How could anyone NOT agree with Paul last night?

[Big Hoss]

YouTube - ‪Ron Paul - New Hampshire Debate Highlights‬‏

this man makes a lot of sense...much more than anyone else. in your face, to the point, no bullshit. Why are these not good qualities? Why is no-nonsense not electable?

Did he mention anything about not voting for the civil rights act if he could?

That was his son...jeez....

 

[uscitizen]

Ron Paul goes beyond reason into idealistic territory. There lies the problem with RP.
Mostdo not like his non intervention policy in world matters. I on the other hand do.
I think his economic ideals would be a catastrophe. Yeah they sound good up front but the implementation would be impossible without wrecking everything.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Ron Paul goes beyond reason into idealistic territory. There lies the problem with RP.

Beyond reason? In what way?



He's essentially the opposite of the 2 status quo parties, that makes him as reasonable as can be.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'm a left-leaning Centrist and I honestly say that I would vote for Ron Paul over Barack if I could vote today.

How could a Centrist support Ron Paul, someone who is off the chart?

Isn't Mitt Romney more up your alley?


.

Ron Paul is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

So aspects of him appeal to cons/libs and centrists. The only groups he wouldn't appeal to are neoconservatives and fiscal liberals.

 

[uscitizen]

Ron Paul goes beyond reason into idealistic territory. There lies the problem with RP.

Beyond reason? In what way?



He's essentially the opposite of the 2 status quo parties, that makes him as reasonable as can be.

He is the ultimate corporate deregulator and believes that corps should have free reign.
Just one exaple of his unrealistic idealism.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Ron Paul goes beyond reason into idealistic territory. There lies the problem with RP.

Beyond reason? In what way?



He's essentially the opposite of the 2 status quo parties, that makes him as reasonable as can be.

He is the ultimate corporate deregulator and believes that corps should have free reign.
Just one exaple of his unrealistic idealism.

Corps having free reign is a basic aspect of capitalism.

Well yeah I agree, none of his ideals are realistic, he's going against the 2 monsters who run this government.

Realistic and correct are often different, and this is the case.

 

[Vanquish]

Beyond reason? In what way?



He's essentially the opposite of the 2 status quo parties, that makes him as reasonable as can be.

He is the ultimate corporate deregulator and believes that corps should have free reign.
Just one exaple of his unrealistic idealism.

Corps having free reign is a basic aspect of capitalism.

Well yeah I agree, none of his ideals are realistic, he's going against the 2 monsters who run this government.

Realistic and correct are often different, and this is the case.

Corps having free reign is NOT a basic aspect of capitalism. More precisely, different historians and economists differ on the issue. In the real world, for as long as there have been governments and religions there's been no such thing as a "free market". (I laugh every time I hear people use that flawed term)

There are valid reasons why consumer protections and labor laws are in place. Removing everything to let corporations do whatever is dangerous and foolish. Has there been over-regulation in some places, I'm sure there has. But we can't just remove all protections and screw over our citizenry.

 

[Wry Catcher]

YouTube - ‪Ron Paul - New Hampshire Debate Highlights‬‏

this man makes a lot of sense...much more than anyone else. in your face, to the point, no bullshit. Why are these not good qualities? Why is no-nonsense not electable?

I agree, sort of. In the field of candidates Ron Paul stood out as the most thoughtful, intelligent and honest. Much of what he believes is appealing. However, is it practical? What might be the unintended consequences of implementation of his ideology in twenty-first C. America?

 

[Dr.Drock]

He is the ultimate corporate deregulator and believes that corps should have free reign.
Just one exaple of his unrealistic idealism.

Corps having free reign is a basic aspect of capitalism.

Well yeah I agree, none of his ideals are realistic, he's going against the 2 monsters who run this government.

Realistic and correct are often different, and this is the case.

Corps having free reign is NOT a basic aspect of capitalism. More precisely, different historians and economists differ on the issue. In the real world, for as long as there have been governments and religions there's been no such thing as a "free market". (I laugh every time I hear people use that flawed term)

There are valid reasons why consumer protections and labor laws are in place. Removing everything to let corporations do whatever is dangerous and foolish. Has there been over-regulation in some places, I'm sure there has. But we can't just remove all protections and screw over our citizenry.

