Ron Paul could have won this election.

bigdavediode · Oct 23, 2008

Quote from hughb:

big dave, you get five stars for being the first person on this board to point that out. I have been prodding the Paulites to do this themselves but they just couldn't bring themselves to do it. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that they totally ignore this too.

You just committed blasphemy against the Paulite's demigod. Prepare to suffer their wrath, (but for god's sake just don't remind them of all the AOL polls they posted showing Ron Paul winning in a landslide).

Did you see that some more of his racist newsletters have leaked out? (He has always refused to release them.) The new ones are no less racist than the old ones.

Perfect thread title, though, for the AOL basement crowd -- "Ron Paul Could Have Won" -- only a small variant from their previous cries of "Ron Paul Will Win." It may take them a few years to get to "Ron Paul is Crazy And Could Never Win."

Gringinho · Oct 23, 2008

It is true that Ron Paul is "extreme" compared to what is the current policies in the US. The actual policies in the US are more centrist, since there is the counterweighting through the US congress and senate from the opposition. There is also a lot of "wheeling and dealing" from the various lobby organizations - which makes for federal government influencing.

Ron Paul is a libertarian - and an ideological libertarian. At the forefront is the idea of individual freedom - liberty - above anything else. That also means he wants a minimalist government, as well as some strict rules that must be followed for society to work as planned. He strongly opposes gun regulation, and think the individual states should decide on abortion rights. At the core of his beliefs is how to combat corruption, avoiding unfair systems being trumped on top of people -- and that is sorely needed in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Libertarianism is the other extreme from authoritarianism, totalitarianism - fascism or communism.
It is first and foremost about individual rights and freedom.

bigdavediode,
I linked to Ron Paul's answer on CNN about such content earlier... What was racist there?
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html

bigdavediode · Oct 23, 2008

Quote from Gringinho:

It is true that Ron Paul is "extreme" compared to what is the current policies in the US. The actual policies in the US are more centrist, since there is the counterweighting through the US congress and senate from the opposition. There is also a lot of "wheeling and dealing" from the various lobby organizations - which makes for federal government influencing.

Yes, I agree that Ron Paul is an extremist.

Ron Paul is a libertarian - and an ideological libertarian. At the forefront is the idea of individual freedom - liberty - above anything else. That also means he wants a minimalist government, as well as some strict rules that must be followed for society to work as planned. He strongly opposes gun regulation, and think the individual states should decide on abortion rights.

Wait... how is allowing states to ban abortion more free than just mandating that the government has no business in individual lives?

This is the guy who voted against abortion (ie. freedom) every chance he got -- hell, Ron Paul even voted against banning lead in toys.

bigdavediode,
I linked to Ron Paul's answer on CNN about such content earlier... What was racist there?

In the new leaks or the old leaks from his newsletters? You'll have to be more specific about which racism to which you're referring.

Pa(b)st Prime · Oct 23, 2008

Quote from oktiri:

Right to bear arms was settled earlier this year. Relax. it's no longer an issue

How is the 2nd amendment no longer an issue? Because a single municipalities ban was overturned-on a technicality-by a 5-4 vote?

State rights only help your types when you want to stop civil right legislation,when it comes to Gay marriage ban, you're fine with a constitutional amendment. hypocrites.

A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT is a hell of a lot more democratic than a decision by an activist court. Why? Because an amendment is debated. Is gay marriage a rare Federal issue? Sure is if one expects Florida to recognize your marriage in San Francisco.

Rush Limbaugh is to Conservatism
What abusing Oxycontin to Health.

I've only heard a few hours of Limbaugh over the course of my life so I can't comment to the validity or style of his commentary.

oktiri · Oct 23, 2008

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Right to bear arms is settled, 5-4 in SCOTUS is as good as 9-0. not just a technicality, they basically clarified the "organized militia." part that the libs were dancing around to curtail gun ownership.
Individuals have to right to bear arms.
Nominating John Roberts to lead the US Supreme court is the single BEST achievement of Bush. Alito is so so, Scalia's personality is despicable but he writes well thought opinions.
The Black guy (don't remember his name) is affirmative action, a quota hire.

I'm against Gay marriage and for an amendment to the constitution, but only if the Gay lobby pushes the issue harder. Civil unions are just fine are me. Amazingly so, I'm even more against adoption by gay parents, that' what bugs me the most.
I think California is about to ban it.
I only raised it because of the state rights / federal gov abusing states argument

I listen to Rush from time to time. Nothing of substance, bomb thrower.

Gringinho · Oct 23, 2008

Quote from bigdavediode:

...
In the new leaks or the old leaks from his newsletters? You'll have to be more specific about which racism to which you're referring.

So - you are saying/implying it is all racist?

Please name whatever racism Ron Paul has once uttered...

Also, Ron Paul is against the FEDERAL legislation on abortion - that is more personal freedom, since you can move between states and stronger influence what type of rule you want.

