The Ron Paul Thread

Over 18 ONLY! For grown-ups. . .

Moderators: Sluggo, Amskeptic

Post Reply
User avatar
Velokid1
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

The Ron Paul Thread

Post by Velokid1 » Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:49 am

Bash him, trash him, or send all your cash-to-him... whatever you want. This here be the Ron Paul thread.

I can't believe IAC doesn't have one already, with all you wacky Libertarian types running around here with your pants off.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21484526/

If media muscle is any measure of a candidate, Representative Ron Paul of Texas is getting ready to flex his.

In the last two weeks, Mr. Paul — a Republican presidential candidate — has spent nearly a half-million dollars on radio advertisements in four early primary states, the first major media investment of his campaign. On Tuesday night, he will take a seat opposite Jay Leno.

And on Monday, a campaign spokesman said, he will roll out his first major television advertising campaign, spending $1.1 million on five new commercials to be shown in the New Hampshire market for the next six weeks. (In contrast, Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and a rival for the Republican nomination, has yet to commit to any spending for television advertisements.)
Story continues below ↓advertisement

Mr. Paul’s commercials are intended to introduce him to voters in New Hampshire, where independents can vote in either primary and where a libertarian streak could give Mr. Paul a chance to translate his quirky popularity into votes.

After raising a surprising $5 million in the third quarter, Mr. Paul has found himself with a significant pile of cash; he has $5.4 million on hand.

His campaign says it is just the beginning: it has set fund-raising goals of $3 million in October, $4 million in November and $5 million in December, marks campaign managers say are within reach. In two days last week, Mr. Paul raised $438,000.

'It's time to spend it'
Mr. Paul places no restrictions on who can donate to his campaign, but most of his money comes through the Internet. His campaign said 78 percent of the $5 million in contributions from the third quarter was collected online.

“It’s time to spend it,” said Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Mr. Paul.

It is a decidedly traditional strategy for a campaign that has been run largely by an army of enthusiastic volunteers (Mr. Paul’s circle of paid staff members has been small, but will grow, he said), and fervent supporters on the Internet, who have promoted their candidate on blogs and other online forums.

More from NYTimes.com
Click links below:

Gay rights groups criticizes Obama
Giuliani questioned on torture
McCain reflects on POW past, goes after Clinton
External links

Mr. Benton said the television campaign would be geared toward introducing Mr. Paul to a greater audience — not to attacking fellow Republicans.

In the first commercial, shot last week in New Hampshire, voters present some of the themes of Mr. Paul’s candidacy, including his opposition to the Iraq war and his past as a doctor in a small Texas town.

Mr. Paul, 72, may speak like an outsider but he has represented conservative Republican districts in Texas for 10 terms, and he was the Libertarian candidate for president in 1988. Still, in the Republican debates, he has stood out with his emphatic antiwar, low-tax, anti-immigration, small-government views — the kind of positions that could appeal to people in a state like New Hampshire, where independent voters make up 45 percent of the electorate. Dante J. Scala, an associate professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire, said that if the advertisement campaign was effective, it could convince more independents, libertarians and even moderate Republicans to vote for Mr. Paul. According to a recent Marist College poll, about 15 percent of likely Republican voters in the state were undecided.

A poll released Thursday by the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College in Manchester, put Mr. Paul in fourth place in New Hampshire with 7 percent of the vote, behind Senator John McCain of Arizona (15 percent), Mr. Giuliani (22 percent) and Mitt Romney (32 percent), the former governor of Massachusetts.

“It’s striking to me that he’s at 7 percent without running a single TV ad in New Hampshire,” Mr. Scala said. “If he starts to attract significant support among independents, then he could start to hurt Giuliani or McCain.”

'Fly in the ointment'
Mr. Paul’s Republican rivals may already be taking notice of his newfound purchasing power. During the Oct. 21 Republican debate in Florida, the other candidates treated him more gently than in previous debates, like the one in May when Mr. Giuliani admonished him for suggesting that the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, were spurred by American policies in the Middle East.

Nick Gillespie, the editor in chief of Reason, the monthly libertarian magazine, called Mr. Paul “a fly in the ointment” in the Republican race.