I agree we don't have a free market, in part because we have a fascist govermnent, the Fed, and big time regulations (which usually we let some hand-picked companies get around).

But if you agree with free market capitalism, then you agree with deregulation. If you're a consumer and you don't like a company's labor standards, shop somewhere else.

 

[Liberty]

YouTube - ‪Ron Paul - New Hampshire Debate Highlights‬‏

this man makes a lot of sense...much more than anyone else. in your face, to the point, no bullshit. Why are these not good qualities? Why is no-nonsense not electable?

I agree, sort of. In the field of candidates Ron Paul stood out as the most thoughtful, intelligent and honest. Much of what he believes is appealing. However, is it practical? What might be the unintended consequences of implementation of his ideology in twenty-first C. America?

unhinged prosperity?

 

[GeoLaureate8]

I know who doesn't agree with Ron Paul. Only people who love global fascist dictatorships disagree with Ron Paul.

Which candidate opposes the Patriot Act?
Which candidate opposes the U.N.?
Which candidate opposes international banks like the IMF?
Which candidate opposes the Federal Reserve?
Which candidate wants to free all non-violent drug users from prison?
Which candidate opposes the New World Order?
Which candidate opposes the military industrial complex?

The answer is obvious. NOBODY except Ron Paul.

They all support global fascist dictstorship policies bottom line.

.

Opposes the Patriot Act. wants to free all non-violent drug users from prison, opposes the military industrial complex - good enough for me.

Do you know what the New World Order is? Are you in favor of such? Wiki says of the New World Order:

a conspiracy theory in which a secret elite is conspiring to rule the world via world government and globalization

New World Order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doesn't sound too good to me.

How would I be in favor of the New World Order? My statement was that Ron Paul is against the New World Order. Hell, Ron Paul is the only candidate who acknowledges that it exists and therefore the only one who can fight against the New World Order.


.

 

[candycorn]

I know who doesn't agree with Ron Paul. Only people who love global fascist dictatorships disagree with Ron Paul.

Which candidate opposes the Patriot Act?
Which candidate opposes the U.N.?
Which candidate opposes international banks like the IMF?
Which candidate opposes the Federal Reserve?
Which candidate wants to free all non-violent drug users from prison?
Which candidate opposes the New World Order?
Which candidate opposes the military industrial complex?

The answer is obvious. NOBODY except Ron Paul.

They all support global fascist dictstorship policies bottom line.

.

Opposes the Patriot Act. wants to free all non-violent drug users from prison, opposes the military industrial complex - good enough for me.

Do you know what the New World Order is? Are you in favor of such? Wiki says of the New World Order:

a conspiracy theory in which a secret elite is conspiring to rule the world via world government and globalization

New World Order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doesn't sound too good to me.

How would I be in favor of the New World Order? My statement was that Ron Paul is against the New World Order. Hell, Ron Paul is the only candidate who acknowledges that it exists and therefore the only one who can fight against the New World Order.


.

I'd like to order a new world...this one has too many idiots in it.

 

[GeoLaureate8]

Ron Paul goes beyond reason into idealistic territory. There lies the problem with RP.

Beyond reason? Ron Paul is the only man of reason in this election. In fact, unlike the other candidates who are flip flippers for political gain, Ron Paul is a philosopher in the world of politics akin to Reagan, Goldwater, Jefferson, etc. due to their ideas that they represent. Other politicians get forgotten because they don't have ideas of their own that are memorable, Ron Paul on the other hand does.

He's not idealistic because everything he proposes can easily be done with his Presidential powers such as bring home the troops, legalize drugs, repeal the Patriot Act and repeal everything else. It's not like he proposes a utopia that can't even begin to come to realization, it's simple legislation that is possible to do.

Mostdo not like his non intervention policy in world matters. I on the other hand do.
I think his economic ideals would be a catastrophe. Yeah they sound good up front but the implementation would be impossible without wrecking everything.

