Ron Paul

This should have gone in a previous post, obviously:

David Rockefeller, who also took part in founding Bilderberg, confesses guilt in a mocking manner, and pride in a genuine manner, for - in his own words - "conspiring" to establish a "one world" order.

David Rockefeller confesses

In his book Memoirs, published in 2002, David Rockefeller, Sr. made the following remarks, startling in their very frankness: "For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_3680.shtml
Click to expand...
 
... and

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years....It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

David Rockefeller - Bilderberg Meeting - June 1991 - Baden, Germany

even faced with this publicly available, proudly proclaimed evidence, there are oh so many that will continue to dispute and negate that the notion of a New World Order even exsists, let alone the programm being in motion for decades.

what more could you possibly need when you have an "of sound mind" confession?


keep pushing
 
Yep. I've read that one before too, but thanks for reminding me of it and providing it to compliment my post and so that I can save it to my archives.

I agree, denial is quite a dynamic beast.
 
PenilePersist said:
He KILLED in the online poll - AGAIN. Of course, such polls are not always very accurate and are not always a fair representation of the voting public.

Guliani has obviously been grandstanding on the whole 9/11 shit - while multiplying his wealth by getting paid to talk about how good of a job he did even though there are large groups of emergency workers that say Guliani sucked and he took part in rapidly removing evidence from Ground Zero (ooooo - call me a Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist now). He evokes 9/11 every single second he can - and that is all that he was trying to do with Ron Paul. He knows that too many of the viewers are still stupid enough to make it a popularity contest of who sways emotion the most - rather than who has the more sensible points. Obviously, Ron Paul was on target with why any foreign group would attack us. It's not because they are jealous or sickened by our own life in our own part of the world .... it is because they are pissed off about foreign policy effecting their every day life on the ground ... and they experience it and gather more intelligence on it than most people in the USA. :s

Now .... not at all surprised:



.... and you still don't think people like to try their best to shut Ron Paul up? They are just looking for an excuse because they know if he continues then he will start to sway more and more people with his logic opposed to emotion. It's obvious to anyone who has a clue - pardon me.
Click to expand...

You already articualted what I would have said about the polling good call. His strong responses from the debates has made the news, and in fact CNN is carrying a headliner story on its homepage at this moment, actually an editorial but nonetheless, defending Ron's viewpoint on the 9/11 statements and foreign policy as a legit point that shouldn't be tabbooed or censored. And, as I mentioned, super-blogger Andrew Sullivan and other prominent figures are stumping for the guy left and right.

My take on it, is although Ron Paul certainly holds a lot of appeal for some people naturally, like the Democrats he's riding the anti-war wave and it's giving him a boost in recognition that he never had before. Nothing wrong with that, but I think people are obviously way more focused on his war rhetoric than the totalist of his politics or overall qualities as a strong exectutive and president.

I agree with Ron Paul in some respects, but just as his opponents are misguided in saying that "they hate us for our freedom" is the sole source of outrage from Muslim extremists, so too is Ron Paul taking something very complicated and difficult to understand and simply boiling it down to "American foreign policy caused 9/11." Neither answer is correct, it has to do with both, but unfortuantely neither makes a very strong or disinguised tagline to campaign with.

I will give Ron Paul credit, as I know that McCain and Giuliani don't believe their own bullshit on this issue, while I'm inclined to believe that Ron Paul more or less believes everything he says to be true, at least at the fundamental level.

So far as Giuliani, I already posted my feelings on him. Obviously I have no problem with the whole "steel removal" from Ground Zero thing as I've discussed with Reber, but I do know that he neglected to remove the city's emergency command center from the Trade Center, even after he was advised to do so after the failed bombing in 1993. So here is a guy, who is running on his strong security and administrative qualities and national security issues, who blew a major security call regarding terrorism. As many others have been pointed out, the many shots of him running around the streets of New York with the mobile task force that made him so beloved only exist because the city emergency center, located in the towers, obviously wasn't available. That says a lot about his candidacy, but records of achievement don't make presidents in the modern era, so we'll see what happens.

So far as the GOP not liking Paul and wanting him to get rid of things - I think I may have referenced that already in this thread, if not I certainly never suggested that the Republican Party doesn't want Paul around. He distracts from their prizefight candidates and undermines their campaign messages, nor has he ever really worked with the Party very closely - they hate the guy. To me there's nothing disturbing or surprising about that; there's usually candidates in any presidential race that the Party leadership tries to fund ways to shut-up. Once again, just how democratic politics in a media-driven culture works.

Oh yeah, the NWO stuff - that should almost be a different thread on international relations and foreign policy, so I'll mostly leave it alone. Basically, I don't get why the concept freaks people out so much. Probably the cool and sinister name - just kidding. I know we're not supposed to talk about the "kooky" side of conspiracy stuff here, but some of the things Reber has showed me point to the outrage over 'NWO' type ideas being related to some of the more 'out-there' sorts of conspiracy theories about world-enslavement by elite cabals and such. The more I learned about the history of conspiracy ideas, the more the fear of a global conspiracy to destroy the old realist world order and institute some facist hell seemed to be the predominant scenario, just presented in many different forms with different explanations. I didn't read any of the links or anything, so I'm not passing and judgement here.
 
Last edited:
PenilePersist said:
Sridge, I'm not playing your argument game. It's over. Truce. Get over it. You are wasting your time.

By the way, you are getting better with the quote code, but you still don't know how to attribute the code to the proper people. It's really simple.
Click to expand...

Totally fine by me, I was just giving my reply to your many statements - no need for you to respond if you don't want, as I repeatedly mentioned. I wouldn't call it a waste of my time; I wanted to reply to what you said. And, there's really nothing here to 'get over.'

So far as still quoting improperly - why would I need to make the text bold? - all the highlighted quotes are from you.
 
So far as David Rockefeller - I guess I don't get why he's so sinister either. Fascinating yes - super-wealthy power-broker from one of the original American corporate dynasties, but the fact that he advocates globalism in and of itself doesn't freak me out. I suppose it would if you thought globalism had some sinister purpose, but that's a different story.
 
Reber187 said:
... and

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years....It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

David Rockefeller - Bilderberg Meeting - June 1991 - Baden, Germany

even faced with this publicly available, proudly proclaimed evidence, there are oh so many that will continue to dispute and negate that the notion of a New World Order even exsists, let alone the programm being in motion for decades.

what more could you possibly need when you have an "of sound mind" confession?


keep pushing
Click to expand...