“Just by being out there and pushing a strict constitutional line, I think he’s making them sweat a lot,” Mr. Gillespie said. “He’s highlighting the fact that they will say anything to get elected. Or at least to get through the primary.”


Message board
What do you think of Paul's candidacy?
But even as Mr. Paul tries to push into the mainstream, he brings with him an assortment of supporters — Libertarians, independents, socially conservative Democrats, and, less desirable for the campaign, white supremacists and 9/11 conspiracy theorists — who have their own ideas about what his message should be and how he should project it.

Many have been active on the Internet, voicing their thoughts about free markets, the war, taxes and which of those issues they want him to emphasize. Some of his supporters were banned this week by RedState.com, a popular Web site for conservative commentary, from posting comments about Mr. Paul, on the argument that they were liberals masquerading as conservatives.

In an interview as he drove from Washington to his home in Virginia last week — fresh from filming television advertisements that morning — Mr. Paul said his supporters were “making signs and meeting and writing and waving signs and doing all these things.”

“Sometimes we sit around and figure out, ‘I wonder how much value there is from that?’ ” Mr. Paul said.

“They’re totally out of our control,” he added.

User avatar
Quadratrückseite
IAC's #1 Cubs Fan
IAC's #1 Cubs Fan
Location: Fremont, IN
Contact:
Status: Offline

Post by Quadratrückseite » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:05 am

Like him or hate him, the dude gets unfairly bashed because he's "a little out there/against the normal/wacky," kind of like how an isolated sound byte cost Howard Dean....

Check out the sly little remarks in the column Velokid posted (and welcome back BTW!):

and where a libertarian streak could give Mr. Paul a chance to translate his quirky popularity into votes.

After raising a surprising $5 million in the third quarter

But even as Mr. Paul tries to push into the mainstream, he brings with him an assortment of supporters — Libertarians, independents, socially conservative Democrats, and, less desirable for the campaign, white supremacists and 9/11 conspiracy theorists — who have their own ideas about what his message should be and how he should project it.
- this one is the one that cracks me up.
A sly association with "white supremacists and 9/11 conspiracy theorists," - are they trying to imply that these groups would only support Ron Paul? I'm sure there aren't any Democrat or Republican white supremacist or 9/11 conspiracy members...

I'm not sure if I even totally support the guy - I haven't done enough research on him yet. I do like some of the things he says though. At least he isn't mimicing whatever talking points either political party is stuck on right now, convincing you the American people, that these are the issues you need to be concerned about. Give me a break. I've worked around sales people for too long - it's all a bunch of BS. I fully expect the candidates to start talking about their stands on MRSA soon...

I do believe it's time for a change, and I'll vote for the candidate I best believe can effect change.
"The bus is the real talisman. It's the thing that runs through all of this history. It's not a thing anybody owns or controls. No matter how peeved you get with people, the bus always makes your heart jump. Everybody was attached to it."
- Ken Kesey

Steve
1978 Country Homes Camper conversion - "Gus"

http://gusthevwbus.com
http://freshandmodern.com/blog

User avatar
Velokid1
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Post by Velokid1 » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:57 am

I found an interesting BLOG this morning concerning how "wacky" Ron Paul really ISN'T. Goes along with what you're saying, Q. I'll try to find it.

I do think that many people make the mistake of looking at a Presidential candidate's views and thinking in very literal terms, i.e. "He wants to go to the gold standard, so we'll be going to the gold standard if he's elected." We all know that isn't how things shake down.

No president just barges in and magically imposes his desires on everyone around him and gets them enacted into law instantly. The one exception is, of course, George W. Bush, who has no shame at all and thus could blatantly break laws, steal and send people to their deaths to make his personal desires law. And even then, it took him more than one term to do it.

The thing to note there regarding Ron Paul... he has always acted based on his guiding principles and has never taken a taxpayer-funded junket, never voted to increase the power of the Executive branch, never took part in the (very lucrative) congressional pension program. He puts his MONEY where his mouth is. So while he is anti-abortion on a personal level, he has shown over more than a decade that he does not believe in imposing his personal views on individuals.

He is the only candidate who I see voluntarily giving back the executive powers that the Bush Administration has stolen from us.

