Ron Paul

[zen]

once servitude becomes involuntary, it's slavery. we'll have it here eventually.At some point, you will be mandated to work or serve the public in the U.S in order to do your part for all the government programs (if you don't make enough to pay for them in taxes). Since the taxes and/or the mandate to serve will both be involuntary, I call it slavery.

[meatwad]

GP1, your dream might be coming true...

Paul - Obama Dead Heat

[GP1]

GP1, your dream might be coming true...

Paul - Obama Dead Heat

Maybe. A little too early to really know.

The problem real conservatives have is they are being pushed aside by the the noise maching that is Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Palin, the lunatics on the religious right who believe the Earth was created 6,000 year ago and that crazy woman from Minnesota. Sane people like Ron Paul are beginning to be heard because people pay attention, but they can easily be painted with a broad brush by the media and discounted as something the are not when they will ultimately have to associate with the noise machine.

FOX News, which is actually a liberal network because of their embracing of neo-conservatives, has duped many in this country to believe their brand of conservatism is the only one out there. They are a bunch of stupid people, who happen to look nice, for the most part, playing the ratings games and a lot of people can't see through that because the "conservative" option is FOX News and the "liberal" option is MSNBC. It's moronic and childish. Ron Paul holds adult ideas and is a smart guy...there is no room for him on FOX News.

As much as I like Ron Paul, he has to much of a public record to run for office. People who get elected today are lightweights like Obama and GW Bush who had little in the way of accomplishments prior to being President. Compassionate Conservatism, what the Hell is that? The Audacity of Hope, what the Hell is that? It's nothing.

[Z.I.P.]

GP1, your dream might be coming true...

Paul - Obama Dead Heat

Maybe. A little too early to really know.

The problem real conservatives have is they are being pushed aside by the the noise maching that is Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Palin, the lunatics on the religious right who believe the Earth was created 6,000 year ago and that crazy woman from Minnesota. Sane people like Ron Paul are beginning to be heard because people pay attention, but they can easily be painted with a broad brush by the media and discounted as something the are not when they will ultimately have to associate with the noise machine.

FOX News, which is actually a liberal network because of their embracing of neo-conservatives, has duped many in this country to believe their brand of conservatism is the only one out there. They are a bunch of stupid people, who happen to look nice, for the most part, playing the ratings games and a lot of people can't see through that because the "conservative" option is FOX News and the "liberal" option is MSNBC. It's moronic and childish. Ron Paul holds adult ideas and is a smart guy...there is no room for him on FOX News.

As much as I like Ron Paul, he has to much of a public record to run for office. People who get elected today are lightweights like Obama and GW Bush who had little in the way of accomplishments prior to being President. Compassionate Conservatism, what the Hell is that? The Audacity of Hope, what the Hell is that? It's nothing.

Great one, I think your thinking is misunderestimated because you are often counterintuitive! And so is Ron Paul. Paul is an "anti-politician". He speaks his own mind too much to be taken seriously by any "serious" (i.e., American "mainstream", or establishment) party. This is why Paul receives support not just from the political Right, but from populists across the spectrum, not unlike Ralph Nader, or even (at times, though not much recently) Patrick Buchanan. Another anti-pol politician who gets support from Left and Right in his home state is Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders. People support leaders who aren't afraid to speak (and vote) their mind. Sanders started his career as Mayor of Burlington, a city with a heavy student and Lefty population, and to appeal to that crowd, he called himself a (small 's') socialist and formed the Vermont Progressive Coalition to get elected Mayor for 3-4 terms. When he ran for Congress first in 1988, a (moderate) Republican was elected, showing the Dems that if they run their own candidate, they only split their own vote, but joining in a broad-based coalition gains votes and wins elections -- and Sanders has voted with the Dem Caucus since going to Washington. But, my point is, he claims conservative and Republican votes (at least 10%) because of his frankness. I would not hesitiate to say that Bernie and Ron have a lot more in common with each other, than they have with the establishment pols of the Dem or GOP parties. Check out Paul's recent comments at the Southern Tea Party convention -- or whatever they called it.

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0410/ron-paul-...es-like-empire/

[GP1]

GP1, your dream might be coming true...

Paul - Obama Dead Heat

Maybe. A little too early to really know.

The problem real conservatives have is they are being pushed aside by the the noise maching that is Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Palin, the lunatics on the religious right who believe the Earth was created 6,000 year ago and that crazy woman from Minnesota. Sane people like Ron Paul are beginning to be heard because people pay attention, but they can easily be painted with a broad brush by the media and discounted as something the are not when they will ultimately have to associate with the noise machine.

