani was actually getting angry about what Paul said but as it kept going I realized he was just trying to push the buttons to make Paul manage to label himself as anti-American and highlight his stance on the war. Then all the other candidates saw a quick way to knock him out fast and wanted to comment on him. Fortunately Brit Hume (probably one of the most honest and underrated newsmen I've seen) jumped in to stop it before it got out of hand.


Unfortunately he is getting too little coverage and by the time the primaries actually get to Kentucky he will have dropped out or he will have already statistically lost.

 

[Omnis]

You mean you're not little Hitler?

But yeah, this guy has the basics down. McCaine is a puppet chump, Gulliani is pretty decent in my mind and has actual executive experience. Something sorely lacking in ANY presidential candidate. But he's not as conservative as I'd like.

I'll probably end up going with this guy or maybe Tom Tancrao(sp) just to make a statement. I know that it'll end up being Gulliani or McCaine, but I'd just like to make a statement.

Agreed. The problem that I see with Giuliani is that he's kind of stuck in New York. He's liberal-- basically a Bush that people like. I like McCain, but I think he will make a better VP than a President. He's too much of a puppet. What I like about Ron Paul is that he is the Thomas Jefferson figure that the republican party needs. Republicans have lost their identity. Ron Paul is the only true Republican. I think Ron Paul can bring the party back to behaving the way it was made to at its conception. America needs to look back to classical liberalism and to re-establish the policies the framers of the constitution advised us to follow. We need to cut government spending because our domestic and foreign policies together are turning our nation inside-out.

Our weak point has always been foreign policy. The rest of the world hates our foreign policy. The best thing to do is practice the non-interventionism recommended by the founders of our nation. The United States defends the free; it should not attack anything.

My dad likes Fred Thompson, but I have yet to see him debate and do not know his stances on all of the issues.

 

[Solid Fro]

Ron Paul may have good domestic ideas, however, his ignorance in claiming that the operation in Iraq was illegal, we should have never gone in, and that "they" attack us because we support Israel, trumps everything else. We are attacked because we are not Muslim. We went into Iraq because Saddam defied the UN seven-teen times. Period. Ron Paul does not understand this issue and IMO, the most important of all.

On the recent Republican debates on CNN, a question was asked if the candidates would use tactical nuclear weapons if Iran had their own nuclear weapons and threaten to use them? None of the candidates answered the question, they just spun. The simple answer is...

YES!

It was so simple and I am disappointed none of the candidates were honest enough to answer the question. Fred Thompson was the only one who answered with "yes".

If Fred Thompson ran for office, I would vote for him, make no mistake about it.

 

[Omnis]

Ron Paul may have good domestic ideas, however, his ignorance in claiming that the operation in Iraq was illegal, we should have never gone in, and that "they" attack us because we support Israel, trumps everything else. We are attacked because we are not Muslim. We went into Iraq because Saddam defied the UN seven-teen times. Period. Ron Paul does not understand this issue and IMO, the most important of all.

Ron Paul supports non-interventionism, but his views are in many ways similar to Fred's. Ron Paul only said we should not have went in because the first strike was not authorized by congress. There is no reason to think someone like Ron would not do well protecting our country, but he would only initiate war in outright congress-authorized fashion. It is not our duty to enforce UN regulations and etc. We're a part of the UN, not the UN itself. I can't see how Ron Paul is ignorant about any problems, issues, or threats posed by foreign states. He is not abandoning the problems, but, rather, the policies that have been ineffective in solving them or that have even created them.

This is exactly why I would like to see Fred in a debate. What I like about him is how he honest in focusing on problems and how he would address them. What I like about Ron is how he is honest about policies and what exactly needs to happen with them. It would be great to have Ron address foreign problems and plans in detail while Fred goes over domestic plans and existing foreign policy in detail-- and back and forth and so on.

On the recent Republican debates on CNN, a question was asked if the candidates would use tactical nuclear weapons if Iran had their own nuclear weapons and threaten to use them? None of the candidates answered the question, they just spun. The simple answer is...

YES!

It was so simple and I am disappointed none of the candidates were honest enough to answer the question. Fred Thompson was the only one who answered with "yes".

If Fred Thompson ran for office, I would vote for him, make no mistake about it.

Well, technically, he said pre-emptive force, not nukes.

Anyway, I like Fred and would vote for him right up there with Ron Paul. Personally, there is not yet a clear choice between these two, but as of now, together, I think they are far and away the best pair.

 

[FoolKiller]

Ron Paul may have good domestic ideas, however, his ignorance in claiming that the operation in Iraq was illegal, we should have never gone in, and that "they" attack us because we support Israel, trumps everything else. We are attacked because we are not Muslim. We went into Iraq because Saddam defied the UN seven-teen times. Period. Ron Paul does not understand this issue and IMO, the most important of all.

I agree with you that we should be in Iraq and I think that Ron Paul is wrong on that one. However, the idea that we were attacked because we aren't Muslim and that our support of Israel (who they hate) has nothing to do with it doesn't even make sense. The two go hand in hand. Any time you bring up radical fundamental Muslims and their ideological differences into the equation you have to add the United States' support of Israel into that.