Right or wrong (and I think 80% of it is right), this is a man who is guided by principle and is not swayed by the established powers-that-be. I don't see another candidate who can lay his/her track record out in the daylight and claim that same thing. They are all playing the game... and for that I am hugely disappointed in Obama, while not surprised at all in the case of Hillary.

Every single one of us, including me, fall victim to that little bit of panic and fear that pops up when you hear someone like RP talk and you consider the prospect of true change. We say we want change and I believe almost all of us do, but still, change and the unknown... that's scary stuff. And that fear is something each person needs to sit with.

I've reconciled mine for the most part. Ron Paul is the only candidate I see making any true change and I'm ready to embark on the journey (back) to the unknown (which is really only unknown to those alive today).

User avatar
vwlover77
IAC Addict!
Location: North Canton, Ohio
Status: Offline

Post by vwlover77 » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:58 am

I visited his web site a while back, and could find nothing regarding the environment or climate change. I would have to know where he stands on those issues before I could support him.
Don

---------------------------
78 Westy
71 Super Beetle Convertible Autostick

"When we let our compassion go, we let go of whatever claim we have to the divine." - Bruce Springsteen

User avatar
Velokid1
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Post by Velokid1 » Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:09 am

vwlover77 wrote:I visited his web site a while back, and could find nothing regarding the environment or climate change. I would have to know where he stands on those issues before I could support him.
That's a good point. My primary problem with him is that he doesn't really address health care, so I understand where you're coming from.

But what it boils down to for me is that I don't necessarily need to know where he personally stands on health care when I know that he stands wherever WE stand. He is all for The People choosing which direction their country moves in.

I mean, hell- can I get a halleluja on that one?!? A politician who remembers at all times that his/her job is to serve the people?

What a refreshing thought.




*in contrast, yesterday I got a reply back from Rick Renzi, the Arizona Rep, in response to an email I sent about drilling for oil in Alaska. His argument? "I am for drilling because I visited Kanuckuchuk, Alaska a couple years ago and the local community leaders there told me they welcomed the influx of jobs and money."

I wrote back and let him know exactly how I feel about that. Not that he'll listen. But are you kidding me?

A. His job isn't to act on the wishes of people from another state! It's to act on the wishes of HIS CONSTITUENTS! In Arizona, dammit!

B. He was surprised that the people who stand to gain financially from drilling in Alaska are pro-drilling?!? You must be joking. How on Earth did you get elected, you moron?

You had to travel to Alaska to figure out that the rich love to get richer? Shit, I knew that when I was 14 years old listening to Bob Dylan records in the garage.

User avatar
Velokid1
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Post by Velokid1 » Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:17 am

Excellent interview with Ron Paul on the Environment, from internet environmental magazine, The Grist:

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/

Ron Paul On the Environment:

http://greenpieceblog.blogspot.com/2007 ... tal-q.html

Ron Paul On the Issues:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

User avatar
Velokid1
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Post by Velokid1 » Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:30 am

This to me seems very important, regarding the people who are overwhelmed with the originality/"wackiness" of some of RP's beliefs:

Q: Would you dissolve the EPA?

A: It's not high on my agenda. I'm trying to stop the war and bring back a sound economy, and solve the financial crisis and balance the budget.

User avatar
Velokid1
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Post by Velokid1 » Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:36 pm

Great bio video on RP from YouTube... nice snapshot for those who haven't heard of him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Post by Amskeptic » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:39 pm

Velokid1 wrote:
They are all playing the game... and for that I am hugely disappointed in Obama, while not surprised at all in the case of Hillary.
Try to show some generosity towards these people. Look at their entire histories. Ron Paul (and Al Gore) can afford to be more principled because their circumstances warrant it. Al made a choice to stay clear of having to dissemble. Ron Paul doesn't yet smell the nearness of a nomination where he would be beset by the flies and bugs of special interests clamoring for his attention and dividing his principles every which way, "but you said last week to so-and-so blahblahblah, so why are you telling me blahblahblah now."