Do you have the link for this?
 
stridge said:
So far as David Rockefeller - I guess I don't get why he's so sinister either. Fascinating yes - super-wealthy power-broker from one of the original American corporate dynasties, but the fact that he advocates globalism in and of itself doesn't freak me out. I suppose it would if you thought globalism had some sinister purpose, but that's a different story.
Click to expand...

I've had enough of your shit - again. Will you ever fucking learn? I never said David Rockefeller was sinister. Reber and I merely quoted his own words. You keep assuming and putting words in my mouth. You've done it with just about - if not exactly - every single post of mine in this thread .... and you go can fuck yourself for that.

You said something about how I could do something with my posts so I won't have such a frustrating time with people like you. I've never had sucha frustrating time with a person in any conversation. I've never met anyone like you who assumes - so much - and attributes words or thoughts to me that I never said - so much.

Globalism has it's pros and cons. As far as what our nation once stood for and was founded on, sovereignty, and many other factors, it is all negative.
And, no, before you put words in my mouth - for probably the hundredth time in this thread alone with little room for exaggeration - I did not say, nor do I believe, that Globalism is all negative.

Both Rockefeller and Kissinger talk about dissembling sovereignty/rights, so that could be considered sinister and or treason - and certainly would be by the founders of this country and plenty of prominent men throughout history and even today; and really it applies to all the people I quoted - since that's part of the meaning of what ALL of those people mean when they say "New World Order". I cannot accurately say whether these people are sinister themselves, or only their philosophy is only sinister to some.

stridge said:
So far as still quoting improperly - why would I need to make the text bold? - all the highlighted quotes are from you.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand - again. The bold is only a side effect of proper attribution of a quote. I did not use any bold code, nor did I tell you to use bold code.

You are too much.
 
Last edited:
great videos PP - noteably "stop dreaming"

i'd just like to briefly remark on comments you've made, Stridge about questioning big Ron's attributes to be the president of the united states.

if being honest with his promise of policy overhauls and 180 reversals, honest about his publics fiancial short fallings and how he will simply rectify them, serving the people first and sticking to his guns ALWAYS no matter if he's a lone wolf or just one of few, recognising as a prerequisite, the foundational labour of the founding fathers and applying that spirit and thier ideologies to his contempary ideals for a better America and a better world, and moreover quite clearly being an upstanding, good Ameriacn man.

if those aren't the qualities you hanker for and admire in a leader then you quite obviously have an axe to grind. i don't believe this is the case.

if he is dealt the exposure his policies and priciples so rightly deserve, he will be the next president of the united states.

he'd get elected based on his tax reforms and military pull-out promises alone ... no doubt about it... its a foresighted fact.


keep pushing
 
We must give this everything we got. We must spread the word. Here the internet is our greatest tool and we must fight to keep it. The 2008 election media blitz is most disheartening, yet unsurprising in retrospect. It makes it disgustingly clear how money rule$ all. Only the candidates with the largest bank accounts are mentioned. Thus through repetition the wealthy embed their will into our psychics and the few and brave (not to mention sense and reason) are swallowed by the noise.

I think every day it dawns on more people that whether or not you resists them they will resists you. Whether or not you fight them they will fight you (with a smile on their faces and outstretched hand no less). However then one remembers that they have all the money and the power so what can we do? Yes what can a few hundred million people do against a a few thousand old men and riot police? Hydromaxmmmmmm...
 
PenilePersist said:
PenilePersist said:
Great video:
YouTube - Ron Paul : Join The Revolution
Click to expand...

YouTube - Ron Paul : Stop Dreaming

YouTube - Ron Paul : The Founding Fathers

YouTube - Rudy Giuliani's answer to everything
Click to expand...

YouTube - Ron Paul: First Bush Was Working Towards New World Order

Ron Paul Exposes New World Order & Bush Snr.
Says American empire in trouble, dollar plunging

Jones Report
Sunday May 20, 2007

Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) was asked a question about the New World Order's agenda for a one-world government during a campaign stop in Austin, Texas on Saturday, amidst tremendous turnout and support.

Ron Paul responded, "The first President Bush said the New World Order was in tune-- and that's what they were working for. The U.N. is part of that government. They're working right now very significantly towards a North American Union. That's why there's a lot of people in Washington right now who don't care too much about our borders. They have a philosophical belief that national sovereignty is not important. It's also the reason I've made the very strong suggestion the U.S. need not be in the U.N. for national security reasons."
Click to expand...
Flashbacks:

YouTube - Congressman Admits a Conspiracy for Global Gov't Exists

Global Governance - The Quiet War Against American Independence - Google Video

YouTube - Ron Paul on CNN talking about the debate 5-16-07.mpg
 
Ive only knew of RON PAUL since last week and I now am going to re-register to vote again this time around as I belive he is worth voting for and really has some teeth behind his words. He seems like a very real and truthful man with all intentions of doing what he says. I agree with everything Ive heard him say so far and am even going to send him some money for his campaign which is something Ive NEVER done or thought of doing for any politition. This guy MUST get more mainstream exposure. Our US networks are pushing him to the side and Ive never even heard his name mentioned on the major 3 news programs. Ron Paul is who I want as the next president. He will lead our country by example first and the rest will follow and like America again. We must get our respect back on a world wide level and hes the man to do it IMO. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!
 
Guys, I don't think you're looking at this objectively. Try googling Ron Paul - hundreds of news items from just the alst few week. He's been all over the place on TV and has had storied on the major networks and in major papers. He's getting plenty of attention,a dn actually quite a lot for a candidate who has a donut shop amongst his top twenty financial contributors.

The practice of giving minor candidates less time and questioning in debates is very standard. The fact is, even though you all really like him, he is not a strong or realistic contender for the presidency. I'm not saying this out of personal bias. I've worked in politics and have been a student of political science and elections for many years, and the odds against Ron Paul are huge. The online polling thing is interesting, but it's not really an indicator of how greater America feels, nor their awareness of Ron Paul. The libertarian activists are very organized and focused around internet promotion, and this tends to inflate his numbers as not very many people participate in the online polling and Ron Paul's supporters are not actively organizing amonst themselves to participate in order to raise his media profile.

The thing with the polling is A) we're a long ways away from an actual election when the people tend to be more open-minded and embrace fringe candidates, and B) on the Democratic side fringe candidates like Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucinitch have done very well in the past, but failed to do anything electorally. People don't chaulk this up to a conspiracy, it's just an indicator of the misleading nature of polls in terms of evaluating broad, mainstream support.