FOX News, which is actually a liberal network because of their embracing of neo-conservatives, has duped many in this country to believe their brand of conservatism is the only one out there. They are a bunch of stupid people, who happen to look nice, for the most part, playing the ratings games and a lot of people can't see through that because the "conservative" option is FOX News and the "liberal" option is MSNBC. It's moronic and childish. Ron Paul holds adult ideas and is a smart guy...there is no room for him on FOX News.

As much as I like Ron Paul, he has to much of a public record to run for office. People who get elected today are lightweights like Obama and GW Bush who had little in the way of accomplishments prior to being President. Compassionate Conservatism, what the Hell is that? The Audacity of Hope, what the Hell is that? It's nothing.

Great one, I think your thinking is misunderestimated because you are often counterintuitive! And so is Ron Paul. Paul is an "anti-politician". He speaks his own mind too much to be taken seriously by any "serious" (i.e., American "mainstream", or establishment) party. This is why Paul receives support not just from the political Right, but from populists across the spectrum, not unlike Ralph Nader, or even (at times, though not much recently) Patrick Buchanan. Another anti-pol politician who gets support from Left and Right in his home state is Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders. People support leaders who aren't afraid to speak (and vote) their mind. Sanders started his career as Mayor of Burlington, a city with a heavy student and Lefty population, and to appeal to that crowd, he called himself a (small 's') socialist and formed the Vermont Progressive Coalition to get elected Mayor for 3-4 terms. When he ran for Congress first in 1988, a (moderate) Republican was elected, showing the Dems that if they run their own candidate, they only split their own vote, but joining in a broad-based coalition gains votes and wins elections -- and Sanders has voted with the Dem Caucus since going to Washington. But, my point is, he claims conservative and Republican votes (at least 10%) because of his frankness. I would not hesitiate to say that Bernie and Ron have a lot more in common with each other, than they have with the establishment pols of the Dem or GOP parties. Check out Paul's recent comments at the Southern Tea Party convention -- or whatever they called it.

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0410/ron-paul-...es-like-empire/

Good post.

I think one of the main differnces between Paul and Sanders is Sanders is embraced by MSNBC and is a regular on their evening line-up. He is slowly becoming part of the mainstream left. The word "sellout" comes to mind.

On the other hand, the neo-conservative talking heads like Fred Barns, Bill Kristol and Brit Hume on FOX News giggle at Paul because, among many other reasons, he does not hold their "military intervention at all cost" view of the world. In reality, Paul cares about the people in the military and does not want unnecessary harm come to them. Neo-conservatives could care less about the people we send off to war and could care less if they are killed fighting for an elected dictator in lieu of a run of the mil dictator who may have come to power through a military overthrow. Some cultures lend themselves to dictators. We are not going to change that with bombs.

Neo-conservatives bashed Colin Powell because he told GW Bush, "If you break it, you buy it." Iraq is like a case of Herpes, it just won't go away. Bush wasn't looking past the first wave of bombs in Iraq. If you listen to a guy like Kristol speak even today, he wants to drop bombs and then see what happens. Neo-conservatives have no idea as to what to do after they drop bombs other than more bombs. That's the problem witih neo-conservatives in a nutshell. Their ideas are very shallow when you see them in action. Deep down, they are a bunch of liberals. It's hard to have ideas like Paull because ideas such as freedom from government are difficult to describe and he is not the most well spoken guy.

One of my favorite things Paul does is ask the obvious questions about topics many have neglected to discuss in years? Does the US still need troops in Germany to protect the Germans from the whore chasing, alcoholics in Russia (OK, I inserted whore chasing, alcoholics only because they are whore chasing alcoholics)? We don't have enough troops in South Korea to adequately defend S. Korea against N. Korea, so why do we keep troops there? Paul's comments are actually much smarter though, because they center around what the Constitution says about wars and where troops should be. If there is no declaration of war in Europe, why are there troops there? If there is no declaration of war in Korea (there never was one), then why are we still there? It was actually a very conservative Republican who warned the country of the "military industrial complex". Look where we are today.

Sorry for the long paragraphs, but Sanders is becoming more mainstream every day on the liberal MSNBC and Paul is not becoming mainstream anywhere.

