Ron Paul in 2008!

[InfamousOne]

This should just be an indicator of what "we the people" can do in politics when we put ourselves to it, despite what the fedgov and media portray. It's especially interesting considering he gets next to no mainstream media coverage.

 

[LittleRebel]

The closer we get to elections the more candidates will start digging up "dirt" on each other. I wonder if they will try that sh*t with Dr. Paul....I know someone already tried but really, how deep can they possibly dig? And what will they find, Ron Paul got some traffic violations? - like none of us never had any tickets. Ron Paul bought a hooker? Doubtfully but even if he did, I'm sure 3/4 of congress or even the republican candidates have done that. After all, most politicians suck the corporate **** every day of the week! How is that "OK"? Anyway, when he starts gaining momentum closer to the election, I'm waiting for someone to start with "He did this and he did that".

 

[hedgehog]

Republican Fox news debate tonight. Every time they asked Ron Paul a question about some of his positions, one of the moderators in the background would giggle into the microphone. (To imply he was a nut job) Very unprofessional, but expected from neo-con fox news. Dont forget to text vote.

 

[jared]

I noticed that very conspicuous laughter as well but did not know if it came from another candidate or the moderators. Either way it was clearly inappropriate and unprofessional. I thought Paul handled himself very well in the debate and the crowd responded to it. Also, he seemed to be more actively engaged by the moderators in this debate as opposed to ones in the past.

 

[Tom Iron]

Gentlemen,

I've seen Ron Paul and I like him, but he hasn't any realistic chance. If he did, he'd meet with some unforseen accident and that'd be the end of him.What he's saying is way over the heads of the general public. The only future for White people in this country has to do with keeping their powder dry and nothing to do with ballot boxes.

Tom Iron...

 

[guest301]

I noticed that very conspicuous laughter as well but did not know if it came from another candidate or the moderators. Either way it was clearly inappropriate and unprofessional. I thought Paul handled himself very well in the debate and the crowd responded to it. Also, he seemed to be more actively engaged by the moderators in this debate as opposed to ones in the past.

I had the impression that the chuckle came by one of the nearby candidates and not the FOX News moderators. Huckabee and my guy Tancredo were the closest candidates to Paul.

 

[InfamousOne]

It was ghouliani and romney laughing. How "presidential" of them, eh?

First they ignore you (already happened), then they ridicule you (current phase), then they fight you (primaries), then you win.

I will be there to vote in the primaries for who I believe should be the president of the USA.

 

[InfamousOne]

Take a look at this inane piece of drivel. Did these people watch the same debate I did? No mention of Ron Paul winning the debate (again) from FOX's own poll.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20614865/site/newsweek/

The comments on "Romney wanting to attack Paul" are priceless. Romney will do no such thing. He has seen how Paul killed Giuliani and Huckabee in debate.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

I like Romney b/c he has a true chance of winning, unlike Paul, and he is a true conservative unlike Gulianni. Romney is also Mormon and I have always thought of Mormons as morally conservative people with their heart in the right place. Maybe I'm generalizing, but I've always loved Utah. I also love how Mormons have to go on a charity mission to graduate in the church.

Gulianni is "very" pro-choice. He is even against parental consent laws and outlawing late abortions I think. He is for gay marriage also. Romney is a true conservative, but he will do what's right unlike Bush has done at times. I don't think Romney would have sent us into Iraq for instance and he would be better on the environment IMO. Here's my plug...vote Romney in '08, second choice McCain.Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[White Shogun]

ToughJ... will you please define what you mean by 'real conservative?' Please? Romney is as plastic and pliable as they come.

I can't even believe you'd consider voting for McCain, either. Have you ever heard of the McCain-Feingold bill? Were you following the amnesty issue the past few months at all?? McCain co-sponsored that bill with Ted 'frickin Kennedy of all people.

You're not really considering voting for Romney because you like Mormons and think Utah is a great place to live, are you? Not really, right? Please say no. Please.

Paul has no chance of winning because people like you think he has no chance of winning, so you vote for somebody else. If everybody who thought he couldn't win would vote for him, it'd be a landslide.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

I happen to think the campaign finance reform bill was a good intention, but it just hasn't worked. It takes away the ability of corporations to give large donations. Those donations were used in "pay to play" to get policies passed that they wanted ie. special interests. Unfortunately it has also banned some religious groups from donating which I don't think should be a part of the law. The law hasn't worked out like it should and rich bastards like George Soros who support partial birth abortion can donate unregulated amounts on their own. And the law about web adds and donations and such is unclear.

As far as the amnesty bill I agree it was horrible, but what are we going to do with over 15 million illegals? We can't round them all up like cowboys and send them back can we? Maybe it was actually the best solution. What we need to do is finish the wall along the Mexican border and only allow a very limited number of immigrants in from then on who pass INS approval.