Unfortunately, these same people ignore the thing that would really help his campaign - money. I don't ahve the link handy, but a few weeks ago I looked at a listing of Ron Paul's top campaign fundraising, and it was dismal. AMongst his top donors was a donut shop. For better or worse (well, probably worse), money is one of the most important factors in a presidential race and you really can't run a successful campaign without lots of it. Ron Paul's opponents will raise tens of millions of dollars; the top Democrats will raise over a hundred million each. I think Ron Paul hadn't even cracked $100K when I checked out his profile. TV advertising and space in large media markets is a major factor in presidential elections, and Ron Paul simply won't be able to compete in this area without exponentially larger fundraising ability.

All things considered, he's recieving a ton of attention. One other thing to remember though, is that he's getting a lot of mileage out of his anti-war stance, something none of the other Republicans share. Being the sole conservative candidate against a war that has humiliated the GOP and become unpopular with their base is a popular advantage that takes the focus off of Paul's other attributes and policies. Ultimately, if he had voted for the war or was currently pro-war, he would be entirely ignored.
 
Well, on einteresting thing I've noticed in all the discussions about Ron Paul that I've had with various folks is that they all don't like the fact that money is such an important factor int he electoral process. Yet, at the same time, Ron Paul is a hardcore capitalist endorser of free market values, so I never understand why people find it sad that money is so necessary to advance yourself politcally in the US. If you believe ina freek market, then it's going to cost an awful lot to become the most powerful person on the planet - nothing wrong with that. A candidate's fundraising ability usually has a lot to do with how really poliitically active people feel a candidate's chances are; Ron Paul's dismal financial numbers indicate that not very many people are actually willing to bank on his candidcacy. People like his rhetoric and anit-war stance, but it's not enough to make him serious candidate, at least at this point.

I personally find Ron Paul interesting, but I don't think he'd be a great president. The next president is going to have an incredibly hard job and will need to be an extremely strong leader with centrist policies to be able to get anything done. The challenges for the next administration will be enormous and I just don't see Ron Paul's super-libertarian ideas as being what the country needs right now. The guy wants to do away with most government medical programs, put us back on the gold standard, and pursue an isolationist foreign policy (because George Washington said so). I don't think it's a bad thing to have views that aren't mainstream, but ROn Paul is simnply too far out there to effectively lead the country for four years, let alone actually win an election.

I do like the fact that he's running simply because his stances force the other candidates to address certain issue that they'd all rather prefer to avoid and it's always nice to have an originial voice involved. He's certainly drawing in the interest of a lot of folks that ordinarily aren't that interested in politics, and any increased focus on the electoral process is a good thing.
 
It's obvious that Paul is getting frozen out, just like Nader did. Guys like this are dangerous for the large corporations who fund these candidates campaigns and control the media, they can't be bought, they're unafraid of stirring the pot and they're more interested in helping the majority than the wealthy minority.

Nader wasn't even allowed to debate, if he were there's no doubt that he would have mauled Gore, Kerry or Bush. Ron Paul may not be mainstream at the moment, but his popularity skyrocketed (from what it was before) in the last few months despite slight media exposure. Now he clearly won the republican debate, yet the media barely chose to give him the spotlight. There's something wrong with that.

Paul has fantastic ideas and actually has a track record that backs his intentions and words up. It really has nothing to do with popularity, Paul would become an instant star with even half the coverage that Hilary or Guilliani are getting and his popularity on the internet and youtube shows that ppl are excited about him and his ideas, they just need to a medum to hear those ideas. Youtube for instance is huge right now and Paul is the no 1 most searched candidate on there, infact he's been the no most searched anything on youtube, seeing the cultural phenom that youtube has become that'd be reason enough for the mainstream press to shed a bit more light on this upstart who's gaining more support and sparking more interest by the day.

Things like money and backing are, or at least should be secondary to the person and the issues. So what if he doesn't have a bunch of rich friends lining his pockets? If anything that just makes him more credible.
 
He is starting to get some attention from the MSM...I am a RP junkie my self and am promoting him as much and as often as I can.. I even held my nose and changed my party affiliation just to vote for him in the primary...If he wins in the primary,without a doubt he will be president and one of the greatest president this country has ever had in our time... I allways urge people how important the primaries are...You have to change party to republican to vote for him...Like I said, If he wins the primaries, he WILL be our next president.. Please I ask people to change their party affiliation to republican and vote RP in the primaries.. Do it for our country and don't let your party be of a concern.. He doesn't care what affiliation you are or how rich or poor you are or your religion or sexuality.. He cares about everyones individual rights and we are all Americans to him...

Ron Paul 2008


Do you really want this fuck below to control of our country??? No fucking way..rudy is a bad fucking person who will make bush look like a saint if got elected....

YouTube - Rudy Giuliani in Drag Smooching Donald Trump
 
Last edited:
Back in 2000, they almost threw Buchanan and Nader in jail in New Hampshire for trying to become a part of the political dialog.

No more dictatorship. The king is dead!!! Let freedom ring!! Our founding fathers have to have a half-smile on their faces.


:s
 
Ron Paul is certainly doing better than I ever expected he would. The interesting thing is that he never could have enjoyed this sort of success without full utalization of the internet. Dean was hailed as the first insurgent web canididate in 2004, but he's nothing compared to the precentage of Ron Paul's support that is directly recruited and maintained through the internet. In my mind, that makes him the most cutting edge guy in the race.

I would still argue, however, that he also benefits greatly from the current anger and outrage from a lot of former Republicans who only have libertarian leanings (there's a big difference between liking some parts of libertarian philosophy and actually going all the way with it) that are simply pissed at the Party and Bush's administration. Of course, many hardcore libertarians will tell you that Ron Paul isn't anything close to a true libertarian either, but that doesn't change the fact that he is very politicially different than his competition.

I'll never get beyond his more 'out there' policies, such as the gold standard business and actually believing that NAFTA is a trojan horse for some sort of sinister conspiracy to unite the governments of the US, Canada, and Mexico. America has bigger problems right now than Paul's obsession with this sort of thing, and I find that his foreign policy is just too simplisitic. It sounds good on paper, but anybody that has ever taken a serious look at foreign policy will have some questions about how prudent it really is to follow an isolationist track (Paul calls it 'non-interventionist' these days, but in the past and even now in private engagements, he advocates a course of action and policy set that is very much isolationist).

Despite all that I do enjoy hearing him speak and he is performing a really important service by keeping a lot of disenchanted voters in the political fray, and even motivating those that were once apathetic. Sometimes you need somebody who's coming from a drastically different place in terms of their politics to energize a segment of the population. His online fundraising is just incredible, which he has a few really talented organizers to thank for. People will be studying that stuff for years to come, and you'll hear his name all over the place in four years when people are following the same model. Modern candidates will now need the netroots level support and the strength of traditional party backing to really make a splash, at least partly due to Ron Paul's success this year.
 
