How my hope for this country was restored

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
I've made a decision that even if he's not on the ballot I will be writing in Ron Paul's name on all presidential elections until he's dead. And maybe even after ? he'd still have more sense than many of these guys even after he's gotten a bit ripe.

I LOL'ed

And I agree with you 100%. RP forever. The movement will live on long after he is gone.

off your meds again? Sheesh. How many times do I have to remind you guys of RP1? Meh - I guess when you grow up some day you'll realize how naive you were to make such statements. But I guess we all grow up at our own pace...

I'm sure we'll all remember Fred Thompson a year from now. :roll:

 

[BoomerD]

Derek, with this kind of devotion, I'm sure you will continue to be disappointed on a regular basis. While Ron Paul has some good ideas, he's just not electable in our corporate-controlled politcal arena.
Sadly, it will continue to come down to choosing the lesser of the two evils, rather than choosing a GREAT candidate. Ross Perot also had some good ideas in his day, and if he hadn't dropped out when he did, he MIGHT have given the front-runners some serious competition. I hate to tell ya this, but Ron Paul is only considered to be a fringe candidate, and most of his supporters are considered to be nothing but nutcases...

I'm seriously of the opinion that "We The People" really don't have any say in our election process. Everything is decided by our corporate owners. They just let us have our little elections to make us think we have any say. IMO, this is proven in just about every election cycle, where we get crappy candidates on both sides, and if we actually get someone running that has different ideas than the mainstream, they get "swift-boated" out of the race...
We The Corporations run things, We the People just get to pay for it...

 

[compuwiz1]

Oh, boy. Here we go again.

First of all, you're late to the table with a RP thread.
Second of all, he doesn't have a freaking prayer and most of his supporters are viewed as obsessed fringe lunatics. Had you been here for the past few months, you'd see what I mean.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: DerekWilson


And before anyone asks, yes I've read the bullshit about racism and the newsletter scandal garbage ? It's really easy for me to believe that Paul does not share the beliefs of the people who wrote the newsletter being part of AnandTech. I am positive that Anand doesn't read 100% of the material that goes up on his site. Even after that, I'm sure he disagrees with some of his editors' points sometimes, but we all have the freedom to publish what we truly believe about a product or technology. And beyond that, this forum has his name on it, and I'm sure that there are things here Anand disagrees with and that someone could get the wrong impression about him thorough.

Of course he shares the beliefs of the people who did his newsletter, because he not only wrote articles in it, but he published it with his name on it. For decades. This wasn't a simple one issue thing, this was over decades of letting people write articles under his name, and people involved in those articles continue to work in his campaign staff.
Try this, send out a email newsletter and make it look like Anand is writing it. Now, fill the letter with articles calling MLK a gay pedophile, or calling all black people animals. See how long it takes until you a fired. Now, the complete opposite happened with the Paul newsletters.

Now, have you ever looked at Paul's voting record and bills he's written? Take at look at HR300. HR300
You tell me he is for civil liberties after reading that.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: DerekWilson

Thanks, and I certainly will continue to educate myself. Just to clarify though, I would not have considered myself a Republican for something like a decade and I was certainly not complacent. I was angry.

Yes, I was referring to that earlier step yet that led you to leave complacency, and to ask the questions which caused you to become angry.

Part of why I was angry was economics. Regan did some ok things, but didn't go far enough. He really needed to cut spending and decrease government size in a significant way. Neither of the last two Bushes followed party lines when it came to economics, taxes or government size. These are the only things that interested me about what the party said they believed and no one seems to actually do anything about it.

Reagan was a historic president insofar as setting the nation on to the course of high debt, discovering that formula of the political magic of talking small and spending big, with future Americans footing the bill - most strikingly in his creation of the social security trust fund for the government to borrow hundreds of billions annually 'off the books', piling up trillions in IOU's to crash the system when the baby boomers retire - all 'good' to those Republicans who are resigned they can't get the public to vote down the benefits, and who have decided that the only way to 'fix' the problem instead is to break the government - literally, with debt - so the public can't vote for these programs. When you look at the charts of when the middle class really stopped getting its 'fair share' of the nation's growth and the increase concentration of wealth at the top, they largely point to Reagan's presidency as the turning point.