[ZachTheZip]

[GP1]

Ron Paul is sort of a super hero fighting for truth, justice and the American way.....

[Z.I.P.]

Good post.

I think one of the main differnces between Paul and Sanders is Sanders is embraced by MSNBC and is a regular on their evening line-up. He is slowly becoming part of the mainstream left. The word "sellout" comes to mind.

On the other hand, the neo-conservative talking heads like Fred Barns, Bill Kristol and Brit Hume on FOX News giggle at Paul because, among many other reasons, he does not hold their "military intervention at all cost" view of the world. In reality, Paul cares about the people in the military and does not want unnecessary harm come to them. Neo-conservatives could care less about the people we send off to war and could care less if they are killed fighting for an elected dictator in lieu of a run of the mil dictator who may have come to power through a military overthrow. Some cultures lend themselves to dictators. We are not going to change that with bombs.

Neo-conservatives bashed Colin Powell because he told GW Bush, "If you break it, you buy it." Iraq is like a case of Herpes, it just won't go away. Bush wasn't looking past the first wave of bombs in Iraq. If you listen to a guy like Kristol speak even today, he wants to drop bombs and then see what happens. Neo-conservatives have no idea as to what to do after they drop bombs other than more bombs. That's the problem witih neo-conservatives in a nutshell. Their ideas are very shallow when you see them in action. Deep down, they are a bunch of liberals. It's hard to have ideas like Paull because ideas such as freedom from government are difficult to describe and he is not the most well spoken guy.

One of my favorite things Paul does is ask the obvious questions about topics many have neglected to discuss in years? Does the US still need troops in Germany to protect the Germans from the whore chasing, alcoholics in Russia (OK, I inserted whore chasing, alcoholics only because they are whore chasing alcoholics)? We don't have enough troops in South Korea to adequately defend S. Korea against N. Korea, so why do we keep troops there? Paul's comments are actually much smarter though, because they center around what the Constitution says about wars and where troops should be. If there is no declaration of war in Europe, why are there troops there? If there is no declaration of war in Korea (there never was one), then why are we still there? It was actually a very conservative Republican who warned the country of the "military industrial complex". Look where we are today.

Sorry for the long paragraphs, but Sanders is becoming more mainstream every day on the liberal MSNBC and Paul is not becoming mainstream anywhere.

Lot of truth in what you say GP1. I only wish I knew what you mean by "liberal". It has no more meaning any more than "conservative". The people who you call "liberal", I am tempted to call "conservative" with the same snarl. Those terms should have been thrown out -- or at least we should have sought to define what we mean when we use them -- with the new century. My experience here in Hawai'i is that the politicians who receive the media's acclaim for their hawkish and "pro-military" record (and I'm not objective here, working for the DoD) are really just treating the military as a cash machine for their district. The military in Hawai'i has, as long as I have lived here (25 yrs) been seen as the largest and most important "jobs program" -- a part of economic development and growth that no politician could ever oppose. Now how does THAT promote the national defense, or the welfare of the military members I work with? Their needs to be some independent arbiter of what constitutes "enough" national spending in any area of the budget, but it comes down to which politicians head which committees and can bring home the most "loot".

I also agree with your comments about Bernie Sanders. Although I did, not long ago, see him on FoxNews, he is becoming one of the usual suspects, like Barney Frank, who you expect to see any time you tune in to Keith or Rachel (my and RFR44's first-name pals). And, while I once saw the commentators as post-liberal and somewhat anti-establishment, that is becoming less common all the time, as they fight to get the kind of numbers those most popular networks pull in. In the process of making themselves more "mainstream", they end up selling out, as you said Great One. Damn, I hate agreeing with you! I reserve the right to edit this post to my liking at any future moment.

[InTheZone]

I didn't vote for Paul in '08 mainly because of his calls to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. While I support the non-interventionist, non-nation building policies that George W. Bush actually ran on in 2000, once we're in it, we have to win it. Pulling out of Iraq in '08 would've been a huge mess and emboldened foreign terrorists (I know that sounds like a neocon talking point, but there's an element of truth to it).

Here in 2010 looking forward to 2012 however, a vote for Paul makes sense. Foreign policy wise, Paul is absolutely correct. It was not the intent of our founders nor are we finacially capable any longer of being the world's police. The amount of money we would save by simply closing our foreign bases and telling the rest of the world its time to take care of yourself is absolutely staggering. You wanna pay off the debt? End ridiculous federal deficitis? That would go a long way towards it. As a non-interventionist state we let the rest of the world handle their own issues, and we look out for our own national defense... TRUE national defense, which is simply, as the name should suggest, defending our soil. If anyone comes against us on our soil (which no one ever will), we strike back mercilessly and let them clean up the mess. You don't mess with us, we don't mess with you.