Last edited:
3rd - Thompson - 13,932(13%)

4rd - McCain - 13,693(13%)

5th - Paul - 10,184(10%)

Come on big Ron! he's just getting started... like a tank.


keep pushing
 
This all came out a few weeks ago, but here's the major article detailing the problem. I think the author is fair in his presentation of the most serious issue here: best case scenario is that Ron Paul is an absent-minded politician who will let his name be assigned to anything, worst case scenario is that he's a deeply paranoid bigot that has very little grip on reality.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

And, for my conspiracy-minded friends on this website, there was a mention of Ron Paul's relationship to Alex Jones:

"and has frequently been a guest of Alex Jones, a radio host and perhaps the most famous conspiracy theorist in America. Jones--whose recent documentary, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, details the plans of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, among others, to exterminate most of humanity and develop themselves into "superhuman" computer hybrids able to "travel throughout the cosmos"

That doesn't ahve much to do with Ron Paul but it was fairly entertaining.
 
Ron Paul!!!

good to see you around old friend.

i can't seem to get that link to work?

i read, on a daily basis, the nuts and bolts of the race to the Whitehouse and i'm not best pleased.

bottom line here; Ron Paul has been the sole subject to a media blackout(i don't mean 100% by any network) or smear campaign... no discussion on this matter, i'm putting my foot down.

i read and watch articles and video's respectively about Ron Paul and i want to fucking kick someones cunt in!

the treatment this man has had to entertain, from live debates to network interviews to aspersion molded column inches, is disgusting and should be criminal.
its a fucking joke, a circus, a web of unfairness, exclusions, disrespect, muzzle orders, and lies.

just go watch yourself a slew of Ron Paul google/youtube news vids where the interviewer/anchor unleashes a barrage of scripted questions designed to tarnish the name of Ron Paul, rather than hear what the man has to say. this is the shit the voters watch and motivates their choices!!

not to mention the proven vote rigging and undeclared votes.

WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? why is Ron Paul the victim of this slur offensive??? its pretty clear.

i'm guna have a roll-up.


keep pushing
 
Hey Reber,

Always good to hear from you.

The link works fine for me, so I don't know what the deal is with that. If you want to read the article, just visit The New Repiblic online, and search for the article 'Angry White Man.' The article and its contents made national front-page news here in the states.

So far as his media black-out - I'd say it's more of a GOP black-out. If you search Ron Paul online, you'll find hundreds if not thousands of articles from mainstream sources from this current election. It's forces from within the Republican Party that don't want him around as he siphons votes from their preferred candidates who hold views more in line with the Party line.

I will say, however, that while I was indiffernt to Ron Paul before, I'm pretty troubled by that article. I know some folks around this forum are ardent Ron Paul supporters, so I thought it would be of interest.
 
I hate to be cynical about politics in this fashion, but there never really was any hope for Ron Paul. You need a lot more broad support and pure electoral power to accumulate delegates and secure the nomination, and no realistic analysis of Paul's candidacy has ever shown that he has the capability to do this. He's made a strong showing than any expected, but no credible political commentators, pollsters, journalists, etc, have ever believed that it was possible for Ron Paul to actually win the GOP primary cycle.

Also, I'd urge you to read the article I linked in the previous post. I know there's a lot to like about Ron Paul, but there are some very troubling aspects to his record and his base support that I think are important to know about. Ron Paul has addressed the concerns and taken responsibility for them, which is admirable, but to me there are still fundamental problems that are left unsolved by his apology.
 
stridge;292236 said:
I hate to be cynical about politics in this fashion, but there never really was any hope for Ron Paul. You need a lot more broad support and pure electoral power to accumulate delegates and secure the nomination, and no realistic analysis of Paul's candidacy has ever shown that he has the capability to do this. He's made a strong showing than any expected, but no credible political commentators, pollsters, journalists, etc, have ever believed that it was possible for Ron Paul to actually win the GOP primary cycle.

Also, I'd urge you to read the article I linked in the previous post. I know there's a lot to like about Ron Paul, but there are some very troubling aspects to his record and his base support that I think are important to know about. Ron Paul has addressed the concerns and taken responsibility for them, which is admirable, but to me there are still fundamental problems that are left unsolved by his apology.
Click to expand...

i have read the link now...

"Angry white man - the bigoted past of Ron Paul" pulls no punches :)

i can't defend most of those views if they are indeed the sentiments of Dr Paul to which i am offered zero proof... i wish the journalist had copied and pasted paragraphs rather than just sentences and chains of words because its easy to forge a mosaic of negativity if you so choose to be selective.

i just googled the journo James Kirchick because the name rang a bell and i recognise that dickhead from this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EURO1djA_jA
sorry Stridge my old bean, this guy is a fucking moron and disgrace unto his "profession" and himself.


keep pushing
 
Hey Reber,

Can't watch the video right now, but I will.

So far as the article not being accurate -- Ron Paul himself came forward and admitted that all the newsletters and the quotes provided did indeed exist. The NY Times and other major news sources also easily tracked down photocopies as well - as the author mentions, most of them were archived in several libraries and publicly available to anybody with a library card.

Anyway, I don't believe that Paul is the author of many of the statements even though they were written from his point of view. My problem is that he allowed several newsletters bearing his name and approval, and sometimes written as if he himself were the author, to go out to hundreds of thousands of people. This is just plain irresponsible and highly questionable - if a mainstream politician in the US had any association with comments like those found in the newsletters, they'd be finished. I think there's a lot that needs to be answered for there, and though Ron Paul took responsibility and apologized, that just doesn't quite cut it for me.

A person that wants to lead the nation needs to be more vigilant about their associations and things released to their constituancy, and frankly the level of vile racism and paranoia displayed in those letters is very disturbing - especially when you consider that they were distributed to Ron Paul's biggest contirbutors and electoral base for many years.

I know you like the guy, but think about it objectively. If this were any other politician I doubt anybody would find it acceptable, yet Ron Paul supporters have no trouble dismissing this as just a misunderstanding and ancient history.
 
stridge;292304 said:
Hey Reber,

Can't watch the video right now, but I will.

So far as the article not being accurate -- Ron Paul himself came forward and admitted that all the newsletters and the quotes provided did indeed exist. The NY Times and other major news sources also easily tracked down photocopies as well - as the author mentions, most of them were archived in several libraries and publicly available to anybody with a library card.