I'm not suprized that you would find the last few Democrats did better economically than the last few Republicans. But I certainly wouldn't blame that on the ideas of Republicanism failing more than the actual presidents who had the opportunity to lead under that banner.

The list I mentioned goes from FDR to Clinton - including all the presidents before the previous one since the great depression, where going back further starts to have less relevance to the political parties as they exist today, as the nation's economy was pretty different before that time.

As far as the 'ideas of Republicanism' - an idea I'm alluding to is that the so-called 'ideas of Republicanism' are less than ideals of the party, and more false marketing to get voters.

Look at what they do, not what they say, and you start to understand how different the two are - which is hard for most to acknowledge, they're so used to going by the stated values.

Which is part of why I like Paul. His record shows him to be a man who will do what he says he will do. And what he says he will do is follow through with traditional Republican economic ideals. Which no Republican president has cared to fully do in a long while.

Well, since Herbert Hoover, and that didn't go so well. I agree with you that Paul is 'refreshingly candid', it's just that he's refreshingly candid with horribly wrong policies.

But we're getting ahead of the suggested discussion on why they're horribly wrong, which reading books like the one recommended will show.

Top that off with a firm belief in civil liberty that would make some liberals blush and I'm all over it.

There's an old saying that eveyone agrees with some things about the Libertarian party, and no one believes with everything about the 'real' Libertarian party.

They are generally good on those civil rights. On the other hand, as you said you are very against discrimination, would they have passed laws for the government to ban private restaurants and hotels from excluding blacks, as the liberal administrations in the 1960's did? No, if they had their way, we'd have white-only public facilities to this day. Liberals did the heavy lifting that shifted the national culture - and paid the political price of losing the south, and therefore the White House, every election since, but for two southernors.

Either way, I will certainly read the book you suggest. I would love to look more closely at liberal candidates and their core philosophies. At this point I feel like I should keep my eyes peeled to watch for someone on the other side of the aisle step up like Ron Paul with revolutionay liberal ideals and a clear voting record that shows the potential to really do something great.

For that person, I'd probably point you to Dennis Kucinich, but I think the books on the ideas, first, will be most useful to sort out your political views.

You make my day saying you will read the book.

I'd love to see a liberal come along who would do great things for civil liberty, freedom, and protection of the digital consumer in the internet age. As far as I see there are zero democratic candidates who really embrace these liberal ideals.

I'm unclear on the policy you advocate here - I'm for the protection of the rights of the intellectual content authors, insofar as it protects the incentives which give us the rich industry we have; I think we face a threat unique in the last few hundred years for such content to be digitally reproduced and 'stolen', with coming technology, and that's a huge threat - even while I'd agree with you that some of the copyright laws are abusively excessive, reflecting only the power of the corporations getting them, not public interest.

Mike Gravel comes close, and I wish him all the luck for the nomination -- I believe I could get behind a lot of what he would do. But he just doesn't have the full package for me.

Like I said though, I'm ready to be educated and to get back into the idea that I can make a difference in our country -- now that I know that there are politicians out there who have the potential to "get it".

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the book - and if you'll post what you like and don't I can try to recommend others that you would enjoy.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Now, have you ever looked at Paul's voting record and bills he's written? Take at look at HR300. HR300
You tell me he is for civil liberties after reading that.

SUMMARY AS OF:
1/5/2007--Introduced.

We the People Act - Prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.

Allows the Supreme Court and the federal courts to determine the constitutionality of federal statutes, administrative rules, or procedures in considering cases arising under the Constitution. Prohibits the Supreme Court and the federal courts from issuing any ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states.

Authorizes any party or intervener in matters before any federal court, including the Supreme Court, to challenge the jurisdiction of the court under this Act.

Provides that the violation of this Act by any justice or judge is an impeachable offense and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal.

Negates as binding precedent on the state courts any federal court decision that relates to an issue removed from federal jurisdiction by this Act.

 

[Stunt]

I wish I had the opportunity to vote for a man as inspirational, logical and reasonable as Ron Paul. Even if he doesn't win anywhere, it would have been worth it; he embodies all that we should strive for and his message will continue long after he is gone. He has envigorated the youth and his message is clearly written in the constitution and the revolution will live on.

