Any Love for Dr Paul?

gamefreak

gamefreak

CAGiversary!
I'm just taking a glance into this forum after a long hiatus. After a quick search, I'm surprised that I haven't found much support for good old Libertarian Republican candidate Ron Paul. This man is for limited government, reducing the federal government's intrusion into our privacy and property, getting the HELL out of Iraq, and getting rid of our entangling global alliances. A far more honest and respectable candidate than any of the other Republicans (perhaps with the exception of Fred Thompson) and, while perhaps not quite mainstream yet, he raised more money than McCain in this quarter and seems to be doing quite well in online polls.

Here's his official website: http://ronpaul2008.com

And a YouTube interview to get you a feel for his policies: http://youtube.com/watch?v=yGGOiv7sA4w


Anywho, there he is!
-GF
woho!
 
I found out about Ron Paul through the Alex Jones show.

But I quickly lost interest in Ron Paul during the debates because he wasn't doing enough to make national headlines, which is the only way to get his name out there.

From what i remember, he DID in fact make headlines for some remarks that pissed off Giuliani during the SC debate. They were remarks about 9/11 & non-intervention policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk334TbliaY

In an interview, following that, Alex Jones advised him to deliberately attack the former NYC Mayor, and bring up the disgruntled firefighters of 9/11 and what Giuliani did to desert them in their time of need following the attacks.

That way, the mainstream media would pick up on it, and Ron Paul's name would be out there. It sounded like a pretty good strategy, but Paul chose not to do so.

In other words, they only way for Paul to get national attention (which he desperately needs) was to attack Giuliani, and he didn't.

Giuliani is a coward, and he, nor Bush, should call themselves heroes of September 11th.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/07/08/stephanopoulos-tells-ron-_n_55338.html

I felt sorry for Ron Paul, because he has been the only victim thus far of journalistic honesty to his face. Sure, nobody takes Kucinich seriously, or Nader...but how often are they told to their face (and so *brazenly*!) that they stand no chance in hell of winning?

I like Paul among Republicans, but he's way off the "Republican base" on a number of issues that will, lamentably, knock him out of the primaries far faster than other candidates. Not enough Republicans want out of the war to help his case in the primaries.

Not to turn the subject away from Paul, but what in the world has Fred Thompson done to deserve any semblance of respect?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

Not to turn the subject away from Paul, but what in the world has Fred Thompson done to deserve any semblance of respect?[/QUOTE]



his cred is faltering, it came out recently they he did lobby work for planned parenthood, which doesnt sit well with his base.
 
The difference between you and him Ikohn is that he has over $3 million dollars to spend :) I'm not sure that he spends a whole lot either, what with growing online support in the form of MySpace, YouTube, and other Tube-ly wingdizzers.

I think the main thing Paul is riding on is that there is *some* Republican faction that is fed up with what the neo-Cons have been doing. It seems like he is the only candidate representing them (perhaps with Fred Thompson as well). It remains to be seen however, how large of a group this is and whether or not they will show up in the primaries.

-GF
 
[quote name='gamefreak']The difference between you and him Ikohn is that he has over $3 million dollars to spend :) I'm not sure that he spends a whole lot either, what with growing online support in the form of MySpace, YouTube, and other Tube-ly wingdizzers.

I think the main thing Paul is riding on is that there is *some* Republican faction that is fed up with what the neo-Cons have been doing. It seems like he is the only candidate representing them (perhaps with Fred Thompson as well). It remains to be seen however, how large of a group this is and whether or not they will show up in the primaries.

-GF[/QUOTE]

The same can be said of the oft-incited "conservative base" who are moved to vote via their anti-gay, anti-abortion stances. Those with an emphasis on "social" conservatism don't have a major candidate to endorse this time around. McCain is a greater flip-flopper than Kerry (and his kowtowing on the Military Commissions Act is indicative of his severe lack of character), and Giuliani doesn't appeal to conservatives, save those willing to "hold their nose and pull the voting lever." I've always thought that Republicans who have become sick of neoconservatism, warmongering, and social conservatism have merely become Libertarians. It does surely remain to be seen, then, how many of them there are and how much turnout they'll have in the primaries.

If anything is going well for Paul, it's the most recent AP-Ipsos poll that shows the Republican presidential candidate with the largest appeal amongst Republicans is "none of the above." IOW, it is an open field for one of the candidates to step up and frame the Republican argument for the presidency in 2008. With such a large margin endorsing nobody, even those languishing at the bottom (like Paul) can come back. We're a *LOOOOONG* time away from primaries, too. I genuinely think the adage "anything can happen" applies to the Republican party. For the Democrats, however, it truly is down to Obama, Clinton, and Edwards (barring some major scandal).
 
Yeah, I really like this guy, too. I believe he was the only Republican candidate that wasn't in favor of dropping nukes on Iran or other countries if they don't meet our demands.
 
I agree with you that most of the Libertarian leaning conservatives have jumped ship, but from personal experience, I would say that many will come back specifically to support Paul. I am someone that has sworn off associating myself with any politician party, but I recently registered as a Republican to vote for him. I would think most Libertarians would make a small concession in registering as Republicans where required, if for any small shot to get someone like Paul in the White House.

I do agree that the Democrats are pretty locked up though. I suppose we will see what happens after these next few debates, and see if Paul can't get some more press than he has been getting (without resorting to smear campaigns and attacks).


-GF
 
I like Ron Paul a lot, and out of all the candidates he is the one I would probably vote for. He has this whole "internet thing" going for him so who knows what could happen. I think he poses a lot of problems for people already in power. Doesn't he want to minimalize the CIA or something (saw a video interview on You tube where he mentioned something like this). I have no idea how big the CIA is right now, but that can't sit well with some people.
 
