I think he is just what we need. We need to shrink the size ofthe government pretty drastically, reign in our foreign policy a bunch, and introduce some Libertarian values back into the Federal government. RP is the only one running who would actually DO as much of that as possible. It is a moot point anyway since there is no way on God's green Earth that the GOP will nominate him.
You are very wrong. I have read up on all of RP's positions, have met and had a fairly in-depth conversation with him, and he has impressed me as a straight shooter with the courage to actually stand behind his convictions. He would do some things that would disrupt the status quo pretty dramatically, but IMO the status quo needs some pretty dramatic disruption.
Respectfuly, when I read the following: [rquoter] And it's equally important to understand that he hasn't changed his beliefs appreciably in the interim. Most of his positions today -- including his opposition to the Iraq war -- are built on this same shoddy foundation of far-right conspiracism and extremist belief systems, particularly long-debunked theories about the "New World Order," the Federal Reserve and our monetary system, the IRS, and the education system. [/rquoter] ...the Fed Reserve conspiracy bit made me think of you and your support for Paul. I also thought of another vocal supporter for Paul on this board and his fondness for 9/11 conspiracy. What I mean to say is that at least for me on the other side of two keyboards way over here on the periphery I don't consider your endorsement of the ‘non-fringeness’ of his beliefs regarding the Fed to be particularly compelling. I don't say this to be rude, so I hope you don't take offense. I'm afraid that despite great effort I can think of no way to bring this up in a more delicate fashion. And I don't mean to denigrate the capabilities or intentions of either you or Mr. Paul. I just think most people would describe the views of the Fed and big bankers which you have expressed in another thread to be somewhat more alarmist than the average person as well as not particularly mainstream.
The NWO theory doesn't have to be imminent. One can't reasonably assume that it won't happen with the system we're putting in place and the interia behind them. All we have is the trust in our system and the idea that it can't be proven because there isn't evidence of explicit collusion. The EU arose from a free trade agreement. Lou Dobbs has his fears of the North American Union that begun with NAFTA. On the flipside, multinationals are crossing borders and national jurisdiction. M&A's are reducing that number and consolidating power into a select group of board of directors. Even if it's not a focused conspiracy, the wealth gap is growing, and a new class of oligarchs are becoming more and more obvious. The trend will continue with the belief system we have in place. This not pure capitalism through free markets at work here.
if you dont like his policies thats one thing, but i wouldnt ever base my opinion on some guys blog. and a few of the things he is criticized here for are things that many support him on, such as getting us out of the un, states rights over the federal government and a return to the gold standard (or at least not irresponsibly printing money out of nothing like we do now). and when you end your "article" quoting a random poster from a david duke message board and trying to use that as some indictment against paul than you have officially entered the NO SPIN ZONE! how is that any different than o'reilly trying to hold moveon.org responsible for everything written by its posters, like he did a few months back? im actually surprised the blogger didnt say paul hates hispanics b/c he is against open borders. and if he is a racist, how did he win in an area with a large black population?
I wouldn't vote for Paul, but I certainly agree that we should have trade, travel, and diplomatic relations with Cuba. We should have done that a long time ago. D&D. Attempt to be Civil! Impeach Bush.
agree - its totally ridiculous and stubborn. we dont deal w/ cuba b/c they are dirty commies, but we deal w/ china despite the fact that they are dirty commies. why the double standard against such a tiny little island?
Ron Paul wants a government bureaucracy today to go back to the same size it was when the Constitution was drafted. He wants to abolish pretty much all government 'agencies' and programs, and wants pretty much everything to be left up to the states. I STRONGLY doubt that many of you liberals that champion an even larger federal government than we already have would support RP if you looked past the "I am against the Iraq war" rhetoric. You really have nothing in common with the guy, you want a government administering a bunch of socialist programs. For RP, that would be the absolute worst outcome.
Where do you get this, tiger? Bush has grown the government faster than LBJ did during the Great Society. Most of us don't want a larger government, but a smarter government with different priorities. And most liberals don't support Paul, just some of his positions, a big difference. Not only that, but some of his supporters would be astonished to be described as liberal. Golly and good grief... talk about painting with a broad brush! D&D. Attempt to be Civil! Impeach Bush.