Anyway, I don't believe that Paul is the author of many of the statements even though they were written from his point of view. My problem is that he allowed several newsletters bearing his name and approval, and sometimes written as if he himself were the author, to go out to hundreds of thousands of people. This is just plain irresponsible and highly questionable - if a mainstream politician in the US had any association with comments like those found in the newsletters, they'd be finished. I think there's a lot that needs to be answered for there, and though Ron Paul took responsibility and apologized, that just doesn't quite cut it for me.

A person that wants to lead the nation needs to be more vigilant about their associations and things released to their constituancy, and frankly the level of vile racism and paranoia displayed in those letters is very disturbing - especially when you consider that they were distributed to Ron Paul's biggest contirbutors and electoral base for many years.

I know you like the guy, but think about it objectively. If this were any other politician I doubt anybody would find it acceptable, yet Ron Paul supporters have no trouble dismissing this as just a misunderstanding and ancient history.
Click to expand...

i completely agree with your entire post. i know Dr Paul apologized for the views expressed within his newsletters and also for his poor error in editorial responsibilities. i'm not saying that the quotes provided don't exist, i just didn't see them in a context of any shape... i don't believe he advocates the lions share of those standpoints, nonetheless, and this may surprise you, i think that it is more-than-likely there is a shred of what Dr Paul may well believe on a partial-level located somewhere in the newsletters... that said, it doesn't mean he is bad person as there is no evidence to descry that proves he's ever acted on it. his policies speak for themselves; some might be flagged as old school, but for the most part his 'rethinking' for a new America and his rigorous constitution abiding reforms will put more money in YOUR pocket and aim to secure peace of mind for the future; moreover when he voices his principles he never comes over as bigoted... only aspersion shunting him into a corner ever does this.

i am disgusted when i watch the channel 4 news here in England(which is what i grew up watching and it educated me in home and foriegn affairs), even here Ron Paul gets no mention when all the other Republican candidates did so, not even a whisper... something is going on here Stridge and it has been from the very beginning. yes, i am prone to indulging in conspiracies, and yes i like Ron Paul, but i'm no fool and can dine with reason when its staring me in the face.
as i said in a previous post, there are a plethora of Ron Paul smear campaign news videos across the net which document the behaviour of interviewers on the prime networks in America towards Dr Paul...

i have never seen such character assassination directed to a person in such a position as his by such a widespread contingent of the media. and if you or anybody else can find evidence that any other candidate has been the subject to the very same lacerating then i will shut up shop.
[again i will state that i don't believe that this is the circumstance all the time by the entire media or any one network - i have seen countless videos where Dr Paul is interviewed with fair measures of positive and negative lines of questioning]

furthermore, i read that you don't feel that Dr Paul has the character to lead America, he doesn't really have the presidential quailities that are a necessity. i put it to you that the leaders of our nations are celebrities as much as they are heads of the country. people associate the ins and outs of a presidents/priministers private life with there capability to run a nation - this is bullshit and a cancerous byproduct of the 24hour news vacuum. of course you wouldn't want a racist paedophile that shoots grannies at the helm, but the celebrity culture in politics is a smokescreen of spin and misdirection from the mega-factors of government. the meat of policies, reforms, forecasting, etc takes a back seat, or is overshadowed by "personal news".

Ron Paul has the raw fibre to take America by the horns and attempt to rescue a country on its knees, because he isn't a celebrity. he is the lone wolf as many have branded him, because he isn't full of shit, he's not a puppet, and he's not racked with the guilt of willingly stepping onto a bandwagon of corruption for the sake of celebrity.

---
Obama is black, Clinton is female. one of the two will win because America wants change, change of something to look at. its symbolic, it has nothing to do with genuine politics. both will rape the people as much as, and then some, as the Bush administration have, both will drive America into an economic abyss, and both will wage war in the Oil states(just scan their cabnit's of warmongers).
it will be just like redecorating the office... nothing will really change.

peace.


keep pushing
 
Reber187;292356 said:
i completely agree with your entire post. i know Dr Paul apologized for the views expressed within his newsletters and also for his poor error in editorial responsibilities. i'm not saying that the quotes provided don't exist, i just didn't see them in a context of any shape... i don't believe he advocates the lions share of those standpoints, nonetheless, and this may surprise you, i think that it is more-than-likely there is a shred of what Dr Paul may well believe on a partial-level located somewhere in the newsletters... that said, it doesn't mean he is bad person as there is no evidence to descry that proves he's ever acted on it. his policies speak for themselves; some might be flagged as old school, but for the most part his 'rethinking' for a new America and his rigorous constitution abiding reforms will put more money in YOUR pocket and aim to secure peace of mind for the future; moreover when he voices his principles he never comes over as bigoted... only aspersion shunting him into a corner ever does this.

i am disgusted when i watch the channel 4 news here in England(which is what i grew up watching and it educated me in home and foriegn affairs), even here Ron Paul gets no mention when all the other Republican candidates did so, not even a whisper... something is going on here Stridge and it has been from the very beginning. yes, i am prone to indulging in conspiracies, and yes i like Ron Paul, but i'm no fool and can dine with reason when its staring me in the face.
as i said in a previous post, there are a plethora of Ron Paul smear campaign news videos across the net which document the behaviour of interviewers on the prime networks in America towards Dr Paul...

i have never seen such character assassination directed to a person in such a position as his by such a widespread contingent of the media. and if you or anybody else can find evidence that any other candidate has been the subject to the very same lacerating then i will shut up shop.
[again i will state that i don't believe that this is the circumstance all the time by the entire media or any one network - i have seen countless videos where Dr Paul is interviewed with fair measures of positive and negative lines of questioning]

furthermore, i read that you don't feel that Dr Paul has the character to lead America, he doesn't really have the presidential quailities that are a necessity. i put it to you that the leaders of our nations are celebrities as much as they are heads of the country. people associate the ins and outs of a presidents/priministers private life with there capability to run a nation - this is bullshit and a cancerous byproduct of the 24hour news vacuum. of course you wouldn't want a racist paedophile that shoots grannies at the helm, but the celebrity culture in politics is a smokescreen of spin and misdirection from the mega-factors of government. the meat of policies, reforms, forecasting, etc takes a back seat, or is overshadowed by "personal news".

Ron Paul has the raw fibre to take America by the horns and attempt to rescue a country on its knees, because he isn't a celebrity. he is the lone wolf as many have branded him, because he isn't full of shit, he's not a puppet, and he's not racked with the guilt of willingly stepping onto a bandwagon of corruption for the sake of celebrity.