I am disappointed he couldn't get his message out to more people, because i'm sure his positions would be well liked with the American people.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
I've made a decision that even if he's not on the ballot I will be writing in Ron Paul's name on all presidential elections until he's dead. And maybe even after ? he'd still have more sense than many of these guys even after he's gotten a bit ripe.

I LOL'ed

And I agree with you 100%. RP forever. The movement will live on long after he is gone.

off your meds again? Sheesh. How many times do I have to remind you guys of RP1? Meh - I guess when you grow up some day you'll realize how naive you were to make such statements. But I guess we all grow up at our own pace...

I'm sure we'll all remember Fred Thompson a year from now. :roll:

I never made such a stupid claim. Cap and many of the RP2 bots think this is something "new" and something that will last - but it won't. It didn't after RP1 and it won't this time. It's time you people start waking up to that realization. The best you can hope for is to mildly shape the political structure with a more strict constructionist view. RP1 changed things a bit and I suspect(and hope) RP2 changes things a bit but it's absurd to think the movement will last.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: DerekWilson


And before anyone asks, yes I've read the bullshit about racism and the newsletter scandal garbage ? It's really easy for me to believe that Paul does not share the beliefs of the people who wrote the newsletter being part of AnandTech. I am positive that Anand doesn't read 100% of the material that goes up on his site. Even after that, I'm sure he disagrees with some of his editors' points sometimes, but we all have the freedom to publish what we truly believe about a product or technology. And beyond that, this forum has his name on it, and I'm sure that there are things here Anand disagrees with and that someone could get the wrong impression about him thorough.

Of course he shares the beliefs of the people who did his newsletter, because he not only wrote articles in it, but he published it with his name on it. For decades. This wasn't a simple one issue thing, this was over decades of letting people write articles under his name, and people involved in those articles continue to work in his campaign staff.
Try this, send out a email newsletter and make it look like Anand is writing it. Now, fill the letter with articles calling MLK a gay pedophile, or calling all black people animals. See how long it takes until you a fired. Now, the complete opposite happened with the Paul newsletters.

Now, have you ever looked at Paul's voting record and bills he's written? Take at look at HR300. HR300
You tell me he is for civil liberties after reading that.

We have been over this before, just like the letters. But you refuse the truth in spite of it being presented.

We the People Act (Introduced in House)

HR300

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 300

To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 5, 2007

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. POE, and Mr. JONES of North Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as `We the People Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Article III, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States vests the judicial power of the United States in `one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish'.

(2) Article I, section 8 and article 3, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States give Congress the power to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts.

(3) Article III, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to make `such exceptions, and under such regulations' as Congress finds necessary to Supreme Court jurisdiction.

(4) Congress has the authority to make exceptions to Supreme Court jurisdiction in the form of general rules and based upon policy and constitutional reasons other than the outcomes of a particular line of cases. (See Federalist No. 81; United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1872)).

(5) Congress has constitutional authority to set broad limits on the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts in order to correct abuses of judicial power and continuing violations of the Constitution of the United States by Federal courts.

(6) Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States guarantees each State a republican form of government.

(7) Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(8) The Supreme Court and lower Federal courts threaten the republican government of the individual States by replacing elected government with rule by unelected judges.

(9) Even supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court's decisions overturning the abortion laws of all 50 States are constitutionally flawed (e.g. Ely, `The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade' 82 Yale L.J. 920 (1973)).

(10) Several members of the Supreme Court have admitted that the Court's Establishment Clause jurisdiction is indefensible (e.g. Zelamn v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 688 (2002) (Souter, J., dissenting); Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 861 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring); Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 399, (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring); and Committee for Public Ed. And Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 671 (1980) (Stevens, J., dissenting).

(11) Congress has the responsibility to protect the republican governments of the States and has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts over matters that are reserved to the States and to the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

SEC. 4. REGULATION OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and all other Federal courts--

(1) are not prevented from determining the constitutionality of any Federal statute or administrative rule or procedure in considering any case arising under the Constitution of the United States; and

(2) shall not issue any order, final judgment, or other ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the several States and their subdivisions.

SEC. 5. JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES.