If you look at Hillary as the college student all the way to her current status as a potential front-runner, there is much to admire. Yes, she has had a microphone stuck in her face for years and there are many who hate her for idiotic reasons, so she has sounded too measured and she has made mistakes hell yes, but look at how she has comported herself! With dignity! And intelligence! And she is indeed familiar with and plugged in to many many people in the corridors of power. Read her policy statements and anecdotes. Look at her imperfect marriage, it is real, it is NOT some stupid candy-ass photo-op. She is a wonk! She loves this stuff! So does her husband. What the hell. What a magnificent send-up to see Bill come back to the White House as a First Gentleman or whatever, she is more than competent enough to uphold the values this country holds dear. I cannot imagine a better Fuck-You With Fuck Off Benefits to dear old George W than to see Hillary and Bill move back into the White House.

Hillary has shown, by her very continued political survival itself, that she is a very quick study and very adaptable and extremely tough, not bad qualities to have right now. We The People do need to show her and the Democrats and the Republicans that we have had enough of the horrendous arrogance and stupid games. It will take something more concerted to break the money game. We can do it. They can't. They are in it too deep. We have to do it. Us citizens.

Yes, Ron Paul indeed may be a salve to bruised classical Republicans, but the party needs a time-out to regroup.
Colin
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

User avatar
Quadratrückseite
IAC's #1 Cubs Fan
IAC's #1 Cubs Fan
Location: Fremont, IN
Contact:
Status: Offline

Post by Quadratrückseite » Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:33 am

There is also much to disapprove of in her past. To me, she is an opportunist who stayed married to her cheating husband because of where it could take her politically. I'll admit, she and her husband are capable of running a brilliant political machine, and have done so for years. She won the New York senate seat and hadn't ever lived there, for example! Let's not forget that she voted for all of the things which everyone now looks down upon with disdain (Patriot Act, Iraq War). I think people tend to look at the Clinton years with rose colored glasses, forgeting all of the scandal associated with that presidency, due to the ineptness of the current administration. It's time for someone else to be President, someone without the last name of Bush or Clinton.
"The bus is the real talisman. It's the thing that runs through all of this history. It's not a thing anybody owns or controls. No matter how peeved you get with people, the bus always makes your heart jump. Everybody was attached to it."
- Ken Kesey

Steve
1978 Country Homes Camper conversion - "Gus"

http://gusthevwbus.com
http://freshandmodern.com/blog

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Post by Amskeptic » Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:59 am

Quadratrückseite wrote: There is also much to disapprove of in her past. To me, she is an opportunist who stayed married to her cheating husband because of where it could take her politically.
That is a classic hair salon gossip take on her marriage. But look again.
They actually do like each other. They raised a competent kid. She has talked honestly about the Lewinsky affair. Look at the utter hypocrisy of the Republicans who have judged the Clintons so harshly. I say that not as a tit-for-tat slam against the Craigs/Reeds/Livingstons/Hydes/Foleys/Gringrichs/Hasterts/Delays/ of the world, but as a warning to mind your own damn business when it comes to personal lives. We do not need to know nothing but that Clinton was a damn good president held in very high esteem in the world and by our own marginalized citizens, why do you suppose that is?
Quadratrückseite wrote: I'll admit, she and her husband are capable of running a brilliant political machine, and have done so for years. She won the New York senate seat and hadn't ever lived there, for example!


And note that she won over the upstate redneck constituency with hard work and real interest and follow-through.
Quadratrückseite wrote: Let's not forget that she voted for all of the things which everyone now looks down upon with disdain (Patriot Act, Iraq War).
So, you will not vote for her because she did, but you would vote for McCain because he did? I am pissed at her hair-splitting pragmatism, but if you judge her for her voting record, you must judge all who voted that way. I am pissed at all who voted that way. I sure as shit didn't. I took a lot of crap for years from people who thought I was not "patriotic". I am not in a tit-for-tat mood. I do not want to yes/no people based on that past. I want to vote for whoever has the best grasp of our current issues. I am not by the way all that happy with any of our candidates. But I am less happy with the stupidity and mindless juvenile wanking of our national dialogue when it comes to our current crop of candidates versus the work we need to do. Who gives a damn if Obama did not wear an American flag lapel? Who cares if Frd Thompson drove a pick-up only while he was running for senate seat? Who the fuck cares? We have work to do.
Quadratrückseite wrote: I think people tend to look at the Clinton years with rose colored glasses, forgetting all of the scandal associated with that presidency.
I like to think I was more informed than to diminish his presidency based on "associations" and private blow-jobs. I admired his appointments. Do you know the people he appointed to career positions? It was not a bunch of insider twits from Texas that's for damn sure. I admired his world view, his principles, and screw the rose-colored glasses, we had a fucking surplus and Americorps. He was dragged down by small-minded judgmental assholes.
ColinThat'sWhat I Think