---
Obama is black, Clinton is female. one of the two will win because America wants change, change of something to look at. its symbolic, it has nothing to do with genuine politics. both will rape the people as much as, and then some, as the Bush administration have, both will drive America into an economic abyss, and both will wage war in the Oil states(just scan their cabnit's of warmongers).
it will be just like redecorating the office... nothing will really change.

peace.


keep pushing
Click to expand...

Many good insights in your post. For the record, I doubt Ron Paul agrees with all of the views in his newsletters (although on issues, like Israel or some urban crime matters, he has provided live quotes similar to the sentiments expressed in the letters). But the fact that he wasn't even aware of what was being written under his name, and often from his point of view, and then distirubted to hundreds of thousands of individuals over the years, is quite disturbing to me. Where is his oversight? Where is his contact with his base? Was this tacit acceptance or did he simply not care what was being put out there in his name? It's a troubling point.

I entirely agree with your comments about electoral candidates and celebrity culture, but I fundamentally disagree with Ron Paul on the issues, not because he doesn't have personality or buzz -- as you well know, he has raised remarkable amounts of money and does collect plenty of headlines on this side of the Atlantic, even if you're not seeing it over there. I'm a big state liberal, so Ron Paul's platform, including irradicating most government services and putting us back on the gold standard, are fundamentally opposed to what I think is best for the country. Frankly, a lot of his policies are just not pallatable to many GOP or Democratic voters, and it's not because they're obsessed with celebrity candidates or don't understand where Ron Paul stands. He advocates some pretty extreme stuff, a lot of which people think is out of touch or naive.

But one thing I have noticed over here is that Ron Paul benefits greatly from the 'cult of personality' element that you mentioned. I've talked to a number of people in person that love Ron Paul, and they're completely unaware of his policy ideas (like getting rid of the education department) and are suprised to learn about them. A lot of them like the idea of a 'lone wolf,' as you called him, and aren't interested in the consequential aspect of his policies. This is troubling to me, because it demonstrates that a lot of the people who are turned off by mainstream candidates don't make their choices based on substantive policy so much as momentum and zeitgeist. They love an underdog that they view as being anti-establisHydromaxent, but they don't give a shit what he believes in. I'm not saying this applies to you or all of his supporters, but certainly a good chunk don't grasp the full implications of Ron Paul's political agenda.

So far as character assasination by the media and all that, I still don't reall by it. I know the old youtube video montage crowd is pretty active in their presentation of this perceived problem, but the fact is, Ron Paul never really had a shot at the nomination and so it's not exactly prime concern of the news agencies that he get a lot of glowing press. I also think that as I mentioned above, a uniting trait of many Ron Paul fans, especially the internet community that has sprung up around his candidacy, is the mutual attitude of "they're all against our candidate! Fight back!" It's a combative and alienated crowd in many ways, and the popularization of the idea that Ron Paul isn't a serious contender because some cabal of different media and political forces are actively marginalizing him is something that his fans enjoy perpetrating and discussing while perhaps ignoring the more objective truth. There is a certain affection for the "us against them" mentality that I hear from many of Ron Paul's advocates, and I think this is a major part of his appeal to them.

Now, the character issue. The next president of the US has to be a powerfully capable uniter and somebody that is able to appeal broadly, in a fashion that will tyranscend normal partisan bullshit and get Congress in a productive cycle. Ron Paul has not shown a lot of evidence that he is this type of politican. This goes back to the journal comments thing - whethere he was actively aware that many racist and conspiracist folks were using his name and position as an organizing tool or not, it doesn't matter. Either he was complicit with some terrible things, or he was largely ignorant of indifferent to what a large chunk of his base was all about. Neither of thse are presidential. Also, this guy is basically an idealogue at the end of the day -- the president has to be more than a guy with a lot of far out ideas -- there needs to be more substance than having not taken some pay raises or advocating strict Constitutionalism, something which is actually considered a little absurd by a lot of legal and Constitutional scholars. And finally, he just wouldn't be capable of reigning in both GOP and Democratic interests in a way that gives direction and shape to new defense, energy, and education legislation. Nothing in his record really shows that he would be capable of uniting and leading this way, and a lot his record indicates that he's pretty out of touch with many areas of American politics and the world at large. He's got ideas, but he's insular and uncompromising over extremes, which don't work for the American presidency.

Anyway, after the stuff about all the newsletters came out, his chances went from pretty much impossible to certainly impossible. There is never going to be a GOP nominee whose name is signed off on hundreds of newsletters that contain bizarre racist tirades and conspiracy modeling. I still think there are a lot of good and interesting things about his candidacy, but in the end Ron Paul is not, nor was he ever a serious contender for the nomination, for a lot of different reasons.
 
stridge;292664 said:
Many good insights in your post. For the record, I doubt Ron Paul agrees with all of the views in his newsletters (although on issues, like Israel or some urban crime matters, he has provided live quotes similar to the sentiments expressed in the letters). But the fact that he wasn't even aware of what was being written under his name, and often from his point of view, and then distirubted to hundreds of thousands of individuals over the years, is quite disturbing to me. Where is his oversight? Where is his contact with his base? Was this tacit acceptance or did he simply not care what was being put out there in his name? It's a troubling point.

I entirely agree with your comments about electoral candidates and celebrity culture, but I fundamentally disagree with Ron Paul on the issues, not because he doesn't have personality or buzz -- as you well know, he has raised remarkable amounts of money and does collect plenty of headlines on this side of the Atlantic, even if you're not seeing it over there. I'm a big state liberal, so Ron Paul's platform, including irradicating most government services and putting us back on the gold standard, are fundamentally opposed to what I think is best for the country. Frankly, a lot of his policies are just not pallatable to many GOP or Democratic voters, and it's not because they're obsessed with celebrity candidates or don't understand where Ron Paul stands. He advocates some pretty extreme stuff, a lot of which people think is out of touch or naive.

But one thing I have noticed over here is that Ron Paul benefits greatly from the 'cult of personality' element that you mentioned. I've talked to a number of people in person that love Ron Paul, and they're completely unaware of his policy ideas (like getting rid of the education department) and are suprised to learn about them. A lot of them like the idea of a 'lone wolf,' as you called him, and aren't interested in the consequential aspect of his policies. This is troubling to me, because it demonstrates that a lot of the people who are turned off by mainstream candidates don't make their choices based on substantive policy so much as momentum and zeitgeist. They love an underdog that they view as being anti-establisHydromaxent, but they don't give a shit what he believes in. I'm not saying this applies to you or all of his supporters, but certainly a good chunk don't grasp the full implications of Ron Paul's political agenda.

