You guys ever heard of him?!? I like his politics best. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA I think he keeps it a bit too real and that scares a lot of the wrong people hehe. -:rock:
I was just watching a report on him the other day, I hadn't heard much about him before that. I like where he's coming from, but people don't realize that somone can't just come in and wholesale downsize the government. People want income taxes cut and government programs cut, but there are many, many people who depend on those programs - right or wrong, it's true. Cutting those programs without a long phase-out period would be disasterous. It seems like he's running on some kind of fairy tale where taxes, government spending and oversight will be gone in the flash of an eye. But it's cool the way his grass roots movement is so mobilized. He just lets them say and do whatever they want on his behalf, people love it.
Ron Paul is my fav by far. And he is collecting a suprising amount of donations. I think he stands a chance of winning our michigan primary on Jan 15th. The Democratic primary here basically imploded. Only Hillary is on the ballot and the results won't count anyway because of infighting in the democratic party. As a result, independents and democratics may all decide it will be more fun to vote in the Republican primary instead. The results could be interesting. As for downsizing government, you'd be suprised just how much fat there is to be cut. Yes many working class people depend on certain programs like medicaid, social security etc., but those aren't what should be cut. The amount of money that gets outright wasted is staggering. Literally hundreds of billions for pointless porkbarrel projects, handouts to already profitable corporations, and much of it just plain lost with no record of where it went. You may not be able to wholesale downsize in a day like you say, but I'd like to see someone get on the track of at least slowing shrinking it each year rather than keep running us deeper into debt as has been happening.
I don't think I could support Ron Paul, he has too much of a white supremacist support base for my taste. racist site even has a donation for ron paul thread, that in itself scares me a little and it tells me that he is probably a threat to non-racist. Ron Paul is the only congressman to vote against commemorating the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the article below is his reasoning why. :shock: He wont find many black or democratic supporters thats for sure.lol "Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society. This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife. Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676." http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
I don't see anything racists in his comments at all. Dr. Paul's disagreement with the civil rights act was about means, not ends. He makes good points about the federal government's proper role or lack their of in dictating people's private affairs. The best thing the government can do to help people is to preserve freedom. As a small business owner, I can tell you it is true what they say, the most frightening words in the english language are, "Hello, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." When they try to get involved, they always hurt much more than they help. That's the nature of government.
Lots of food for thought. Thank you ladies it seems I have more research to do... P.S. HOS...will you marry me?!? -:rock:
Seriously H.F.S.....you should model or something....and I'm not being facetious either....you couldn't be any worse than what's out there now 8)
I understand that the guy is popular amongst online donors, but he's too loony for my liking. Let's look at some of the things he wants to do if he gets into office: - Withdraw from NATO, NAFTA and the United Nations - Abolish the income tax - Eliminate the income tax and Federal Reserve - Abolish executive departments like the Education, HUD and Homeland Security Department - Overturn the Civil Rights Act 1964, Voting Rights Act 1965 and Roe v Wade I tell ya, this guy freaks me out.
Amen!! Ron Paul even voted against extending voting rights for African Americans. That was last year. Ron Paul is not our friend. He`s very racist. He's got the mentality of those guys from the 60s and before that. He`s very old fashioned and if you are a black supporter of his, just how dumb can you get. Last thing we need is a bigot who will fight against the same rights our ancestors and Dr. King etc died fighting for. He tries to come off as a kind & gentle harmless old man, but make no mistake that he is most definetly a bigot!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qfx0mCW494&watch_response http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwOxi4oPF7g&feature=related
Patterson have you read about the racist comments supposedly made by RP were written by a ghost writer? In any case his economics are something hard to argue with.... Another perspective to check out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ji_Ft23BDw&feature=related
He publicly said last week that he doesn't support racist site or even want thier money. He stated he doesn't agree with their rhetoric at all. He also stated he's not going to give back the money b/c it's ridiculous to ask politicians to go back and give back the money of people with views they don't agree with. I have to laugh at this guy b/c he is the first politican to actually use common sense and not care that it pisses people off. And everything in that quote you posted? Nothing racist there - he's just sees things from a constitutional perspective. People who interpret the constitution strictly understand that it isn't the place of the federal government to tell people and the states how to do things - that should be a decision from the states. I'm not saying I agree with what he says - simply pointing out that being against racism and being against government involvement are two very different things. He isn't racism is OK, he's saying the way to go about getting rid of it or protecting minorities shouldn't come from the federal government. Again, can't say I agree with his thoughts on the Civil Rights Act, but let's keep it straight. I agree with LC - he's too far out there. But it is refreshing to hear someone step up and blankly point out the hypocrisy b/t the current federal government and the original intentions of the constituion.