Oh yeah, because the Federal Reserve has worked SO well! It's not a catastrophe! WRONG. Yes it is. Ron Paul wants to have an economy backed by money that actually has value rather than an artificial value decided by the Federal Reserve who can choose to destroy all our money when they feel like it.

As one of the Rothschilds said, "Give me control of a nations money and I care not who makes the laws."


.

 

[kwc57]

As Charles Krauthammer said about Paul's answers and Libertarianism on Bill O'Reilley tonight: "It's a good philosophy for criticizing government, but not for governing."

Neocon Krauthammer has little room to talk when it comes to good philosophies for governing. It's his ilk's mess that needs to be cleaned up.

 

[GeoLaureate8]

If Ron Paul gets more delegates than others in nomination; he'll win the nomination. Why do you all write him off so quickly?

YOU did, when you said his chances were zero.

I, personally, think his chances are zero because of his silly policies such as near total isolationism, legalization of pot, and many others.

Leaglizing pot is a silly policy? I suppose you think alcohol should be illegal too if you are consistent.

You know what it is, you hate freedom. You want the government to use force against people and tell them what they can and can't put into their own bodies. What's next? Do you want the government to tell us what food we can and can't eat? Do you want the government to tell us to drink Pepsi instead of Coke? Do you want the government to make every single choice for you? Yes, because that's what ideals you support.

GTFO with this totalitarian nonsense!

But I come here and it looks like 8 out of 10 or so think he's right on the money.

If he gets more delegates to the RNC next Summer than those who placed their name in nomination for the Presidency, he will win the nomination. There isn't some shadowy foreign banker super ninja type that is going to rub out his delegates to make sure someone more "acceptable" gets the nod.

It's fucking hilarious to hear people that love the guy's policies be the first ones to dismiss him because "they" won't let him win. There is no "they"....there are only other voters who, in my view, like the other candidates better.

Let me put it another way; If I don't think the Phillies are going to win the NL East this year, should you stop rooting for them based on my opinion? I don't have that much juice. Wish I did.

But my point is this; there is no "they" to keep Paul out of the White House unless you are referring to the other candidates. So if you want him, vote for him; don't listen to "they" or me for that matter. It takes a very small group of determined people to change the world. If you really look at it; thats the only thing that has ever changed the world in the past.

Yes, there is a "they." "They" being the Illuminati. The Illuminati controls the media which is why the media is using dirty tactics against Ron Paul like skewing his poll numbers and replacing audio of cheers with boos to make it sound like people hate Ron Paul. He has no scandals so the media has nothing to smear him with! They're desparate to get him out of the race.

.

 

[Liberty]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_EWT0FNKas]YouTube - ‪Who the HELL is Ron Paul?‬‏[/ame]

 

[Contumacious]

YouTube - ‪Ron Paul - New Hampshire Debate Highlights‬‏

this man makes a lot of sense...much more than anyone else. in your face, to the point, no bullshit. Why are these not good qualities? Why is no-nonsense not electable?

I agree, sort of. In the field of candidates Ron Paul stood out as the most thoughtful, intelligent and honest. Much of what he believes is appealing. However, is it practical? What might be the unintended consequences of implementation of his ideology in twenty-first C. America?

Of course is not practical.

If it wasn't for food stamps my wife and 15 kids would starve.

She is pregnant again, who the fuck would pay for the hospitalization and childbirth expenses?. Goddamn Ron Paul can not be real.

.

 

[initforme]

I rather like his foreign policy stances. Iraq and Afghanistan were TOTALLY uncessessary. Now we are stuck in both and rebuilding one while our country needs the rebuilding. Makes no sense.

 

[Sarah G]

A Libertarian/Republican message has always been curious to me. Seems like an oxymoron. I could never get my arms around it.

 

[8537]

I know who doesn't agree with Ron Paul. Only people who love global fascist dictatorships disagree with Ron Paul.

lol. How nice. Support me or support global fascism! Convenient.