So far as character assasination by the media and all that, I still don't reall by it. I know the old youtube video montage crowd is pretty active in their presentation of this perceived problem, but the fact is, Ron Paul never really had a shot at the nomination and so it's not exactly prime concern of the news agencies that he get a lot of glowing press. I also think that as I mentioned above, a uniting trait of many Ron Paul fans, especially the internet community that has sprung up around his candidacy, is the mutual attitude of "they're all against our candidate! Fight back!" It's a combative and alienated crowd in many ways, and the popularization of the idea that Ron Paul isn't a serious contender because some cabal of different media and political forces are actively marginalizing him is something that his fans enjoy perpetrating and discussing while perhaps ignoring the more objective truth. There is a certain affection for the "us against them" mentality that I hear from many of Ron Paul's advocates, and I think this is a major part of his appeal to them.

Now, the character issue. The next president of the US has to be a powerfully capable uniter and somebody that is able to appeal broadly, in a fashion that will tyranscend normal partisan bullshit and get Congress in a productive cycle. Ron Paul has not shown a lot of evidence that he is this type of politican. This goes back to the journal comments thing - whethere he was actively aware that many racist and conspiracist folks were using his name and position as an organizing tool or not, it doesn't matter. Either he was complicit with some terrible things, or he was largely ignorant of indifferent to what a large chunk of his base was all about. Neither of thse are presidential. Also, this guy is basically an idealogue at the end of the day -- the president has to be more than a guy with a lot of far out ideas -- there needs to be more substance than having not taken some pay raises or advocating strict Constitutionalism, something which is actually considered a little absurd by a lot of legal and Constitutional scholars. And finally, he just wouldn't be capable of reigning in both GOP and Democratic interests in a way that gives direction and shape to new defense, energy, and education legislation. Nothing in his record really shows that he would be capable of uniting and leading this way, and a lot his record indicates that he's pretty out of touch with many areas of American politics and the world at large. He's got ideas, but he's insular and uncompromising over extremes, which don't work for the American presidency.

Anyway, after the stuff about all the newsletters came out, his chances went from pretty much impossible to certainly impossible. There is never going to be a GOP nominee whose name is signed off on hundreds of newsletters that contain bizarre racist tirades and conspiracy modeling. I still think there are a lot of good and interesting things about his candidacy, but in the end Ron Paul is not, nor was he ever a serious contender for the nomination, for a lot of different reasons.
Click to expand...

just checked back in 'deep thoughts'(often missed as its at the foot of the main page)
thanks for the reply Stridge, i invariably enjoy reading your standpoints on the issues.

you are naturally correct about the malpractice in respect to his role in what goes out in HIS newsletter... bewildering i think is a fitting word.

i think that the reality of matter is that a great deal of voters across the board don't know shit about policies and perhaps don't care to either. its not just a cluster of Ron Paul advocates that are guilty of being shy of all the facts, its commonplace; however they should make more of an effort to be clued up, as should anybody who will be casting a vote.

as for the character assassination and conspiracy(my word not yours :)) against Ron Paul, i will remain steadfast in my view that he is the victim of a campaign of smear to discredit him and his politic convictions.
i exclaimed in a previous post that i do not believe that he throttled by any one network all the time or never afforded the professional respect due, but he has, without question, been treated by interviewers and news anchors in a manor that is out-and-out disgraceful... not to mention the oft-crooked retorts and comments made in live debates, and the short-changing of time allocated to speak - this may seem a tad trivial to you i don't know, but there is a tone of slander to discredit and disrespect Ron Paul which i believe, to a certain extent is by design.
'us against them' is romantic i'll give you that, but Ron Paul has been revered as the poster boy of constitutionalism, liberty etc etc by the "internet commuinty" because of what he stands for and believes. he's long in the tooth and knows his way around, he isn't a product of the internet underground(for want of a better term) thats just where his supports communicate in droves... its a pity that alot of the refuse spouted by the minority on the net inturn brand the majority with the label quack, weirdo etc etc.

the character issues. have you not heard Dr Paul speak? he conducts himself with a pride, vigour, and an assurance you can only get when you truly believe what you're saying.
no, he doesn't tick all the boxes, but who does? America has a globally considered fuck-tard at the helm who's record will wreak of grave failure and genocide; hardly the [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/forum/showthread.php?44-Ace-Strapped-Jims-Joint]ace[/words] of hearts is he?

Dr Paul's strict constitutionalism isn't absurd!
serious question: do you want to live in a world where America aggressively wages war on country's/regions is deems as a threat or goldmine? because thats what you must imply, as strict constitutionalism means obeying the written law of the land.
i'm all for it, government is big business - money, control, power - just check the surplus from the comprehensive annual financial reports, it must be scaled down from the stature it has reached, and the only way to do this is to go back to how it once was. letting it grow is the promise of harder times to come, Ron wants to rewind so i support him.

"and putting us back on the gold standard, are fundamentally opposed to what I think is best for the country."
what do you think is the solution here?

that will suffice for the meantime... i need to shower...

peace.


keep pushing
 
Did anyone see that recent CNN Republican debate? They were asking all of the candidates if they would have appointed Sarah O'Connor to the Supreme Court and why. The other candidates took their minute or two to explain. When they asked Dr. Paul, he said "No, she's not strict enough on the Constitution..." "Ok, next question," chimes in Anderson Cooper.

Never, EVER, have I seen such blatant bitch slapping than I did at that moment. The media definitely does make him look marginalized. For the life of me I haven't seen one intelligent person here at college who isn't supporting Ron Paul. Young people really love him. And yes, I am including from hearing discussion from different groups of people who I don't even know. I'm not saying that there are ignorant Ron Paul supporters, but young people are genuinely worried about the future of this country. The way many of us see it, only a radical change will bring about the peace and prosperity that the founders intended.

All that being said, it looks like we'll be getting "more of the same." Hell, I don't even know if I'll vote (in the presidential elections, that is). It's so damned hard to tell the difference between any politician these days. I'm sickly waiting for the dollar to crash when International community goes off the US Dollar standard, just to say "told ya so." That is if something else doesn't fuck it up first.

Plus, we all know IF Ron Paul was elected most of his ideas wouldn't be implemented (I'd wager Congress would really team up against him). However, he'd cause a shift in the right direction. Less spending, a more humble foreign policy, respect for the middle class, etc.
 
Ron Paul would do a better job than anyone else running IMO. He is the only one who understands what the purpose of government if for.
 
