ron paul=awesome/kickass?

[Nickdfresh]

I can't answer for why other people like him, but I can for why I like him.

....

Doc, that was an excellent, well thought out response that I can respectfully disagree with. And it deserves an equally well thought out response in return, which is why I'm going to wait until I'm really pissed-drunk later to write you back.

[Nickdfresh]

Trust fund rich kids?

Based on a personal experience back in 08' with the rich owner of a previous place of employment, who inherited everything from his mommy, telling everyone they should vote for Paul....

Top contributors to Ron Paul: US Army, US Air Force, US Navy

Not even sure exactly what this link is telling me, members of the Army donated $24K? That's all?

You can look these up too on the same site, but Romney's top contributor are Goldman Sachs employees.

Obama's are Microsoft and Comcast.

I'm sure there's no trust funds involved there.

Touche!

[Nickdfresh]

BTW, nice to see you crawling back into the forum, Pink...

[Candy Girl]

Ron Paul is good on domestics; the deficit. His foreign policy leaves something to be desired, IMHO.

[FORD]

Ron Paul is good on domestics; the deficit. His foreign policy leaves something to be desired, IMHO.

I think you have that backwards. Foreign policy is where Ron Paul is mostly correct. And the best thing to do to lower the deficit is to put an end to all this imperialist world police PNAC horseshit.

[Nitro Express]

The way I see it is during World War II the US built up this huge military machine and after the war we went into the cold war which justified the big military machine. Once the iron curtain came down we didn't need the big military machine anymore so when 9/11 happened that was a perfect excuse to keep the big military machine going. What I would have done was increased border security and deported the illegal aliens. I would have increased the security on people entering this country. I would have left Iraq alone and used intelligence and special operatives to go after the real terrorists. I really don't buy the terrorism threat because the big juicy target in this country is the power grid. If you know anything about it it would take years to replace the big transformers if enough of them were damaged. So guess what you target and it could be done easy. It hasn't happened and there is zero security around the main power hubs to this date. So it's all a joke to me. Just an excuse for the military industrial complex to make more money and they seem to like to invade countries full of oil, drugs, and natural resources that are in demand (lithium).

There's nothing in these countries worth killing our kids over and don't think there won't be a draft in the future if this gets out of control and this time, the government will be drafting your daughter. Think about it.

There is no such thing as a perfect presidential candidate. Ford is right to a point regarding deregulation but we are also over regulated. Where we currently are is the big corporations can do whatever they want if they have bought off enough politicians but the smaller businesses are put out of business by the government regulatory agencies. Monopolies have taken over the government and the agencies are now their muscle that run mom and pop out of business. Obamacare will do more of this. McDonald's gets and exemption but the small mom and pop businesses will have to pay into it and it will put them out of business due to regulation.

Let's just say regulation now is not fair and is used for political and financial gain more than keeping the free market place a fair place to do business or to keep us safe.

I'm just tired of living in a country that has traded making and selling goods for war. Most the technology we develop is for the war industry and to justify that we have to find someone to use it on and it's gotten so out of hand that the government has even declared our home soil a war zone. The situation is nuts. We should be focusing on consumers goods, affordable health solutions, and exploring space and deep oceans more that the bullets, bombs, and banks program. History has always shown war based countries end up destroying themselves and the US is on the road to doing just that.

[Dr. Love]

Ron Paul is good on domestics; the deficit. His foreign policy leaves something to be desired, IMHO.

I think you have that backwards. Foreign policy is where Ron Paul is mostly correct. And the best thing to do to lower the deficit is to put an end to all this imperialist world police PNAC horseshit.

This is why I think RP can make some traction. He can make coalitions with both sides to get things done, depending on the issue.

[lesfunk]

Im With you Dr. Love. Ron Paul is my man. At least he's not a Muslim...

[lesfunk]

... like Mitt Romney

[Pink Spider]

Not even sure exactly what this link is telling me, members of the Army donated $24K? That's all?