:bs:
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

User avatar
chitwnvw
Resident Troublemaker
Location: Chicago.
Status: Offline

Post by chitwnvw » Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:18 am

Amskeptic wrote:What a magnificent send-up to see Bill come back to the White House as a First Gentleman or whatever...
Colin
I hadn't thought of that, but it's the perfect rebuttal to the Republicans putting another Bush in the White House.

Doesn't anyone else think it was kind of cool that Bill Clinton ran the White House like his own personal Playboy Mansion. I mean he was the most powerful man in the world. I don't know if it's my dream, but isn't it a pretty cool dream nonetheless, to have a nubile, young, very-willing intern under your desk, while you are on the phone with the worlds makers and shakers! Sure beats my job. As for Hillary, I heard her reaction to the whole mess was more of embarrassment than a jilted lover. I think she knows who Bill is, including his dire need to be loved by just about everyone. And if she's cool with that, so am I.

User avatar
Quadratrückseite
IAC's #1 Cubs Fan
IAC's #1 Cubs Fan
Location: Fremont, IN
Contact:
Status: Offline

Post by Quadratrückseite » Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:51 am

Amskeptic wrote:
Quadratrückseite wrote: There is also much to disapprove of in her past. To me, she is an opportunist who stayed married to her cheating husband because of where it could take her politically.
That is a classic hair salon gossip take on her marriage. But look again.
They actually do like each other. They raised a competent kid. She has talked honestly about the Lewinsky affair. Look at the utter hypocrisy of the Republicans who have judged the Clintons so harshly. I say that not as a tit-for-tat slam against the Craigs/Reeds/Livingstons/Hydes/Foleys/Gringrichs/Hasterts/Delays/ of the world, but as a warning to mind your own damn business when it comes to personal lives. We do not need to know nothing but that Clinton was a damn good president held in very high esteem in the world and by our own marginalized citizens, why do you suppose that is?
Quadratrückseite wrote: I'll admit, she and her husband are capable of running a brilliant political machine, and have done so for years. She won the New York senate seat and hadn't ever lived there, for example!


And note that she won over the upstate redneck constituency with hard work and real interest and follow-through.
Quadratrückseite wrote: Let's not forget that she voted for all of the things which everyone now looks down upon with disdain (Patriot Act, Iraq War).
So, you will not vote for her because she did, but you would vote for McCain because he did? I am pissed at her hair-splitting pragmatism, but if you judge her for her voting record, you must judge all who voted that way. I am pissed at all who voted that way. I sure as shit didn't. I took a lot of crap for years from people who thought I was not "patriotic". I am not in a tit-for-tat mood. I do not want to yes/no people based on that past. I want to vote for whoever has the best grasp of our current issues. I am not by the way all that happy with any of our candidates. But I am less happy with the stupidity and mindless juvenile wanking of our national dialogue when it comes to our current crop of candidates versus the work we need to do. Who gives a damn if Obama did not wear an American flag lapel? Who cares if Frd Thompson drove a pick-up only while he was running for senate seat? Who the fuck cares? We have work to do.
Quadratrückseite wrote: I think people tend to look at the Clinton years with rose colored glasses, forgetting all of the scandal associated with that presidency.
I like to think I was more informed than to diminish his presidency based on "associations" and private blow-jobs. I admired his appointments. Do you know the people he appointed to career positions? It was not a bunch of insider twits from Texas that's for damn sure. I admired his world view, his principles, and screw the rose-colored glasses, we had a fucking surplus and Americorps. He was dragged down by small-minded judgmental assholes.
ColinThat'sWhat I Think