Whether you agree with their reasoning or not (and I don't) you cannot take Israel out of the equation. They hate and attack Israel, they hate and attack us, we support Israel. Even if our support of Israel isn't a primary reason it will, at a minimum, add to their hatred.

It is ignorant to assume none of our foreign policy played a role in anything. And admitting that is not saying our foreign policy is wrong. I think a lot of our foreign policies are justified, but that doesn't mean that a radical fundamentalist can't think the opposite.

On the recent Republican debates on CNN, a question was asked if the candidates would use tactical nuclear weapons if Iran had their own nuclear weapons and threaten to use them? None of the candidates answered the question, they just spun. The simple answer is...

YES!

I cannot agree to this. I can't support preempitively striking a country with nuclear weapons when they have not attacked us in any way. And even then it will be a tough argument to convince me we should use them.

And as for the Republican Debate; I didn't catch it but if the actual phrase tactical nuclear weapon was used then I can understand not answering the question. If you say no then Republican opponents say you aren't strong against Iran. If you say yes then Democrats will be quick to point out that you want to preemptively use nuclear weapons, making you worse than President Bush. It is a lose/lose situation if you answer.

It was so simple and I am disappointed none of the candidates were honest enough to answer the question. Fred Thompson was the only one who answered with "yes".

Was this supposed to be in those You Tube videos? I watched them both and the phrase "tactical nuclear weapons" was never said. At roughly the 8:00 meter mark Sean Hannity asked him if he would preemptively go in to take them out--wipe them out and Thompson said, "Yes." There is a big difference between launching a cruise missile, or whatever, and dropping a tactical nuke.


EDIT:

This is exactly why I would like to see Fred in a debate. What I like about him is how he honest in focusing on problems and how he would address them. What I like about Ron is how he is honest about policies and what exactly needs to happen with them. It would be great to have Ron address foreign problems and plans in detail while Fred goes over domestic plans and existing foreign policy in detail-- and back and forth and so on.

So, a Paul-Thompson (or Thompson-Paul) ticket?

 

[Omnis]

EDIT:
So, a Paul-Thompson (or Thompson-Paul) ticket?

No way. All I'm saying is that I would like to watch a debate with Fred Thompson in it. I think Fred has the potential to be a great president for our country, but so does Ron. They have different views on things and I want to know where exactly the similarities and differences lie when applied in active discussion. I'm saying that, while the two may have been discussing the same problem, one was examining only the internal elements of the problem while the other was going over only the external. It's hard to determine how different or similar the two may actually be because of this.

I also think a problem with the debates is that the moderator just throws out questions for the candidates to spit back in response. There is not enough active discussion and comparison that isn't in retrospect. I think if this was changed, it would allow for people to better identify each candidate's stance. In Ron Paul's case, I think it would allow the people to better see how his ideas can be better for the nation. Perhaps if each party did this better, it would allow them to produce a better final candidate due to the open exchange of ideas and the discussion about what ought to be and why.

 

[Solid Fro]

The debate question was tactical nuclear weapons. Sean Hannity was referring to the same question.

 

[FoolKiller]

The debate question was tactical nuclear weapons. Sean Hannity was referring to the same question.

But without that phrasing it doesn't make for a deadly sound bite.


And technically Giuliani didn't say "yes," but he did say, "I think it could be done with conventional weapons but you can't rule out anything and you shouldn't take any option off the table."

Considering how that question was worded it was a smart answer. It prevents Democratic critics from being able to make him sound like he wants to use nukes as a first option (which we shouldn't) but his Republican opponents can't call him weak because he didn't say no. He gave an answer, but it wasn't direct in order to avoid the stigma that can quickly be appliead in this time of sound bites.

Imagine if he had just said "yes" and the headline on the morning paper reads, "Giuliani on first-strike nukes in Iran: Yes." Or imagine if Hannity had used the phrase with Thompson and he gave the direct yes and moved on like he did. Harry Reid would be on TV the next morning on American Morning talking about how casually and uncaring Fred Thompson talked about how he would preemptively use nuclear weapons.

Hannity wasn't trying to trap Thompson and Giuliani did a good job of avoiding a trap. A politician who wants to have a career in the morning will never directly answer a question about using nuclear weapons.


One thing to understand is that while politicians sound like they are ducking nearly every question half those questions need and/or deserve to be ducked. Just watch any White House press conference, they are constantly trying to back the press secretary into a corner.

 

[Solid Fro]

Why can't anyone just be honest? I don't understand anymore. Democrats were asked if they had a chance to kill bin Laden, would they? None of them just said yes. A simple answer would have been nice.

 

[YSSMAN]

...and yet we're in trouble because we keep nukes on the table?

I watched as much of both debates as I could tolerate, and the basic conclusion was one in which the Democrats promote a "weak" global stance while "sorting out and fixing" internal issues, while the Republicans hope to fix our "strong" global stance and "address, maybe fix" internal issues.