An ideological standpoint will be more extreme than any consensus. The fewer supporters there are of such ideologies, and the farther the decisions are from the other viewpoints - that is how they become more extreme.

Neo-conservatives are much more extreme - because they support being "supreme elites" - ruling the others, and applying authoritarian rule - totalitarian ideology.

oktiri · Oct 23, 2008

Quote from Gringinho:

So - you are saying/implying it is all racist?
Please name whatever racism Ron Paul has once uttered...

Also, Ron Paul is against the FEDERAL legislation on abortion - that is more personal freedom, since you can move between states and stronger influence what type of rule you want.

An ideological standpoint will be more extreme than any consensus. The fewer supporters there are of such ideologies, and the farther the decisions are from the other viewpoints - that is how they become more extreme.

Neo-conservatives are much more extreme - because they support being "supreme elites" - ruling the others, and applying authoritarian rule - totalitarian ideology.

Can't agree more with this post.
Ron Paul is not racist, he wants to cut welfare to everybody " Blacks, Oil companies. Level the playing field.
The most interesting part of the post is the NeoCons RACISM. The most dangerous type of racism. They want a super class that rules us all.
They scare the crap out of me, but since the war in Irak failed and markets crashed, they'll retreat...for a while.

insider trading · Oct 23, 2008

Quote from TGregg:

Many liberals think that forum members are exaggerating when they claims Barry is going to raise taxes, double the size of government, get as many people on government handouts as possible, etc.

Ron Paul really is extreme like that, but the other way and much further. The Libertarian party doesn't want to reform welfare, or cut it. They want to eliminate it. They don't want to cut regulation, they want it all gone. They don't want to scale back affimative action, they want it gone. They want to eliminate food stamps. Eliminate unemployment insurance.

And SCOTUS nominations? How about justices that do not interpret the "provide for the welfare of the people" so broadly? Or think that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means exactly that?

States rights? All the way. Civil rights? Bye bye. The libertarians think government should not be in the business of telling you who you must serve.

Obama is an ultra elite uber socialist looter compared to Ron Paul. To say you would vote for him over Obama is to say you have much more in common with conservative ideals than liberal, and more in common with Rush Limbaugh than Nancy Pelosi. Note that I said conservative and not republican. Many politicians in the GOP have more in common with Pelosi than with Ronald Reagan. Even JFK was to the right of half the current GOP. But that's a rant for another time.

I agree I have more conservative views then liberal views,but John Mccain is not a conservative

John Mccain will have a government just as big as Obama

John Mccain will spend just a much as Obama

John Mccain probably wont raise taxes to pay for all of his spending,so he will raise the national debt more then Obama

The best thing is for the Republican party to lose,so future Republicans know they better stick to true conservatism or they wont be elected

McCain's foreign policy scares the hell out of me.Continue spending 10 billion a month in Iraq,likely to start a war with Iran,likely to restart the draft,might even start WWIII.I'm am even more scared if Mccain dies and Palin becomes president

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ytzWNJlAk-k&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ytzWNJlAk-k&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MEc2ot3QGB4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MEc2ot3QGB4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KicI2Swu9xw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KicI2Swu9xw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

AMT4SWA · Oct 23, 2008

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

This is where we part company. I hope you're right but my intuition is Obama is going to be a war monger like past Dem greats FDR, HST, LBJ.....

Just like how obama helped fund tribal wars in kenya through his muslim pal..........

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78324

BTW.....I LOVE the thought of Ron Paul as our President with his great family/relatives helping him to win an election (hell, when your running as an outsider against the globalist crowd you CAN ONLY trust family in your own campaign!!!). There are so many pathetic and disgusting non constitutional teet sucking scum living off this government. I would LOVE to see them ALL get cut off and the shock that would hit.......THAT WOULD BE FRICKEN AWESOME!!! Of course I am not talking about the ill or elderly, but all the other able bodied un-american codependent waste which sucks off the wealth of this country!

I am writing in Ron Paul.....I will not have the blood of the globalist puppets on my hands from this election!!!!!!!!!!!!

bigdavediode · Oct 23, 2008

Quote from Gringinho:

So - you are saying/implying it is all racist?
Please name whatever racism Ron Paul has once uttered...

"Uttered?" It's written. And there's not enough space.

The guy claims he wasn't competent enough to vet his own mimeographed newsletters for racist comments, and didn't read his own racist newsletters.

Also, Ron Paul is against the FEDERAL legislation on abortion - that is more personal freedom, since you can move between states and stronger influence what type of rule you want.

That's a great rationalization, that he's for freedom because he wants to allow it to be banned.

An ideological standpoint will be more extreme than any consensus. The fewer supporters there are of such ideologies, and the farther the decisions are from the other viewpoints - that is how they become more extreme.

Neo-conservatives are much more extreme - because they support being "supreme elites" - ruling the others, and applying authoritarian rule - totalitarian ideology.

I don't think that's really a testimony for him.