I think the same things were said about governing a country w/o a Monarch... *note to patterson* I have done my own research on his personal views on racism. It would appear to me thats he's not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LZyHoAPL3M&NR=1
Please tell me what presidental candidate would publicly admit that they are racist?LOL Who in there right mind would do something so stupid, you guessed it, NOBODY! All this federal government talk, is an easy distraction to get mostly (white folks) minds off of what he is really about. He can't pull the wool over my eyes, I see through the BS. And if Stronfront, (foaming at the mouth racist) are supporting him, there is no way I could support him. Anyhow, we will have to agree to disagree, just by his statements about the Civil Rights Act and how he voted against extending voting rights for African Americans, (damn he don't even want us to vote) as a minority/AA I could never support this guy. Way too many civil rights Activist have died for those laws to be in place, sorry. If he were to be elected which I pray doesn't happen, I'll probably move to Canada, because black folks will end up being treated worse than we are now, like 3rd class citizens segregated with no voting rights.lol And I will be laughing my ass off in Canada, or in some other Country where I'll be treated with respect. I'm a Democrat anyhow, so I'll be voting for either Obama or Hilary.
I like that part about not giving their money back. I always thought that was stupid when a politician is found to have recieved money from some disreputable character or crook and the solution is to give the money back. Doesn't that just mean you are giving money to a crook? If doesn't seem proper to keep the money, better to give it to a third party. Ron Paul should give racist site's money to the NAACP. Now that would be funny!
You were joking right? Ron Paul is precisely why most black people vote straight Democrat. Because the republican Party is full of what I like to call "soft-core" racist. His little speech against the The Civil Rights Act is a prime example of his views. First lets think about why the Civil Rights Act was created. It was created because minorites were getting their ass kicked all over the country as they tried to exercise their 15th Amendment Right to vote. And the government realized that racism was systematc problem (Jim Crow Laws). And personally, I would much rather have extra laws to protect people than one fewer law that lets politicans "interpret" laws and the Constitution. And as for the Constitution, anyone who takes any document and wants to interpret it literally word-for-word is a dangerous individual. (Christian extremist (read:wackos) like to do that with the Bible. Islamic extremist (read:wackos) like to do that with the Koran. Isnt the Constitution the same document that basically says thtat blacks were less than human (The Three/Fifths Rule)? And if the Constitution was so perfect that it could be interpreted word for word, then there would be no need for "Amendments"!
He is never going to be the president with his extreme views. He wants to get rid of CIA,FBI,IRS,department of education,etc. He pretty much wants to dismantle the government and try and create some sort of Utopian society. The government needs to be put under control and some of his views do make sense. But if US actually used his policies it would be a fascist dictatorship ruled by who takes advantage of it. And the people would be worse off.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/4/151735/850/188/417817 Fuck Ron Paul. The guy's a loon who wants to completely dismantle the government save for it's ability to deprive women the right to exercise control over their bodies when it comes to reproduction. I can't believe that our foreign policy has gotten so insane that many seemingly reasonable people would start supporting this lunatic simply because he's vociferously anti-war.