If you combine all branches of active military that donated, it's a decent number. Not as much as Romney's contributions from Goldman Sachs for obvious reasons, but far more than any other candidate recieved from members of the military. We've come a long way, that the most staunch supporters of an anti-war candidate are actually in the military!

It's kind of funny and sad that all of these Republican candidates that are so gung ho and claim to support the military the loudest aren't getting that same support by the numbers, yet they want to send these guys to Iran as soon as they can.

[Pink Spider]

The latest in Ron Paul media censorship:



Ron Paul came in second place with 14%.

[sadaist]

Yesterday (Saturday Jan 7) at a main intersection here in Temecula, CA there were about 5-6 adults holding various Ron Paul signs. they were getting some cheers & honks. It stood out because this isn't a very politically active area for that type of stuff.

[knuckleboner]

Yep. That's what it comes down to for me.

If you like the direction this country is going in,
If you like having your freedoms taken away,
If you like Americans being assassinated by their own government,
If you want your own government to be able to hold you indefinitely,
If you want your own government to be able to spy on you,
If you want your government to give your money to the banks,
If you want your government to go to war after war after war,
If you want the 1% to continue to do whatever they want with your money,
If you want everything that is wrong with the direction of this country to continue...

Then yeah, vote for Romney. Vote for Obama. Vote for Perry. Vote for Santorum. Vote for Gingrich. They are all offering you the same thing.

If you want someone that won't be bought and paid for, someone that you know what they believe in, someone that will absolutely stand up and change the direction of this country, then vote for Paul.

i understand and respect your concerns on most of that. but with paul's economic agenda - as sincere as i believe he his - the direction of the country will certainly not improve. under ron paul's plan, the invisible hand may eventually right the economy, but whatever short-term pain and chaos ensues, he's ok with, in the name of liberty.

take giving money to banks. yep, universal hatred. TARP is a toxic word. republicans who voted for it are just as likely to lose in a primary because of it. yet most economists say that TARP was actually one of the better things the government did. perfect? no. but the for whatever reason, the financial sector was heading into a severe tailspin. a few too many failing banks, especially the big ones, and the subsequent run on banks that would occur would have been devastating for millions.

but what would ron paul's solution have been? he'd have gotten rid of all regulations, in the name of liberty, and allowed the banks to make whatever risky moves they wanted to make, assuming that those the market will reward those that succeed and cast aside those that failed. then, when they start failing, the market will simply eventually sort things out. if grandma and grandpa lose their entire savings, then they'll learn to chose more wisely the next time.*

(*which may or may not have been a thinly veiled rand paul reference...)

[Seshmeister]

Do you really want to make someone president who runs out a room just because someone's pants have fallen down?

[Dr. Love]

i understand and respect your concerns on most of that. but with paul's economic agenda - as sincere as i believe he his - the direction of the country will certainly not improve. under ron paul's plan, the invisible hand may eventually right the economy, but whatever short-term pain and chaos ensues, he's ok with, in the name of liberty.

take giving money to banks. yep, universal hatred. TARP is a toxic word. republicans who voted for it are just as likely to lose in a primary because of it. yet most economists say that TARP was actually one of the better things the government did. perfect? no. but the for whatever reason, the financial sector was heading into a severe tailspin. a few too many failing banks, especially the big ones, and the subsequent run on banks that would occur would have been devastating for millions.

but what would ron paul's solution have been? he'd have gotten rid of all regulations, in the name of liberty, and allowed the banks to make whatever risky moves they wanted to make, assuming that those the market will reward those that succeed and cast aside those that failed. then, when they start failing, the market will simply eventually sort things out. if grandma and grandpa lose their entire savings, then they'll learn to chose more wisely the next time.*

(*which may or may not have been a thinly veiled rand paul reference...)

The regulations are the one area that I disagree with him on, but I have no illusions that he could get his vision through without a lot of temperance, even in the areas where he can act unilaterally.