All immigration should be banned from then on, except limited immigration from Canada, Mexico and European countries that are our friends. We could make rare exceptions for brilliant people. I worry about Asylum laws b/c illegals from the Middle East who may be terrorists can lie about this. Any illegal charged with a felony should have to be reported to ICE and then deported. The shootings in Newark were just a horrible crime that didn't have to happen.

 

[White Shogun]

The idea behind McCain-Feingold was to prevent organizations like the NRA and other PACS from influencing the vote before an election. It placed limits on political speech, which is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment.

And yes, we can round them all up and deport them. Not necessarily at once, but over time. It wouldn't take that long if we had the stomach for it, either. But of course, a moratorium on immigration, legal and illegal, would be the first step.

You didn't explain what you meant by a 'true conservative,' either.

 

[PitBull]

You can deport them. How about this--deport 200 a day (four school
busloads) from each state each day. That's 3.5 million a year. Just think, a
class trip to Six Flags from each state each day, and in 4 years, you're
finished with the problem. Actually, once you started deporting, many
would leave voluntarily. They came here in dribs and drabs, and they can e
deported in dribs and drabs. All it takes is the will to do it.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

The only real Conservative in the race is Ron Paul, with Tom Tancredo getting a maybe. Romney is as fake as most (not all) mormons I have met are, and like them, he cannot be a true Conservative. I wouldn't trust Romney, Guiliani, or McCain as far as I could throw them. I don't think Thompson is any better, but I don't know as much about his politics. Edited by: Colonel_Reb

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

When I say a true conservative to me it is someone who is morally conservative. I am actually a moderate as far as economic policy. I happen to think that there should be more tax brackets created in the U.S so we can raise taxes to take care of the deficit without hurting small businesses. $250,000 is too low for the top bracket.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Here's what I propose: Five more brackets. A $500,000 dollar bracket that has a 2% higher tax rate. A person can give charitable donations to lower their taxable income to get under the bracket. A $750,000 bracket w/ a 2% higher rate same rules. A 1 million bracket w/ a 2% higher rate same rules, a 1.5 million bracket w/ a 3% higher rate same rules and a 2.5 million bracket w/ a 3% higher rate of course same rules...this is getting a little redundant.

There may not be many in these brackets, but at those salaries they can certainly afford to pay a little more. And every bit helps when you're talking about over a trillion dollar deficit.Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[White Shogun]

I happen to think that there should be more tax brackets created in the U.S so we can raise taxes to take care of the deficit without hurting small businesses.

Well, if I wasn't convinced before, I can see now for sure that you and I are diametrically opposed in our worldview. I would imagine that you are also for gun control and restrictions on the 2nd Amendment? More government authority to make arrests and seize property without warrant? Telephonic eavesdropping for our 'safety?'

And why do you post back to back posts that on the same thoughts? I see that you use the Edit feature already..

Edited by: White Shogun

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

And by the way White Shogun I use the edit feature b/c I have a problem with reading. I have an auditory processing problem which I have mentioned before on this board and don't want to sound uneducated in my posts. So I don't appreciate your lack of graciousness, but I didn't use the edit feature this time.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

I'll answer some more questions for you fine. I believe that current U.S gun policy in most states is the worst policy possible b/c you can't take a middle ground on gun control. The criminals can still easily get guns illegally right now. If we allowed people to carry weapons everywhere non concealed, like I believe they do in Arizona, people would be too afraid to rob a store for fear of getting shot by someone in self defense.

The other route would be banning guns for everyone except police, military etc. We would have to repeal the 2nd Amendment for this. The law would allow rentals of guns for hunting trips or firing ranges in rural areas from government sponsored stores. There would have to be an extensive government computer registry. Anyone who was found to have a gun in an urban area or in any violation would be arrested right away. BTW, owning a gun in your house makes it 21 times more likely to have an unfortunate shooting then to defend yourself I believe the statistic was. People have even accidentally shot a relative thinking it's a robber. So let the real professionals, the cops, handle it.

My uncle who is opposed to gun control's argument is that one of Hitler's first moves when rising to power was to pass heavy gun control laws. However, we have checks and balances in this country to prevent tyrannical dictators from rising to power. The only way a dictator would take power is through military Coup which citizens with guns couldn't stop anyway. I would be in favour of the second choice if it were plausible, but I believe it would be too costly tax wise to implement. Also repealing the 2nd Amendment would never get enough votes anyway, so I would stick with very little gun control and allowing basic handguns to be carried unconcealed everywhere in the country. Under this second choice rifles could also be owned but no Assault Rifles or automatics.