Well I didn't mean to imply that he is ignorant at the conspriatorial view of the forming of the Fed Res Bank. And I certainly acknowledge that my view of the bankers who own the Fed as way out of step with the majority. And I am certain few see it as serious a danger as I do. I realize many conspiracy groups hold that view. The thing for me is that I find no value in promoting or supporting conspricay views. Where I might agree with those views I don't see where there is any need to become a crusader or start storing food and building a bomb shelter. I liken it to reality TV. There may be something real about the entertainment, but who really cares; it's still just a TV show. So even if I thought a conspiracy existed (how could I know that for sure?) in my every day life I don't have time to give it much thought. I enjoy posting that the govt. was complicit at some point to 9-11, I admit that, but I really don't know, I certainly don't care as much as it seems when I post. The evil bankers conspiracy is fun to post also, but so what. They might be the good guys for all I know. I have discussed conspiracy theory with Ron Paul specifically and he just doesn't care that much for the conspiracy side of it. To give you a frame of reference this was in 1991. The last 'conspiracy' type book I have read was Crossing the Rubicon which I read in 2003 I think, and the last one I read before that (and the best one I have ever read) was The Creature from Jekyl Island which I read sometime in the 1990's. Before that I had spent about 18 months reading books about conspiriacies during 1982-1983. At that time I really liked it, it was like D&D before D&D. I have never had time to become a conspiracy theorists or store up food for Armaggedon. To busy with life, family and church. I believe the Fed Res., the IRS and the UN are bad for America's constitutional government. I may be wrong so no use me giving any more time to those beliefs than I am giving right here. My church has never heard about it, my family is clueless and that is because I don't usually talk about it. Except here "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?" That is the type question I spend my life concerned with. Ron Paul has expressed to me that the conspiracy theories just aren't worth the debate. Maybe he has changed his views. I had a long talk about a month ago with his son about this very thing; whether his dad was really a closet conspiracy wacko. He told me his dad had never been a conspiracy theorist but has endorsed shared views concerning a central bank, America becoming a police state and other constitutional abuses; this certainly has placed him in good standing with supporters who are not in step with the current party politics and some groups that go far beyond what Rep. Paul stands for. I hope to talk to Ron Paul soon and I will bring this up again if I get the opportunity. His son told me his schedule was really busy and I would not get an opportunity to talk to him until he was back in Brazoria County. But you are exactly right, his views on the Fed are on the fringe. I apologize if I made it sound like he was flowing with the crowd on those issues. When it comes to the Fed, the IRS, and the UN he certainly is way on the fringe. Just understand best I know he has views based upon certain constitutional principles he holds to, not some book someone wrote or some website or some group of anarchists. I have never read Alex Jones or his website, I have received emails concerning these things because there are also Christian ministries out there predicting the end of the world, or the return of Jesus Christ to earth that also mix in these conspiratorial views, at least in my opinion. I get quite alot of email from certain Christian ministries that I have to sift through, because some of the content I find interesting. Lots of these want to talk about the anti-christ, I want to talk to people about Jesus Christ. AND THANK YOU, you are a very respectful poster in D&D. (more than me.)
Man am I tired of hearing people decry the "big spending" liberals whilst ignoring the fiscal destruction accumulated via Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Get a grip... Furthermore, the whole notion of "liberal" and "conservative" has been so twisted and mutilated that consistent usage of the terms is starting to make speakers/writers look more a shill, than a source of relevant debate.
Any ideas about the Fed controlling government are certainly on the fringe, but that doesn't mean that they aren't correct.
I've just skimmed this thread and don't have too much time to make a fuller post. I have to admit that I've been impressed with Ron Paul's debate performance and agree with many of his positions. I think there is something romantically appealing about the libertarian positions but at the same time I don't think if implemented the would be practical and think they are as utopian as Communist ideals. Ron Paul as an articulate outsider has the freedom to blast away but I have a hard time seeing him actually able to govern and while I think he is right on many points I think a Paul government would be disastrous.
