Curious......Whats so great bout ron paul???

[LooN3y]

[Teddy Roosevelt]

He isn't afraid to speak his mind, and backs it up with logic (not political BS).

[LooN3y]

He isn't afraid to speak his mind, and backs it up with logic (not political BS).

like cany any1 give me an example or sumthing he spoke bout?

[Teddy Roosevelt]

<a href="http://youtube.com/v/t_oTzFMuU_M" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://youtube.com/v/t_oTzFMuU_M</a>

[AndrE16686]

I like his political mindset, his approach to the Constitution and foreign affairs.

His appraoch to these areas could very well win him votes from the Left.

He voted AGAINST the war, the man obviously has balls.


I got a few questions though....

What is his opinion on the UN?
Is Ron Paul against abortion? Because I think abortion is very good.
And what are his views on government regulation of the free market?


At the end of the day, is he better than Obama?

[Elevz]

Jrome explained most of it:
http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=143977.msg1497332#msg1497332

[virtuoso]

Ron Paul wants to move the U.S out of the UN or at least that is what I have read, which would actually be a good thing in many ways because it would stop Israel from being continually saved from resolutions by the U.S veto. However more fundamentally than that, it's because he believes the UN has too much power and is being used as a vehicle for a one world government something which he adamantly oppposed. He is against abortion and has never made any secret of this which regardless of what you think about abortion means he is being straight up and honest and as for government regulation, he is very much opposed to all of the beaurocratic levels which have been introduced creating big government and believes in small government which allows free market.

The funny thing is I read people despairing of this vision of free market ideals because they believe it will lead to corporations having too much control but this is a confusing and incorrect paradigm the fact is, corporate facism has been able to fluorish because there is not real competition and this is intentionally so. For examples of what I just said you need only looking at the dozens of no bid contracts which have been given for reconstruction, or the oublic private partnerships which allow such corporations to thrive and yet still placing the burden on the tax payer. I don't know whether the videos mention it but he has pledged to scrap income tax also because not only is the tax itself illegal (see america from freedom to facism) but not a cent of the income tax raised goes into improving or maintaining the infrastructure of the nation, instead it goes straight into repaying the debts created when the Federal Reserve prints the money.

The Federal Reserve is basically a collection of private banks who through original empowerment of congress are able to print the dollar bills and then lend it the government, the government repays the debt through income tax, taxes always have to rise sharply because of the levels of interest applied. Of course it is not just America who has a central bank most of the prominent western nations also have to contend with this bs but no other candidate from my recollection of any european nation has ever uttered that they will close down their central bank. The alternative is simply this, the government can print the money itself using it's gold reserves as a means of showing the wealth actually exists. That is of course a secondary problem with the federal reserve namely that politicians can be seen to be improving the lives of the people by allowing for the money supply to be doubled or even tripled within only a few years giving the people much greater spending power or so they think, yet this is just a short term feel good effect because of course the more that is printed the less worth each dollar has.

Ron Paul has said he will scrap the Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act, Guantanamo etc will pull out all American troops from all foreign escapades be it Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea etc. He has also made it clear that he wants to dismantle the CIA and use the savings made from no more wars, to firstly bolster the American border but then also use the savings to cut Americas deficit.

[AndrE16686]

Somebody has to keep order in the world, the idea of an unregulated free market is nuts. Slave trading, weapons trafficking, you name it, there are downsides to letting the free market run utterly free. If we are going to have a One World Market, we need a regulator of that market, an umpire at least with the ability to enforce the rules. The idea that the UN has too much power is a joke, it is impotent as to it's true cause and intention because it depends on the US. Therefore, it would probably be a good idea for the US to take a break from the security council, it's not like it adheres to International law anyway, a break from the security council only, not from the entire UN movement. But whether the president wants it or not, I doubt the US would give up it's veto power, even for an instant, Paul's changes are so radical it wouldnt surprise me if he ended up dead at the apex of some symbolic triangle, with the media blaming it on black religious radicals.

[Elevz]

That's what I've been thinking... His changes are too radical, so even if he makes it to become the republican candidate, people will say he's got a point on certain issues but his solutions are ridiculous and overblown... He wants the US to change too much at once.

[Shallow]

Somebody has to keep order in the world, the idea of an unregulated free market is nuts. Slave trading, weapons trafficking, you name it, there are downsides to letting the free market run utterly free. If we are going to have a One World Market, we need a regulator of that market, an umpire at least with the ability to enforce the rules. The idea that the UN has too much power is a joke, it is impotent as to it's true cause and intention because it depends on the US. Therefore, it would probably be a good idea for the US to take a break from the security council, it's not like it adheres to International law anyway, a break from the security council only, not from the entire UN movement. But whether the president wants it or not, I doubt the US would give up it's veto power, even for an instant, Paul's changes are so radical it wouldnt surprise me if he ended up dead at the apex of some symbolic triangle, with the media blaming it on black religious radicals.

No libertarian believes in a completely unregulated market. Obviously some things will be illegal (like selling human beings as slaves) and people breaking laws will be punished. Paul's objective is to take care of America before it goes into the shitter. He sees a downward turn on the horizon and he wants to prevent it.

[virtuoso]

You liken them to an umpire, yet fundamentally the UN is nothing but a sweet looking strawberry with a deadly poisonous taste. To illustrate exactly what I mean I am referring to the UN charter on human rights, it reads like a utopian delight but then when you reach articles 29 and 30 and go beyond the lawyer speak it effectively says you have no rights because those rights can be renounced by the state, stripping you of all rights. Fundamentally this violates every principle of the american constitution because the constituton does not work on the basis of the notion of they giveth and then they taketh away, the constituion is guarantees to the people, god given rights which no individual can violate. When he is talking about free market, he is talking about the layers of beaurocracy, he is talking about the income tax, he is talking about real competiton he is not talking about allowing an orgy of crime. I gave examples of what he means in the form of scrapping the no bid contracts, scrapping the public private partnerships and scrapping the north american highways which have again been effectively given away to foreign corporations.

[Elevz]

You liken them to an umpire, yet fundamentally the UN is nothing but a sweet looking strawberry with a deadly poisonous taste. To illustrate exactly what I mean I am referring to the UN charter on human rights, it reads like a utopian delight but then when you reach articles 29 and 30 and go beyond the lawyer speak it effectively says you have no rights because those rights can be renounced by the state, stripping you of all rights. Fundamentally this violates every principle of the american constitution because the constituton does not work on the basis of the notion of they giveth and then they taketh away, the constituion is guarantees to the people, god given rights which no individual can violate.

Shouldn't that be a reason for Paul to be willing to STAY in the UN and make a change for the whole UN, not just the USA? Make an issue out of them articles and expose the controversy, instead of backing out?

[7even]

^He doesn't care about the rest of the world, just about his own. Classic American.

[Shallow]

^He doesn't care about the rest of the world, just about his own. Classic American.

Or maybe he realizes he needs to clean up his own shit before he goes and tries to wipe your ass.

[7even]

^He doesn't care about the rest of the world, just about his own. Classic American.

Or maybe he realizes he needs to clean up his own shit before he goes and tries to wipe your ass.

Whatever you prefer...