Any party or intervener in any matter before any Federal court, including the Supreme Court, may challenge the jurisdiction of the court under section 3 or 4 during any proceeding or appeal relating to that matter.

SEC. 6. MATERIAL BREACHES OF GOOD BEHAVIOR AND REMEDY.

A violation by a justice or a judge of any of the provisions of section 3 or 4 shall be an impeachable offense, and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal by the President of the United States according to rules and procedures established by the Congress.

SEC. 7. CASES DECIDED UNDER ISSUES REMOVED FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION NO LONGER BINDING PRECEDENT.

Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court.

I don't like this Bill, I LOVE IT. A true republic being represented here. Maybe you should do some research on what a Republic is and know this country was founded as one.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Congrats to the OP. This is exactly how I felt when I heard about him. Even if you disagree with his ideas at least you can respect him for truely standing up for what he believes in. Every other candidate seems to be another political shill that would appear to say or do anything for votes.

Oh and for whoever mentioned HR300, that bill takes away power from the federal government which is a good thing. It would bring back issues like abortion to the states where it should reside.

 

[Noobtastic]

After watching the NC Fox Debate, I've made my decision to fully endorse RP.


If only I could vote. : (

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Derek, with this kind of devotion, I'm sure you will continue to be disappointed on a regular basis. While Ron Paul has some good ideas, he's just not electable in our corporate-controlled politcal arena.
Sadly, it will continue to come down to choosing the lesser of the two evils, rather than choosing a GREAT candidate. Ross Perot also had some good ideas in his day, and if he hadn't dropped out when he did, he MIGHT have given the front-runners some serious competition. I hate to tell ya this, but Ron Paul is only considered to be a fringe candidate, and most of his supporters are considered to be nothing but nutcases...

I'm seriously of the opinion that "We The People" really don't have any say in our election process. Everything is decided by our corporate owners. They just let us have our little elections to make us think we have any say. IMO, this is proven in just about every election cycle, where we get crappy candidates on both sides, and if we actually get someone running that has different ideas than the mainstream, they get "swift-boated" out of the race...
We The Corporations run things, We the People just get to pay for it...

George Carlin, is that you?
That's about what he said in one of his recent performances.

My take on it: The politicians and elected officials are the disposable limbs of the beast. A great deal of power has been collected into the hands of very few people, notably at the head of media distribution corporations. Control and censor the content that's allowed to be distributed by major news outlets, and you can control what people think. One book I read several years ago talked about "All the news that's fit to print," and how it goes through so many filtering stages before it's distilled down to what hits the news stands. Researchers, editors, their bosses, etc etc, each has their own set of rules to follow from higher up. We just get to see what's excreted.

They know how to push our buttons, too. Everyone's all talking about possible war with Iran? Oh look, it's Britney Spears doing something stupid! Let's all watch that instead! Wait, war with who? They know what will attract viewers, they know how to keep most of the population safely placated.

So not only do they control what their loving public is thinking about, they also control the election through another important factor: campaign contributions. Candidates with more money = more airtime + better marketers + more manipulative advertising = much better chance of getting elected. And guess what, they're all playing the same game, regardless of the side their on. The ultimate objective: those who have power now will have power tomorrow.
They even manage to get people worked up over things that don't concern most people. Look at the estate tax. $2 million is the point where you start to have a tax liability. Guess how much of the middle class that affects. My parents own a ranch house, two cars, and various items in the house, not even close to $500K in value. The upper crust is what it concerns, and their voices resonate much more loudly with politicians, again, because they can provide more of those all-important campaign contributions. Then it's played as a big deal, called the "death tax" to make it sound like a much more diabolical deed of the government.

Ah, here we go.
"They want obedient workers."

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
I've made a decision that even if he's not on the ballot I will be writing in Ron Paul's name on all presidential elections until he's dead. And maybe even after ? he'd still have more sense than many of these guys even after he's gotten a bit ripe.

I LOL'ed

And I agree with you 100%. RP forever. The movement will live on long after he is gone.

off your meds again? Sheesh. How many times do I have to remind you guys of RP1? Meh - I guess when you grow up some day you'll realize how naive you were to make such statements. But I guess we all grow up at our own pace...