When it comes to Democrats, I'm beginning to miss Al Gore. Sure, he is a nutcase in some respects, but he is honest, and I like that. Obama is looking stronger with the Dems, and we will likely be the candidate for the younger folks. We'll see what happens there...

...As for the Republicans, Ron Paul is leading the younglings, but Mit Romney has the old folks down as well. I'd take Ron Paul over Romney (he just has this negative aura around him...), but neither address what I care about: National security, global defense against terrorism, a ease of tensions on social issues, all while keeping taxes low and government as unobtrusive as possible.

Rudy still has my vote, McCain second, and Ron Paul third. What I like about Ron Paul is his honesty and his common-sense nature towards politics, but that being said, he doesn't match what I want.

...Either way, I'm likely to vote Republican unless a realistic Democrat shows up...

 

[FoolKiller]

Why can't anyone just be honest? I don't understand anymore. Democrats were asked if they had a chance to kill bin Laden, would they? None of them just said yes. A simple answer would have been nice.

Is this the first time you've ever paid attention to politics? Asking a politician to be honest is like asking me to stop breathing. And a straight answer is impossible with today's media. The only way not to be sound bited into looking bad is to ramble around for a while so that no realistic sound bit can be made. There are answers in there, but you have to look for them.

Ever notice how when they criticize an oppoenent they are suddenly very straightforward and clear? That is a sound bite you want to be heard.

...and yet we're in trouble because we keep nukes on the table?

Depends on the sound bite.

When it comes to Democrats, I'm beginning to miss Al Gore. Sure, he is a nutcase in some respects, but he is honest, and I like that. Obama is looking stronger with the Dems, and we will likely be the candidate for the younger folks. We'll see what happens there...

I don't know whether insane sounding honesty or sane sounding lies is worse.

I'd take Ron Paul over Romney (he just has this negative aura around him...)

Never trust a Republican that can do well in Boston. Something isn't right there. Wait, didn't he implement a form of socialized healthcare in Massachusetts?

Rudy still has my vote, McCain second, and Ron Paul third. What I like about Ron Paul is his honesty and his common-sense nature towards politics, but that being said, he doesn't match what I want.

Question: If he is the only one you know is being honest, because he doesn't always say the popular thing, how do you know anyone else matches what you want?

...Either way, I'm likely to vote Republican unless a realistic Democrat shows up...

Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

[Omnis]

Sounds like Yssman has his parties mixed up. Why the hell would you vote democrat if you want what you said you wanted?

Anyway, Ron Paul is the only true, classic Republican.

 

[Swift]

I had a chance to hear some of Ron Paul. He's ok, I guess. I don't like his stance on terrorism. He honestly thinks if we just be nice to everyone they won't mess with us. That's garbage.

But I do like how he talks about taxes and he's very conventional.

I'm still looking for either Rudy or Fred Thompson though. When I have the choice.

 

[FoolKiller]

I had a chance to hear some of Ron Paul. He's ok, I guess. I don't like his stance on terrorism. He honestly thinks if we just be nice to everyone they won't mess with us. That's garbage.

But I do like how he talks about taxes and he's very conventional.

He is practically following perfectly with the Libertarian Party (anti-war), he just can't get elected to Congress as a Libertarian candidate so he ran Republican. Because of this he doesn't appear to be a hardline party member, when really he is, just not the party he used to get elected.

What cracks me up is that his anti-war stance has the Democrats loving him. I've even heard of some people switching registration to try and get him in. Unfortunately, for them, they are so obsessed with his anti-war stance that they missed his domestic stances (or forgot to ask). How mad would they be if they fought to get him elected and as soon as the troops got home he started trying to cancel welfare?

To me it is a sign that too many of the Democratic voters have become hung up on one issue.

 

[Solid Lifters]

I like Ron Paul a lot more than Fred Thompson. Fred's a blowhard. In the first five minutes of that first video, he claims America has the best medical care system in the world. Ha! It's not even in the top 20. What we do have is the most expensive. We're twice expensive as most other countries that have BETTER medical care systems. He claims we're going medically bankrupt. At our prices; at out costs? Bull crap. http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S. HCweb.pdf

Plus, his opinion on foreign policy is terrible. Ron Paul has a much better idea of foreign policy than he. Our foreign policies have gotten us in a lot of trouble over the past 10 years. That's what Ron Paul was hinting at in the debate. No, I don't think it was the 100% reason why 'they' want to bomb us, but it is a major reason. Giuliani failed on that part. I guess he forgot to read the 911 Commission Report. Gee, you think of all the candidates running, he'd be the one to have read it front to back.

Fred just rants on about, "The times are different," "The challenges are different," "We need to fit man to the times." Blah, blah, blah. Typical political blowhard fodder.

However, do agree that we need to watch out for the "Next Iraq." Ron Paul has a different opinion on how to deal with the next Iraq, that I'll be honest, kind of scares me. However, that can be changed.

I don't think Ron Paul is perfect, but he's better than Fred.