As to your other questions, I am in favour of the Patriot Act as long as it is not abused and only used against terrorists. I don't have a problem with the government listening into phone calls to catch terrorists only. I believe we can sacrifice a little liberty for (a lot of) security, I think Benjamin Franklin was wrong. Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[jared]

My uncle who is opposed to gun control's argument is that one of Hitler's first moves when rising to power was to pass heavy gun control laws. However, we have checks and balances in this country to prevent tyrannical dictators from rising to power. The only way a dictator would take power is through military Coup which citizens with guns couldn't stop anyway.

I agree that we have checks and balances that should prevent such a thing. However, removing firearms from private citizens is just one less balance in our (the people's) favor. Unlawful wiretapping/home searches, ignoring due process, and stepping outside of the Constitutionally granted authority of the executive branch have been the hallmarks of this administration. Eroding liberty and ignoring a check or balance here is just one more step toward 1984.
By American standards, I would consider a president who ignores the Constitution, ignores the advice of his generals, ignores the voice of the international community and charges hundreds of thousands of men and women to risk their lives in an unlawful war (one in which our Vice President made millions of dollars) to be a borderline dictator. This administration has done enough to damage American democracy. I'm not willing to make any more concessions in the name of "security".
I for one feel less safe now.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

I agree with you on the Iraq war that's for sure. I have never mentioned my position on this issue so here it goes:

Sadamm should have been taken out of power in the Gulf War. Back then we had the rest of the world behind us including the Arabs who felt sympathy for Kuwait. George W just wanted to finish his father's job. Also note that Sadamm tried to have his father assassinated and George W wanted revenge. Sadamm's power was limited to central Iraq and the no fly zones were working for the most part despite what people say.

Basically, this Iraq war was a preemptive strike. It was very foolish to think that we could quickly build democracy in an area of the world that hasn't had it and get out fast. We leave now and there will undoubtedly be civil war between Sunni's and Shia who have a disdain for each other in Iraq. I believe if we left now Iraq would soon become a Shiite theocracy like Iran which is much more dangerous than Sadamm's regime to us. Sadamm was actually the biggest peace keeper in the region ironically.

Say what people will about Sadamm formerly having WMD's (the whole nuke thing was a big lie and he probably sold his other weapons to Syria IMO or he would have had proof of destroying them). I don't doubt also that guys like Cheney saw Iraq as a promising new oil partner ($) after Sadamm would be ousted.

Lastly, George W. has no clue about negotiating with Arabs. Arab culture firmly believes in bargaining and so do their leaders. Sadamm may not have been willing to make concessions to Bush at first, but if a diplomat came several times to have tea and discuss things IMO he definitely would have made some concessions. I am also a big environmentalist b/c I love animals and camping and Bush is atrocious in this regard.

Surly Romney is better than Bush and certainly better than Hilary or Obama. Romney to me is my favourite candidate that can win.

 

[White Shogun]

And by the way White Shogun I use the edit feature b/c I have a problem with reading. I have an auditory processing problem which I have mentioned before on this board and don't want to sound uneducated in my posts. So I don't appreciate your lack of graciousness, but I didn't use the edit feature this time.

I am honestly not trying to be a wise-ass, but I'm not sure I understand how having an auditory (hearing) problem causes a problem with reading? I am interested enough to Google it for myself though, so don't feel that you have to reply.

UPDATE: Thanks for sharing your condition (again), TJ. I Googled it and learned a lot about the link between reading and auditory perception. Made sense once I started reading about it.

Edited by: White Shogun

 

[DixieDestroyer]

Ron Paul is Founding Father material and HANDS DOWN the best candidate (bar none). Tancredo is great on the illegal invasion, but embraces the NeoCON view on the bogus "War on Terror". Duncan Hunter embraces many paleo-Conservative, pro-Constitutional positions, but also embraces the hawkish/Empire building/Globalist mandated NeoCON pro-war position. Ron Paul is the only choice in my humble opinion!

 

[Baseball Fan]

Ron Paul is the only choice! Tancredo and Hunter are shills to confuse people. They probably take AIPAC money. If Tancredo or Hunter were serious on Immigration wouldn't they call for the Repeal of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act? Paul doesn't call for this either but he calls for the end of the Federal Reserve, end Israeli lobbying influence and has shown specific plans to deal with Immigration. Not just rhetoric.

All mainstream canadiates that can win are unlikable and through previous actions have shown they will burn in hell for all time. They will never get my vote, I'll write in my dog's name before I'll vote for Romney or any other approved candidate.

 

[hedgehog]

Ron Paul has a "surge" going to collect campaign donations before 3rd quarter closes on Sep 30th. (He is trying to round up an extra half million in 5 days.) This is typically when the herd starts to thin with candidates. Historically candidates need to start showing money at this point or drop out. On his website he has a thermometer measuring donations along with a countdown to the Sep 30th deadline. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/