If Ron Paul is someone who you want to see in the White House, I'd suggest that you get involved in volunteering for his campaign if you have the time. The easiest way is probably to venture over to Meetup.com and search for Ron Paul. You can sign up for a local group and see what you can do to help get his word out in your very own neighborhood :)


Every little bit helps!
-GF
 
I have no love for Dr. Paul.

He supports school prayer and the abolition of the Dept. of Education (which would cause an even larger gap in educational quality between states then there already is; NJ would have palaces, MS would have dirt mounds). From what I know of him he seems as loony as any other libertarian, almost wishing for an America fashioned after the 1880's (picture the old west, but everywhere. Where landbarons control everything and average folks have next to nothing, and everyone carries guns... GREAT!)
 
[quote name='Cheese']I have no love for Dr. Paul.

He supports school prayer and the abolition of the Dept. of Education (which would cause an even larger gap in educational quality between states then there already is; NJ would have palaces, MS would have dirt mounds). From what I know of him he seems as loony as any other libertarian, almost wishing for an America fashioned after the 1880's (picture the old west, but everywhere. Where landbarons control everything and average folks have next to nothing, and everyone carries guns... GREAT!)[/quote]

ok, i'm going to copy and paste something i posted yesterday. are you familiar with the Dept of Edu and their history? hear it straight from the horses mouth.

Check out Charlotte Iserbyt's book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America.
She's a former head of the Department of Education during the Reagan era.

you can get the e-book free here:
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

btw, that image you have in your head of the old west is hollywood propaganda...
 
First, I didn't have time to read a 500 page pdf, but I did skim it, and it's amazingly loony, full of paranoid commie fears, misrepresentations and leaps in logic.
But hey, you wanna do away with the Dept. of Education, go ahead. I live in the North East, my kids will go to school in gilded palaces packed fat with technology and the best teachers money can buy (who will all make 3-4 times what they are today), meanwhile kids in Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana, Florida, New Mexico, Kansas, the Carolinas, Georgia, Kentucky, West Virginia, etc. will get the bottom of the barrel child molesters (not even the top of the line child molesters!) as teachers and will be lucky to get their educational materials from the 1970's. Fine by me. Every man for himself, right? Screw the other guy! We're individuals, we don't work together for a common good, that's for socialists and you know what that means, COMMIES!

COUGH, ahem, sorry. Got a little Ayn Rand stuck in my throat.

"Hollywood proaganda?" That's awesome! Hollywood has been making westerns since 'Hollywood' was Edison, NJ. The first were directed by Edison himself in 1898. Propaganda means they have a political goal; so what political goal has Hollywood been working towards ever since, well, damn near the time of the 'old west' itself?
 
[quote name='Cheese']I have no love for Dr. Paul.

He supports school prayer and the abolition of the Dept. of Education (which would cause an even larger gap in educational quality between states then there already is; NJ would have palaces, MS would have dirt mounds). From what I know of him he seems as loony as any other libertarian, almost wishing for an America fashioned after the 1880's (picture the old west, but everywhere. Where landbarons control everything and average folks have next to nothing, and everyone carries guns... GREAT!)[/QUOTE]

Quite frankly, the Constitution says nothing about the Federal government regulating and controlling the education of young persons. It sure has nothing to do with interstate commerce, declaring war, or anything like that. So if they *have* done this, without Constitutional authority, what does this mean? Well, it means that *we* have essentially given them a blank check to do the things they promised not to do. That's not to say the Constitution is perfect, but there is a way to change it should we change our minds (or even change them back eg 18th and 21st Amendments). I find it hard to believe that anything good has come from the Department of Education, except perhaps an added layer of bureaucracy and a national lowering of expectations as states vie for funding.

Quite frankly, I would prefer to think that my governments are controlled and yield to me, and not the other way around.

-GF
 
Iserbyt takes a stand against "critical thinking" in favor of late 19th century-style English schooling. Yet, she loathes the "worker bee" element of the education system, but evidently hates the moral ambiguity that comes with "critical thinking" skills.

Wow. What tripe.

Abolishing the DoE would do *nothing* to assist the lower classes.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Iserbyt takes a stand against "critical thinking" in favor of late 19th century-style English schooling. Yet, she loathes the "worker bee" element of the education system, but evidently hates the moral ambiguity that comes with "critical thinking" skills.

Wow. What tripe.

Abolishing the DoE would do *nothing* to assist the lower classes.[/quote]

well... lol.

at least you like Ron Paul.
 
If I may interject- Dr. Paul is the only republican candidate I have ever considered voting for. I see it as a good version of the lesser of two evils in electing him - All of his zany "libertarian" ideas vs. his one good idea of get out of Iraq this instant. Eventually, I come to the conclusion that I would vote for him if he got the nomination, because I feel he would be true to his word and pull out of Iraq, however, all of the rather radical ideas he has to reduce the size of government - a democrat controlled congress wouldn't let this happen. Hopefully he does attack Juliani over 9/11. All he has to do is get Juliani to slump in the polls a bunch, declare victory over juliani, take down McCain by outfundraising him, then he has cut the field down to himself, a mormon, and fred thompson.

Why can't the fringe candidates be loud and outspoken like gravel, but seem credible and genuine? Dave Chappel could take down the congress if he got elected. Cheers for Al Franken for paving the way!
 
I also really like Ron Paul, if only for the honesty aspect of his character, which is why he has drawn so much money. I plan on donating some cash to him soon as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top