Where have you been, nice to read your posts. He is pretty much un-electable at this time, He has done a very good job as a congressman in Texas, You are right he wouldn't be able to govern the way Bush, Clinton have. I am going to vote for him because I believe I owe my own conscience to support someone who I am convinced is honest to a fault, has always chosen to follow his convictions and principles regardless of the pressure or attacks, loves this country and would never do something purely for votes or politics, is compassionate and truly cares about every person regardless of religion, race or all the other differences, he is truly loyal to the US constititution though I admit he strictly interprets it, and he does believe that eventually the power will be too centralized in the federal exeuctive branch for us to survive as a free people. Whereas he may be totally wrong on that last point the direction of power in our nation is not debatable. Pretty soon we will need the govts. permission to blow our nose. V for Vendetta baby. Of course kidding.
I think Ron Paul has about as much of a chance at becoming our next President as our next President has a chance at being honest and forthright. That's why I'll be voting for him.
I sincerely hope that you guys and girls do not determine your vote based upon coincidental agreement on a single issue professed by some fringe candidate while ignoring the rest of their silly views. Those of us who have been around for a while, have always known Ron Paul as the perennial wacky guy candidate rimrocker has unmasked today.
You haven't read many of my posts if you think that I give the Republicans a pass, here. The unfortunate fact is that BOTH parties are big spenders now; fiscal conservatism (at least at the national level) is dead. That being said, I don't think any liberal would deny that the liberal agenda includes expansion of the 'welfare state', including universal health care among other things. Sure, they might trim spending in other areas, but short of drastically cutting defense spending (which is pretty much political suicide, something that no Rep or Dem has been willing to do) then they just won't save much money elsewhere. At its core, the liberal agenda champions a larger role for our federal government in society, not unlike in many parts of Europe or Canada. That's all I am saying. We can talk all day about how the GOP has betrayed the conservative agenda (and it certainly has, beyond a shadow of doubt), and if you've been paying attention you will see that a number of conservative Republican congressmen have said as much.
I know tiger. It just irks me. When the supposedly "liberal" Bill Clinton shorts welfare and makes moves to reduce the federal defecit, only to see it once again balloon under an idiotic republican campaign of "spend on credit" I start to think that the crux of fiscal irresponsibility is firmly in the grip of republicans. It's one thing to expand spending, it's another thing entirely to expand spending without admitting it to yourself. But you are right of course, that both parties spend way more than they should. I like the libertarian-esque agenda of Ron Paul in this matter - the federal government should spend only a quarter of what it does now. IMHO.
Rejection of conspiracy theory Paul does not believe the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks were a government conspiracy and has explicitly denied being a 9/11 truther, arguing the issue is not a conspiracy but a bureaucracy.[37][38] He says detractors "try to twist what I say and turn it into that, and I think some of my supporters lean in that direction, but that's not my position."[37] Of the 9/11 Commission Report, he believes, "The main goal is to protect the government and to protect their ineptness - not... to do this so they can use this as an excuse to spread the war.... Some who did want to spread the war would use it as an opportunity. But, it wasn't something that was deliberately done."[37][40] He does not think the government would stage such an attack.[41] When asked whether "9/11 was orchestrated by the government", Paul emphasized, "Absolutely not.;[42] John Gibson of Fox News, confronted Paul about "associating" himself with Alex Jones by being interviewed on his radio program, asking "Will you say right here and now that you completely disavow the 9/11 truth movement and the whole idea that the U.S. government was in on the 9/11 attack?" Paul responded, "Yes, I do."[43] John Gibson does not accept Paul's explicit disavowel of the truth movement and continues to claim Paul believes the government staged the 9/11 attack: "9/11 truthers evidently raised millions for Ron Paul. Why doesn't he just admit that he's with them, blaming the U.S. government for the 9/11 attacks?"[44] Paul says both Jones and Gibson "try to put words in my mouth."[43] link It'a from the almighty wikipedia, I'll post as much as possible for those who don't want to click the link
