Media Ignores Ron Paul

[Bern80]

Me on the last page: "I still like some of Paul's ideas, but I think/know that he has no chance in a national election even if he's getting equal coverage as Clinton or McCain. Simply put, people aren't living all that poorly in America. We want to change many things, but we don't want to destroy what we have and hope our new ideas work out, because if they don't then every American gets screwed."

Tell me how this is wrong.

Then why are you for the party that propossed drastically overhauling our medical system in hopes that it will 'work out'? The candidiate you support is in the party that has by far propossed the most drastic changes (to our detriment).

There is nothing wrong with drastic change in of itself so long as there is evidence that it actually will work.. Our tax system needs to be overhauled...drastically. Social security needs to be overhauled....drastically. Our course in Iraq needs to be overhauled....drastically. And right now RP is one of the few i see on either side that will actually make the effort.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Then why are you for the party that propossed drastically overhauling our medical system in hopes that it will 'work out'? The candidiate you support is in the party that has by far propossed the most drastic changes (to our detriment).

Socialized medicine isn't a drastic new idea. Many countries around the world give health care to it's tax payers with great success.

There is nothing wrong with drastic change in of itself so long as there is evidence that it actually will work.. Our tax system needs to be overhauled...drastically. Social security needs to be overhauled....drastically. Our course in Iraq needs to be overhauled....drastically. And right now RP is one of the few i see on either side that will actually make the effort.

Ok, I can agree to that. Paul would make an effort to change things, but Obama is a proven bi-partisan leader, and he actually KNOWS how to get done what needs to get done. His record shows this, and it's more than obvious that he's a true leader of all americans, not just his voting base. We haven't had a leader of all americans since maybe Reagan or JFK. Politics are very polarized, so it has become very important to elect a president that will work with both sides to get things done. I don't see any other candidate in this race that is even close to being on Obama's level in this category.

 

[Paulie]

Socialized medicine isn't a drastic new idea. Many countries around the world give health care to it's tax payers with great success.




Ok, I can agree to that. Paul would make an effort to change things, but Obama is a proven bi-partisan leader, and he actually KNOWS how to get done what needs to get done. His record shows this, and it's more than obvious that he's a true leader of all americans, not just his voting base. We haven't had a leader of all americans since maybe Reagan or JFK. Politics are very polarized, so it has become very important to elect a president that will work with both sides to get things done. I don't see any other candidate in this race that is even close to being on Obama's level in this category.

You seem very confused right now. You went from embracing the most conservative of ideas, to embracing the most liberal of ideas, in less then a couple months.

Are you voting on issues, or are you just looking for a good PR president?

 

[CharlestonChad]

You seem very confused right now. You went from embracing the most conservative of ideas, to embracing the most liberal of ideas, in less then a couple months.

Are you voting on issues, or are you just looking for a good PR president?

You must be thinking of someone else. I never supported "the most conservative ideas", ever. I've always supported progressive action. I've been anti-war since it started, which is my #1 issue. I've been pro-personal freedom as long as I can remember. I've always been a liberal leaning libertarian. I acknowledge that freedoms are necessary, but I also understand that the federal government can carry out some duties better than the state level or private sector.

 

[Bern80]

You must be thinking of someone else. I never supported "the most conservative ideas", ever. I've always supported progressive action. I've been anti-war since it started, which is my #1 issue. I've been pro-personal freedom as long as I can remember. I've always been a liberal leaning libertarian. I acknowledge that freedoms are necessary, but I also understand that the federal government can carry out some duties better than the state level or private sector.

Then your udnerstanding is horribly flawed. One you say Obama is bi-partisan. On his extremely short record how would one come to that conclusion? He is also the furthest left of of any of the dem nominees, which isn't going to lend itself to bi-partisanship.

Everyone is anti-war. Some are able to see the neccessity for it at times though. Are you one of the few who didn't believe at the time that Saddam had WMD's? How exactley should we be fighting the war on terror? Invite Osama for a luncheon perhaps?

As to what the government is good at providing, frankly very little. They pay over market price for almost everything and are the epitamy of inneffeciency and yet you want to turn your health over to them. Yes, you understand perfectly

 

[Paulie]

You must be thinking of someone else. I never supported "the most conservative ideas", ever. I've always supported progressive action. I've been anti-war since it started, which is my #1 issue. I've been pro-personal freedom as long as I can remember. I've always been a liberal leaning libertarian. I acknowledge that freedoms are necessary, but I also understand that the federal government can carry out some duties better than the state level or private sector.

No, I'm thinking of YOU. You supported Ron Paul, and you still say his ideas are good, but you're not sure if they will have a positive or negative impact on the country.

He's about as conservative as it gets. There's no one in congress right now who's got a more conservative record than Ron Paul. Unless you consider blind support of anything this administration does "conservative". There's plenty of people these days who, for some reason, do. That's a whole different debate though.

You went from supporting a candidate who wanted to drastically reduce the size of federal government, to supporting one who would no doubt like to make it even bigger than it already is. I'd say that's a paradox.

A liberal leaning libertarian is more closely defined as a conservative, considering most libertarians that consider themselves "liberals", are referring to "classical liberalism", which is in no way what liberalism NOW is. It's actually much closer to conservatism than it is to today's liberalism. Socially however, it all changes.

Where my conservatism differs from today's conservative, is that I don't see where the federal government has any say in how we socially live our life. Marriage, church, religion, sexual preference...it's no business of the federal government...certainly not for making laws about it, anyway. How THAT viewpoint is not considered conservative, I'll never understand.

Definitions of ideologies have changed so much, that it's almost impossible to define yourself as pertaining to only ONE. I find contradictions between what today's definition of liberal and conservative are, when compared to each other.

Anyway though, Obama and Paul are polar opposites. The only way they compare, is that Obama CLAIMS to be against the Iraq War. But how can that REALLY be true, when he gets so much money from defense contractors? You think the military industrial complex is giving him that money for NOTHING? Come on.

His only claim to fame is he didn't vote for Iraq, and he says he wouldn't have, had he been in office at that time. You really believe that?