Domestically, I can't even begin to describe how glorious a Ron Paul America would be. So I'm not going to. Pick up some literature and figure it out yourselves. If Paul runs in 2012, he has my vote. I just wish there was a younger candidate out there espousing Paul's views, as Paul is already in his mid-70's. Gary Johnson doesn't bring the social conservative credits to the table that Paul does, and thus he would alienate too much of America to have a winning coalition of voters. Whoever said Paul was "Pro-Death" earlier in the thread needs to do a little more research before typing such ignorant things. Paul has a 100% Pro-Life voting record, and has stated numerous times that if government has any absolutely essential function, it is the preservation of life.

Btw GP1, I would watch your criticism of people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old. Paul is a Southern Baptist. He's likely one of them.

[cornbread]

... I can't even begin to describe how glorious a Ron Paul America would be...

There are facets of the libertarian mindset that should guide and inform policy decisions. But no taxes, no department of education, no IRS may sound very appealing, but it is no way to be a leader in the world.

...Btw GP1, I would watch your criticism of people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old. Paul is a Southern Baptist. He's likely one of them.

That is a belief that has been refuted by millions of years of fossil records. Truth and Spaghetti Monster-ism.

RAmen.

[InTheZone]

... I can't even begin to describe how glorious a Ron Paul America would be...

There are facets of the libertarian mindset that should guide and inform policy decisions. But no taxes, no department of education, no IRS may sound very appealing, but it is no way to be a leader in the world.

...Btw GP1, I would watch your criticism of people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old. Paul is a Southern Baptist. He's likely one of them.

That is a belief that has been refuted by millions of years of fossil records. Truth and Spaghetti Monster-ism.

RAmen.

I think your missing the point cornbread. In Ron Paul's view, America isn't supposed to be the "leader of the world"... the world is fully capable of leading itself. And Ron Paul has never advocated "no taxes"... obviously that would be ridiculous. He advocates the ending of the IRS, as there is no constitutional right for the FEDERAL government to dip into the personal earnings of its citizens. That's a far cry from no taxes however. There are still all kinds of corporate and other taxes that provide enough revenue to run the kind of limited constitutional government that Paul advocates at the federal level. You slash all of the federal government programs that are far and away outside of the bounds of the constitution, and other tax revenues are sufficient and there's no need for the IRS. The hole left by the absence of these programs shifts taxing and spending burdens back to the states, where they belong. Education is a state issue and a state has the right to set its own standards. The Department of Education is a gigantic waste of money and exercises authority that is unconstitutional.

As to your Earth argument, you're preaching to the choir buddy, I'm not saying I subscribe to those views. At the same time, I refuse to be dismissive of them. If there's anything that a study of the history of science should tell you, it's that what we think we know beyond a shadow of a doubt, we don't really know. The Young Earth folks could be right for all we really know, the more years pass, the more carbon dating has shown its flaws as a legitimate tool of knowledge. In 100 years, in all likelihood people are going to be laughing at what we think we "know" now like we do at "scientific" beliefs of a century ago. My point however was not to argue Young Earth views, as I don't believe in them, but rather to state that if you support Ron Paul, you can't dismiss those people as loons, because Ron Paul is one!

[GP1]

Btw GP1, I would watch your criticism of people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old. Paul is a Southern Baptist. He's likely one of them.

Probably not. Paul is to intellectual to believe that. The "Earth is 6,000 years old" crowd, while it has been around forever, is now populated by the home schooling types who are complete lunatics. Neo-Christians are a large part of this group.

[GP1]

As to your Earth argument, you're preaching to the choir buddy, I'm not saying I subscribe to those views. At the same time, I refuse to be dismissive of them. If there's anything that a study of the history of science should tell you, it's that what we think we know beyond a shadow of a doubt, we don't really know.

Explain why dinosaurs and humans only existed on together in television programs and in Creationist indoctrination centers..........I mean, museums.

[Dave in Green]

The clear proof that modern man and dinosaurs existed side-by-side can be found right here in these forums, where examples of recent posts from both groups can be found.

[ksu sucks]

That is a belief that has been refuted by millions of years of fossil records. Truth and Spaghetti Monster-ism.