I'm sure we'll all remember Fred Thompson a year from now. :roll:

I never made such a stupid claim. Cap and many of the RP2 bots think this is something "new" and something that will last - but it won't. It didn't after RP1 and it won't this time. It's time you people start waking up to that realization. The best you can hope for is to mildly shape the political structure with a more strict constructionist view. RP1 changed things a bit and I suspect(and hope) RP2 changes things a bit but it's absurd to think the movement will last.

Bahhh. You are just an old fogie. What do you know?

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
Let me paint a picture for you.

I was raised in a republican house hold suckling on the teat of Regan. I was young, naïve, and content. And then GHWB was elected.

My father owned his own car trim company and he subcontracted to local shops and dealers. Most of his income came from one major contract though. Well, GWHB allowed laws and taxes to pass that hit small businesses like my father's really hard. It made more sense for the shops he worked for to hire in house employees to do the same job.

In the mid 90s, after Clinton was elected, just about every republican I knew was screaming about how the country was going to self destruct and we were all going to hell. I certainly didn't like being lied to, told that something depends on the definition of "is", and having our country look like it was run by a fool. But all in all, he did some good things while in office. He also did some things I disagreed with, but so did both Bush presidents.

When I started questioning my political upbringing, I started finding that I didn't agree with anyone. I would love one thing a candidate would say, but then the next would be a deal breaker. I became so disillusioned that I haven't voted since 2000.

I honestly don't believe that either the Democrat or Republican positions are viable. They each have some really really good points, but neither encompasses what I believe to be a good solution for our country. If people asked me my political affiliation I would have said that I was a liberal capitalist or something along those lines.

I think Democrats aren't good for the economy, taxes, and government spending/size and I think Republicans aren't good for anything else ? and that's only if they follow the party line (which none of them seem to want to do now that there is an eternal "war on terror" to fight and money needs to be spent).

I think moderates on both sides of the aisle never get anything done and generally take the worst bits of each side and blend them together.

Here's what I believe.

I believe in personal freedom, responsibility and a free market economy. I believe in the fair use of copyrighted material by consumers is the most important aspect of copyright law. I believe in simplifying tax law to the point where the IRS is almost irrelevant (except that someone needs to be there to do the accounting of what was earned and as a point of contact for tax collection).

I believe that we should help other nations where asked or needed for humanitarian purposes, but that we should largely stay out of other people's business. I believe in free trade. I don't feel abortion should be used as a birth control method (adoption is a much better and less selfish solution in that case) but I would *never* presume to legislate the issue (either for or against abortion) because I think it's necessary for doctors and patients to come to their own conclusions on the best course of medical care and the government shouldn't get in the way of that. In the same vein, all drugs should be decriminalized and taxed similar to the way we treat tobacco and alcohol. I think the war on drugs serves only to support terrorism, as drugs are THE major source of funding for criminal and terrorist organizations. The money we save on fighting a war against drugs could be used to help people with drug addictions or problems (those are separate issues because not all illegal drugs are addictive and many others are less addictive than tobacco); jail is much less effective than medical treatment and high quality rehab programs that are free or very affordable.

I believe in a right to privacy. I am entirely against the Patriot Act.

And I never thought I would find a political candidate anywhere near worth voting for. Friends have encouraged me to vote for the lesser of two evils, telling me that that's how I need to use my power as a citizen. But I still can't get behind that as my vote will look like support to the person who gets it even though it's only a vote against someone else.

That is, until two weeks ago when a friend of my told me he thought I'd like a candidate. I said whatever and decided to check it out just for a laugh. And I was floored.

Every single thing I believe in was reflected in the words I read. Everything.

Certainly, all of you who are much more familiar with the candidates than I was until a short time ago already know who I discovered.

Ron Paul

The freaking man.

Not only am I newly inspired to have some faith that the occasional revolutionary can come along and get noticed, but I will be voting in a primary for the first time ever. Ron Paul has made me really want to get involved in my government ? to try and make a difference in spite of the odds. In spite of the fact that his winning the primary is a long shot, he still has a shot. And that's more than anything I thought someone who made sense would have.

I've made a decision that even if he's not on the ballot I will be writing in Ron Paul's name on all presidential elections until he's dead. And maybe even after ? he'd still have more sense than many of these guys even after he's gotten a bit ripe.