:bs:
The man was impeached, not for a blow job, but for lying to a grand jury during the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. That's a little more than just a simple blow job. I suppose if your ideal leader uses state troopers as pimps, then Bill Clinton was a great leader. I tend to hold my elected officials to a higher ideal. Naive of me, true, because they always seem to disappoint me. Bill lost me when he told me, and everyone else, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." I wanted to believe him - I did. His blow jobs and numerous sexual affairs are his own, and not our business, true. Perhaps it hit me a little close to home, because my step-father, a supposed pillar of the community/Boy Scout leader/Rotary member/Postmaster/etc. had an affair and cheated on my mother. Then went through counseling, and made a promise to my sister and I that he was back, committed to my mom, they work it out, blah, blah, blah. Six months later he admitted he'd never stopped the affair, and they were divorced. Now, should I look up to the leader of my country, and say "That's ok Bill, you can cheat all you want, as long as the economy is good. Say kids, there's a fella to look up to!" Should I teach my daughter that this is the type of individual to respect?
And I would not have respected my mom if she stayed with him, after having numerous affairs. Much in the same way I don't respect Hillary for staying with Bill - if that's hair salon gossip, then so be it.

And so you know, I don't limit my disdain for one party or another. McCain wouldn't get my vote either. Both parties are corrupt, but both parties also have some good. Sure Clinton did some good in the White House - it's proven. My opinion is we need a real change - a change not offered by any candidates I've seen so far, on either side. It's all the same old political bullshit spew. Ron Paul to me seems to have the most interesting ideas. Hillary is a very strong political force, and I wonder what kind of president she might be. My fear is that it would be the same old shit as usual, Repubes vs. Dems, and nothing gets done. Same if Paul were elected, probably. These career politicians are all the same, interconnected by the money and corruption of big business. Hillary was on the board of Walmart for six years. For every Haliburton in the current administration, there is a Whitewater in the previous one. Rudy had an affair, Fred Thompson's PAC contibutions to his son...the list goes on and on.
I agree with you - the bullshit Obama flag wearing/not putting his hand over his heart during the anthem/Fred Thompson pickup truck kind of stuff is silly. I would like it if we could somehow find a way to keep big business's nose out of our government. Both sides are too deep in it, I think, for that to happen.
"The bus is the real talisman. It's the thing that runs through all of this history. It's not a thing anybody owns or controls. No matter how peeved you get with people, the bus always makes your heart jump. Everybody was attached to it."
- Ken Kesey

Steve
1978 Country Homes Camper conversion - "Gus"

http://gusthevwbus.com
http://freshandmodern.com/blog

User avatar
Velokid1
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Post by Velokid1 » Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:52 pm

Quadratrückseite wrote:I would like it if we could somehow find a way to keep big business's nose out of our government. Both sides are too deep in it, I think, for that to happen.
Have you looked into Ron Paul? If so, why did you decide that he can't get us started toward this very thing?

User avatar
Quadratrückseite
IAC's #1 Cubs Fan
IAC's #1 Cubs Fan
Location: Fremont, IN
Contact:
Status: Offline

Post by Quadratrückseite » Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:08 pm

Velokid1 wrote:
Quadratrückseite wrote:I would like it if we could somehow find a way to keep big business's nose out of our government. Both sides are too deep in it, I think, for that to happen.
Have you looked into Ron Paul? If so, why did you decide that he can't get us started toward this very thing?
I have - and I do think he's got the best shot. My fear is he doesn't get the nomination. Then what? Will he run as an independent? Or a Libertarian again? I would probably tend to lean towards Paul if he gets the nomination, or toward whatever guy the Libertarians decide to throw in.
Ron Paul is my favorite candidate of the ones I've researched. I worry if he became President how much change he could bring about, considering the government is full of Dems and Repubs who will be against nearly everything he will propose. That's just the pessimist in me... :pukeleft:
"The bus is the real talisman. It's the thing that runs through all of this history. It's not a thing anybody owns or controls. No matter how peeved you get with people, the bus always makes your heart jump. Everybody was attached to it."
- Ken Kesey

Steve
1978 Country Homes Camper conversion - "Gus"

http://gusthevwbus.com
http://freshandmodern.com/blog

Post Reply