RAmen.

Ah, excellent. I'm glad to see I'm not the only Pastafarian on ZNO. RAmen.

[ksu sucks]

Also, check out this free flick called Zeitgeist: Addendum. Forewarning: It's very long and starts out with some lengthy speech that you can skip if you are easily distracted. If you associate yourself with any alternative political group, and you have an afternoon to yourself then check it out. It certainly gives an interesting perspective. For me, it didn't so much tell me anything I didn't know, it just gave me a new way to look at government, life, etc.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

[GP1]

The clear proof that modern man and dinosaurs existed side-by-side can be found right here in these forums, where examples of recent posts from both groups can be found.

When you go out at night, is it difficult to find another T-Rex to mate with?

[Dave in Green]

The clear proof that modern man and dinosaurs existed side-by-side can be found right here in these forums, where examples of recent posts from both groups can be found.

When you go out at night, is it difficult to find another T-Rex to mate with?

While I understand that you have an obsessive fixation on the mating habits of various people and animals, and while I do appreciate you appropriately associating me with the top of the food chain, your personal interpretation of what group I belong to may not have a solid connection with reality.

[scottditzen]

Ron Paul is pretty compelling.

I think he may be too honest to win the presidency. But he has my vote next time around.

[cornbread]

Ron Paul is pretty compelling.

I think he may be too honest to win the presidency. But he has my vote next time around.

This guy is in the same boat. I won't waste my vote on either of them.

[Dr Z]

Also, check out this free flick called Zeitgeist: Addendum. Forewarning: It's very long and starts out with some lengthy speech that you can skip if you are easily distracted. If you associate yourself with any alternative political group, and you have an afternoon to yourself then check it out. It certainly gives an interesting perspective. For me, it didn't so much tell me anything I didn't know, it just gave me a new way to look at government, life, etc.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

I watched most of this movie this weekend. While a lot of it is "pretty out there" I did learn a few things. Thanks for the link. At the very least, it entertained me.

[InTheZone]

Also, check out this free flick called Zeitgeist: Addendum. Forewarning: It's very long and starts out with some lengthy speech that you can skip if you are easily distracted. If you associate yourself with any alternative political group, and you have an afternoon to yourself then check it out. It certainly gives an interesting perspective. For me, it didn't so much tell me anything I didn't know, it just gave me a new way to look at government, life, etc.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Lol... zeitgeist. The movie laughed at and ignored by scholars, experts, or anyone with a high school education for that matter, but loved by morons on the internet. Anyone who allows their worldview to be changed by such ignorant babble is worse than the 6,000 year old earth people.

[InTheZone]

And whoever compared Kucinich and Ron Paul has no understanding whatsoever of politics. Those two are about as far apart on the political spectrum as two people can get.

[Dave in Green]

Also, check out this free flick called Zeitgeist: Addendum. Forewarning: It's very long and starts out with some lengthy speech that you can skip if you are easily distracted. If you associate yourself with any alternative political group, and you have an afternoon to yourself then check it out. It certainly gives an interesting perspective. For me, it didn't so much tell me anything I didn't know, it just gave me a new way to look at government, life, etc.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Lol... zeitgeist. The movie laughed at and ignored by scholars, experts, or anyone with a high school education for that matter, but loved by morons on the internet. Anyone who allows their worldview to be changed by such ignorant babble is worse than the 6,000 year old earth people.

The internet has everything man has to offer, from the very the best to the very worst. But, just as in real life, there's disagreement on which is which.

When I was a kid, back in the good old days long before the internet, I read a book about flying saucers being real. I really believed that book, and wondered why the government was trying so hard to cover it all up. As I got older and learned more, I first began doubting the flying saucer book and ultimately rejected it. What it taught me is that it's possible for someone with good persuasive powers to convince a fair amount of people -- especially those who are skeptical of everything in the mainstream -- that almost any kind of alternative reality is real.

To avoid being caught up in every phony flying saucer scam requires eternal vigilance. Of course, the same applies to the occasional real flying saucer-type reality that is being covered up for various reasons. It can and does occasionally really happen. But it's rare, and it requires a fair amount of research and intelligent discrimination to pick the rare tiny jewel from the mountain of trash.

[cornbread]

And whoever compared Kucinich and Ron Paul has no understanding whatsoever of politics. Those two are about as far apart on the political spectrum as two people can get.

That was me.

You missed my point.