And before anyone asks, yes I've read the bullshit about racism and the newsletter scandal garbage ? It's really easy for me to believe that Paul does not share the beliefs of the people who wrote the newsletter being part of AnandTech. I am positive that Anand doesn't read 100% of the material that goes up on his site. Even after that, I'm sure he disagrees with some of his editors' points sometimes, but we all have the freedom to publish what we truly believe about a product or technology. And beyond that, this forum has his name on it, and I'm sure that there are things here Anand disagrees with and that someone could get the wrong impression about him thorough.

Probably a better example than that is Tom's Hardware ? How many of you who remember Tom Pabst's writing would think he agrees with even 20% of what the writers over there say? Of course, that actually helps his reputation rather than hurts it ? but you get the point. Sometimes the name can stick around long after the person who began the thing moves on.

Just because a publication with someone's name on it said something doesn't mean that person believes it. And I'm very inclined to believe that Ron Paul is not racist based on his voting record, past statements (actually made by him and not someone else), and his espoused beliefs in general. I'm certainly abhor racism and sexism and weightism and all other things you can put an ism after that imply discrimination.

Certainly, it would be better if it hadn't happened. It's really a better idea to keep such publications in the hands of people who will keep from mucking it up as much as possible rather than letting it float around on its own.

In any event, the thing that really struck me is that Ron Paul supports laws and actions that benefit the country rather than his own agenda. I never thought I'd see a pro-life person that just as strongly opposed making abortion illegal as they opposed making it explicitly legal (like Ron Paul is). He may be pro-life, but he's more pro-what-America-wants-and-needs. He doesn't let his own agenda get in the way of fulfilling his obligation to represent his people.

Having a president who truly believes in doing the job of a president and representing his country would be an incredible change from the unilateral insanity that has plagued Washington over the past 20 years.

Glad to have you aboard. The truth is a beautiful thing.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
I've made a decision that even if he's not on the ballot I will be writing in Ron Paul's name on all presidential elections until he's dead. And maybe even after ? he'd still have more sense than many of these guys even after he's gotten a bit ripe.

I LOL'ed

And I agree with you 100%. RP forever. The movement will live on long after he is gone.

off your meds again? Sheesh. How many times do I have to remind you guys of RP1? Meh - I guess when you grow up some day you'll realize how naive you were to make such statements. But I guess we all grow up at our own pace...

I'm sure we'll all remember Fred Thompson a year from now. :roll:

I never made such a stupid claim. Cap and many of the RP2 bots think this is something "new" and something that will last - but it won't. It didn't after RP1 and it won't this time. It's time you people start waking up to that realization. The best you can hope for is to mildly shape the political structure with a more strict constructionist view. RP1 changed things a bit and I suspect(and hope) RP2 changes things a bit but it's absurd to think the movement will last.

Bahhh. You are just an old fogie. What do you know?

Yeah, I guess I'm an old fogie if becoming politically "aware" during RP1's run but couldn't vote yet constitutes "old fogie".

The thing is - I understand RP2's draw but I've become politically mature since RP1's run so I've lost alot of the naive idealism I had back then and have let a bit of political pragmatism shape my thinking. I still hold most of those ideals but I'm not as naive with them as I once was. Principle and ideals are one thing but to expect everything YOU want is insanely naive - just like expecting abrupt "change" in our political environment. Our system is set up to avoid the extremes and abrupt "change" which IMO is why we as a nation have been so "stable" over our history.

Again, I admire people's zeal for the "change" RP2 suggests but it's neither practical nor attainable even if he wins. I'd much rather have an old school Conservative who can work within the system than someone who naively thinks they can do everything that RP2 suggests he can do. The best RP2 supporters can hope for is that Conservatives who run as Republicans are watching so they get back to the good old Conservatism of limited gov't and Federalism.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Again, I admire people's zeal for the "change" RP2 suggests but it's neither practical nor attainable even if he wins. I'd much rather have an old school Conservative who can work within the system than someone who naively thinks they can do everything that RP2 suggests he can do. The best RP2 supporters can hope for is that Conservatives who run as Republicans are watching so they get back to the good old Conservatism of limited gov't and Federalism.