Reber187;293155 said:
just checked back in 'deep thoughts'(often missed as its at the foot of the main page)
thanks for the reply Stridge, i invariably enjoy reading your standpoints on the issues.

you are naturally correct about the malpractice in respect to his role in what goes out in HIS newsletter... bewildering i think is a fitting word.

i think that the reality of matter is that a great deal of voters across the board don't know shit about policies and perhaps don't care to either. its not just a cluster of Ron Paul advocates that are guilty of being shy of all the facts, its commonplace; however they should make more of an effort to be clued up, as should anybody who will be casting a vote.

as for the character assassination and conspiracy(my word not yours :)) against Ron Paul, i will remain steadfast in my view that he is the victim of a campaign of smear to discredit him and his politic convictions.
i exclaimed in a previous post that i do not believe that he throttled by any one network all the time or never afforded the professional respect due, but he has, without question, been treated by interviewers and news anchors in a manor that is out-and-out disgraceful... not to mention the oft-crooked retorts and comments made in live debates, and the short-changing of time allocated to speak - this may seem a tad trivial to you i don't know, but there is a tone of slander to discredit and disrespect Ron Paul which i believe, to a certain extent is by design.
'us against them' is romantic i'll give you that, but Ron Paul has been revered as the poster boy of constitutionalism, liberty etc etc by the "internet commuinty" because of what he stands for and believes. he's long in the tooth and knows his way around, he isn't a product of the internet underground(for want of a better term) thats just where his supports communicate in droves... its a pity that alot of the refuse spouted by the minority on the net inturn brand the majority with the label quack, weirdo etc etc.

the character issues. have you not heard Dr Paul speak? he conducts himself with a pride, vigour, and an assurance you can only get when you truly believe what you're saying.
no, he doesn't tick all the boxes, but who does? America has a globally considered fuck-tard at the helm who's record will wreak of grave failure and genocide; hardly the [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/forum/showthread.php?44-Ace-Strapped-Jims-Joint]ace[/words] of hearts is he?

Dr Paul's strict constitutionalism isn't absurd!
serious question: do you want to live in a world where America aggressively wages war on country's/regions is deems as a threat or goldmine? because thats what you must imply, as strict constitutionalism means obeying the written law of the land.
i'm all for it, government is big business - money, control, power - just check the surplus from the comprehensive annual financial reports, it must be scaled down from the stature it has reached, and the only way to do this is to go back to how it once was. letting it grow is the promise of harder times to come, Ron wants to rewind so i support him.

"and putting us back on the gold standard, are fundamentally opposed to what I think is best for the country."
what do you think is the solution here?

that will suffice for the meantime... i need to shower...

peace.


keep pushing
Click to expand...

Another very good post. You're correct when you point out that most people don't really understand a candidate's policy positions and that I unfairly assign this problem to Ron Paul supporters alone. I should certainly be less judgemental in that respect.

I suppose at the end of the day my true problem with Ron Paul is the policy stuff - I simply don't agree with his economic or foreign policy agendas, and I tend to think that his brand of libertarianism is a tunnel-vision flavor of politics that rules out too many possibilities and aspects of government to truly be effective. Strict, by the letter constitutionalism isn't a truly effective way to govern if you really take a look at history. Most great achievements were carried out under fairly unconstitutional terms (as well a lot of terrible shit, but with government you invariably take the good with the bad), and the stroke of genius by the founders wasn't their constitution so much as their realization that their document was flawed and that government would need to be adaptable to circumstances. Now, I'm not suggesting that it isn't important to respect and adhere to the Consitution as much as practicable, but I also know that it used to legally obligate thigns like slavery and still contains large sections that are primarily concerned with piracy on the high seas and woefully outdated foreign policy guidlines. The core values and structure of the Constitution are important; the modern world has required a more complicated and expansive approach than what the orginal document can offer.

So just to finish griping, a good example of why I find the strict constitutionalism troubling would be Ron Paul's stance on intervention in Sudan. Obviously we're not doing anything about the problem anyway, but I've listend to Ron Paul plainly state that he feels America has no obligation or responsibility to do something about Darfur and that point of fact he would be very upset if we did, because American tax dollars shouldn't be spent on a foreign effort that violates his isolationist agenda. Frankly, if there were political will, the US could squash the genocide in that region without much effort, but because of the problems we've had in Somalia and our fear of upsetting China, we don't - and to most people this is a tragedy. To Ron Paul, it's the correct policy. I just can't get behind a guy who wouldn't make an effort to prevent genocide because it violates his idea of sound economics and because he doesn't want to be involved in extra-national affairs.

Between that, his whole deal about getting on the gold standard again (nearly all mainstream economists think this idea is pretty insane and not really possible), the desire to eliminate a lot of very beneficial government programs and departmens, and a view of the world that lacks sympathy and responsibility, I just can't understand the appeal of Ron Paul. Like I said before, I think he's very focused and concerned with a few core ideas, but he lacks a broad view or the ability to consider other perspectives, and I also don't think he's a strong enough individual to capably lead the most powerful nation in the history of the world - I'd point to the newsletter problem as a classis example of that.

So there you have it. I guess a big-government liberal like me will never be a Ron Paul supporter, but I do understand why he appeals to a lot of people out there. I worry that any candidate who's selling the "not politics as usual" image will collect supporters without them taking a serious look at the policies behind the politician, but like you said, Ron Paul is certainly not the only candidate with this problem and he can hardly be blamed for it.
 
i didnt read all the posts, but to answer the OPs question...he is one of only 2 left on the republican side, but yet they STILL ignore him to no end. our government and the media here DO NOT want Ron Paul to get his message out. Most of those who have heard him speak and how he will totally dismantel all of the government lies and waste simply love the guy. i for one worship him on every level. he is so honest and has the 30 year record to back up everything he says. he hasnt changed at all in 30 years. he is however gaining more and more delegates each week at the local levels. McCain is not the nominee as the media would have everyone beleive. that isnt decided until september. But the media is still acting like he isnt even there. if Paul was to debate McCain, Clinton or Obama in a televised debate one on one...this country would change overnight and paul would win by a landslide. He would destroy them. which is why they ignore him. the media here also puts out down right lies about paul a few times a month and play the "mis print" card when called on it. It is a shamed at how the one guy who could finally change things for the better not only in the USA but world wide, is being treated. however i think he may still win it all. there are still 6 months left and Ron Paul is a very smart man. he has won his congress seat 11 times now, even when his own part changed rules and tried to cheat him out of it, he still won each time.
 
ha i forgot i posted to this almost 9 months ago. oh well....vote for paul no matter what. dont just not vote. if for some reason he doesnt get the nod in september...write him in in november. i am. you can do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top