What was so wrong with Ron Paul? The only dig I've ever heard anybody make about the guy was that he was an isolationist. Well? So what? We could stand to be isolated for 4 years and get this country back together. This is the only candidate that I agreed with on every issue and would be excited about voting for. He stands for what the majority of Americans want. Here's a guy with very little if any negative background to dig up. A pure Constitutionalist who really wanted to clean government up and not threaten your rights. This guy was not only rejected by the media but was ridiculed and tossed out like garbage. The American people do not run the show anymore. I sincerely hope there's nobody left on this board kidding themselves. If the media had actually been fair and balanced giving every candidate equal coverage and exposure, Paul would be the candidate right now. McCain would have came in last. Obama's approval rating might have been 30% had they been willing to go after the truths about him. Which we are not. If I have attacked the wrong people, I am sorry. I don't support giving money out to the wealthy. Our tax money is wasted. The public treasury has been robbed and bankrupted. We have lost control. I do not believe in rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not believe in the 800 billion dollar bail out package. The dow tanked anyway. "To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson
We could use a dash isolationism in our political system. And a big helping of non-interventionism. We could also use some Constitutionalism as a nice dessert. If Ron Paul was running, I'd be voting for him.
The only thing wrong with Ron Paul is that he had the tendency for his comments to seem like the nonsensical ramblings of a crazy old man. However, if there was a "Ron Paul without the crazy", he could have definitely been more than a footnote in this election, and would have had my vote.
If I was a American this is the sort of guy who would get my vote, a lot of what he has said makes sence (and not just for the USA)
I agree and everybody you talk to on both sides would have like to seen Paul run. But you see, our media and other powers that be would NEVER allow a man like RP to run. If you want to hear/read some really interesting things, do a search on youtube or google for the federal reserve. Most people don't know that this is not a government agency at all, but a group of unknown, super rich, elite, private bankers that have been running the show, pulling the strings since 1913. They may not get involved down to every detail and every social matter but when it comes to monetary policy, their will is imposed in their favor, to help private banks. Which in turn helps make them wealthier. I believe this is why they changed the bankruptcy laws in the favor of the banks. This is why the bailout plan was passed against everyone's will. Ron Paul has proposed to eradicate the federal reserve system so our own government could create money without having to be charged interest on it anymore and they could actually do what's right for the people again. Nobody else will touch this topic with a 10 ft poll. If McCain had said that, he'd be sitting at home with Ron Paul right now. It's too taboo to be talked about. It's an unwritten rule that you just leave those guys alone.
The lack of a guy like Ron Paul NOT getting the attention he merits is a glaring point of the faults of our system. Bottom line is Republican or Democrat. One or the other controls - period in their minds. The media is a joke for the most part as it's all controlled by money and guys like Ron Paul just don't have it. Ross Perot had it and he went and chose a senile running mate. Here's the real problem. If we had say 4 or 5 legit parties going at it every election the chances of the American peoples' needs and wants might actually have to be addressed. Not "what's best for the country (my party and cronies)" BS. I'd love to see more parties represented on the big stage. Sadly, I doubt I ever will.
I'm not even going to go into that. And I'd respond but I don't have much to gain from people with entirely closed minds.
Clembo, I agree. It's a tragedy that a guy like Paul can't even have a chance. What's four years? We're willing to risk 4 years on the likes of the two current losers. He would have done a lot of good for the people.
My biggest and maybe only problem. Building #7. Concrete structure built around another concrete structure. ***Undamaged.*** Collapses evenly to dust like a Vegas demolition, 45 minutes AFTER both towers have come down. Go watch the video. Forget about anything else. Go watch it before your eyes. Come back here and explain that one. Then you can talk. Until then, your name calling means nothing to me. BTW, I've never had anybody like yourself explain that one away. I won't rule out that it was poorly built though, ok??? That could be it.
Here's some engineer "kooklings" on the history channel with nothing to gain but to make themselves look like fools I guess! Only 9:00 minutes of your time. Please explain this away for me.
That sounds like what a homosexual would say. I can just hear it in that queer voice. Almost like a Ru Paul accent.
Oh man, you're so funny. I can see that you and I are not intellectually on the same level. You have no substance whatsoever. We're through talking.
I wonder why videos like that don't mention or show the photos that show the extensive fire and the structural damage to the building? http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html I am not an engineer but I have read things like the popular mechanics debunking and I can easily believe the fire, damage and structural design led to the collapse. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5#wtc7
Stu, it very well could be that you're right. I have an open mind. I'm not willing to accuse any individual of anything. The situation is so complicated and there are so many countless theories. I've heard a lot of wild stuff too, that I believe to be debunked. Of course, if you don't go with the status quo and believe everything that is fed to you, you're automatically labeled with the worst extremists. Very odd things happened. Coincidences happened. I'm not willing to automatically assume anything. That's all I can say. I don't have the will power or desire to delve into it any further than I have. Anyway, the topic is *Ron Paul*. I agree with him on every issue. He appears to me to be on the side of the people on every issue. I'm not threatened by him if he thinks the 9/11 commission did an inadequate job for the people.
I can't say for sure that I agree with anyone on every issue. And, I admit that I have not dug totally into his policies (mostly because he is not a candidate) but there are indeed many of his ideas I do buy into from things I have heard him talk about. Libertarian ideas, non-interventionism, his ideas on most of our outdated alliances and not expanding them, strengthening borders, etc And I do know that he disavowed association with the 911 conspiracy folks in the debate so I don't automatically buy into any 'kook' theories about him. Especially since I am well aware that the mainstream media and 2 major parties try heavily to discredit and discount any upstarts.
If I'm not mistaken, Paul fully particiapted in the Rep primaries, right? He was involved in the debates, right? He was soundly rejected by the voters, right? He isn't 3rd party, he's an "also ran". I agree the guy makes sense on a lot of things but his belief that 9/11 was something we had coming is more than enough for me to reject him.
Exactly David. R. Paul is a KOOK just for those thoughts themselves. Yes, even a KOOK can have SOME good ideas.