QFT! :thumbsup:

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Again, I admire people's zeal for the "change" RP2 suggests but it's neither practical nor attainable even if he wins. I'd much rather have an old school Conservative who can work within the system than someone who naively thinks they can do everything that RP2 suggests he can do. The best RP2 supporters can hope for is that Conservatives who run as Republicans are watching so they get back to the good old Conservatism of limited gov't and Federalism.

QFT! :thumbsup:

What conservative can we place in office that won?t be just another whore for bigger government? One can only be betrayed so often before we stop going back and instead look for a candidate that actually believes in and follows what he says.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Again, I admire people's zeal for the "change" RP2 suggests but it's neither practical nor attainable even if he wins. I'd much rather have an old school Conservative who can work within the system than someone who naively thinks they can do everything that RP2 suggests he can do. The best RP2 supporters can hope for is that Conservatives who run as Republicans are watching so they get back to the good old Conservatism of limited gov't and Federalism.

QFT! :thumbsup:

What conservative can we place in office that won?t be just another whore for bigger government? One can only be betrayed so often before we stop going back and instead look for a candidate that actually believes in and follows what he says.

The Republican party no longer wants smaller government, it is no longer conservative. They are actually trying to squash the remnants of those ideals.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: bamacre
The Republican party no longer wants smaller government, it is no longer conservative. They are actually trying to squash the remnants of those ideals.

Actually, more accurate is that there is a faction of the party which seems to believe Populist themes and attitudes are more important than principle. Huckabee, for example.

They are not all that way, thankfully. Maybe you've just been brainwashed by the MSM's pimping of the populist candidates.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: bamacre
The Republican party no longer wants smaller government, it is no longer conservative. They are actually trying to squash the remnants of those ideals.

Actually, more accurate is that there is a faction of the party which seems to believe Populist themes and attitudes are more important than principle. Huckabee, for example.

They are not all that way, thankfully. Maybe you've just been brainwashed by the MSM's pimping of the populist candidates.

So which candidates are going to reduce the size of government?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
So which candidates are going to reduce the size of government?

They've all pledged to cut spending and trim fat, but who knows? What we do know is that none of the Democratic candidates have made similar plans.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: bamacre
The Republican party no longer wants smaller government, it is no longer conservative. They are actually trying to squash the remnants of those ideals.

Actually, more accurate is that there is a faction of the party which seems to believe Populist themes and attitudes are more important than principle. Huckabee, for example.

They are not all that way, thankfully. Maybe you've just been brainwashed by the MSM's pimping of the populist candidates.

Yep. There are plenty of us Conservative Republicans who are pushing for smaller gov't. Just because there have been some Republicans who are closet liberals doesn't mean the Republican base has abandoned it's principles.

 

[piotrgurin]

I love Ron Paul
http://www.eclipptv.com/viewVi...Ron_Paul__Here_to_Stay

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: bamacre
The Republican party no longer wants smaller government, it is no longer conservative. They are actually trying to squash the remnants of those ideals.

Actually, more accurate is that there is a faction of the party which seems to believe Populist themes and attitudes are more important than principle. Huckabee, for example.

They are not all that way, thankfully. Maybe you've just been brainwashed by the MSM's pimping of the populist candidates.

Yep. There are plenty of us Conservative Republicans who are pushing for smaller gov't. Just because there have been some Republicans who are closet liberals doesn't mean the Republican base has abandoned it's principles.

No matter which "frontrunner" gets in he or she will increase the size of government. Period.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: bamacre
The Republican party no longer wants smaller government, it is no longer conservative. They are actually trying to squash the remnants of those ideals.

Actually, more accurate is that there is a faction of the party which seems to believe Populist themes and attitudes are more important than principle. Huckabee, for example.

They are not all that way, thankfully. Maybe you've just been brainwashed by the MSM's pimping of the populist candidates.

Yep. There are plenty of us Conservative Republicans who are pushing for smaller gov't. Just because there have been some Republicans who are closet liberals doesn't mean the Republican base has abandoned it's principles.

No matter which "frontrunner" gets in he or she will increase the size of government. Period.

That may be, however there are degrees involved too. But lets pretend for a minute(well, you just keep pretending...) that RP2 wins. He too would increase the size of gov't as he couldn't instantly stop it.