A few words and a video link (of a comedian nonetheless)? What else was I expecting. Ray, I seriously feel like I'm banging my head against a wall in this thread. Why do you refuse to answer the questions thrown your way? Why can't you defend Paul with anything more than a video link?




How?


How?


How?



Some Ron Paul positions that worry me (his environmental record is abysmal):

*Voted NO on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Apr 2009)
*Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
*Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
*Militarizing outer space impoverishes America. (Jun 2007)
*Received the most campaign contributions from the military. (Feb 2008 )

*Block international highway from Canada to Mexico. (Dec 2007)
*Rated 39% by NAACP, indicating a mixed record on affirmative-action
*Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty. (Feb 2008 )
*Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
*Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)
*Voted NO on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization. (Jul 2009)
*Close Dept. of Education, but don’t dismantle public schools. (Dec 2007)
*Present scientific facts that support creationism. (Sep 2007)
*Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007)
*Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008 )
*Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
*Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
(F*^k Planet Earth!)
*Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001)
*Scored 14% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007)
*Voted NO on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program. (Jul 2009)
*Voted NO on environmental education grants for outdoor experiences. (Sep 2008 )
*Voted NO on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008 )
*Voted NO on four weeks of paid parental leave for federal employees. (Jun 2009)
*Free trade agreements threaten national sovereignty. (Apr 2008 )
*Inappropriate to impose sanctions for persecuting Christians. (Sep 2007)
*Voted NO on promoting free trade with Peru. (Nov 2007)
*Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
*Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
*Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
*Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)
*Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
*Put 65 projects into 2006 bills, worth $4B to his district. (Dec 2007)
*Voted NO on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)
Source

"*Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)"

I kinda had a feeling after I found out he was pro life..why are pro life people always sooo stupid? Stem cell research is important and anyone that cant see that should not be in power.

Most people are oblivious...they don't know or don't care to know. Some are aware, some more than others, but people have been pacified through consumer culture and emphasis on personal rights and freedoms (while ignoring the larger sphere of rights and freedoms necessary to even begin talks on personal levels). There are many groups organized against this, they are a minority, but throughout history, this has been the norm.

The US has an amazing degree of freedom and unlike oppresive totalitarian regimes, it can't bludgeon dissidents openly or round them up and have them executed. As Noam Chomsky states, the US is an organizers paradise. The problem is precisely as you have identified, opulence breeds complacency and concerns about "security" while overlooking or ignoring the needs of the global or even huge swathes of the national populace. A great case-study in this is hard-working blue-collar American conservatives who consistently vote for Republican candidates who do everything but advance blue-collar interests.

ok I get it, and I imagined it. once I saw some kind of documentary reaserch video that showed how a good ammount of americans randomly interviewed on the street didn't even know where their country was on a world map. There is also another set of facts that I have heard but never confirmed, like teaching in early grades to kids that Cristobal Colon ("Christopher Columbus" arrived to northamerican lands on one of his trips, and also teaching this convention that there is no American continent since its divided in northamerica and southamerica giving the "legitimate" posesion of the name America to USA country, no wonder if they just dont care about their external politics.

minxx told me that Paul is also pro-nuclear..which is something I cant get behind.

Why? I mean if we can engineer the safety then why would you not get behind it? Yes that is a big if...but we are human and we can pretty much solve anything if we need to.

What are the alternatives... We have already hit peak oil (IMHO) switching to Nat gas will buy us some time, but electric is the future and nuclear is the most efficient means we have of producing electricity on the scale needed to run a country. It's not a renewable source of energy, but we can certainly use it as a stepping stone for a few thousand years (with current heavy metal reserves on earth) while we search the universe, and science for better solutions...

BTW There are plenty of reasons to not like Ron, but I was just curious of your thoughts behind the above statement.

Natural gas wrecks the environment, plain and simple.

Nuclear plants require a 10 year incubation period just to get the paperwork processed and the site completely approved.

The sun is shining and the wind is blowing
On the surface of the water, algae is a-growing
Wind and solar and biofuel hopes
Are better than radio-isotopes

Although...breakthroughs in thorium technology could change the risk/reward factor enough to make me believe that perhaps a certain number of thorium reactors would be acceptable to bolster global power reserves. Currently though, given standard incestuous relations between regulating agencies and industry, nuclear tends to be rather more hazardous than it should, making it even worse than it appears on paper.

a1pha I can't answer your questions,Ron Paul knows how to approach the problems he wants to work on, not me. and demanding I answer them to your satisfaction is like demanding I describe how a space shuttle that could go to mars would work because I support the idea. All I know is that hes honest and will actually give it an effort unlike any other candidate.

I don't like his policy on stem cell research either and a few other things as well but imo those are all side issues, the real issues are getting back to sound money, and ending american aggression in the world.

We've already covered his "honesty" and to call unfulfillable promises honest is wrong, imo. As to his positions, if youre going to support his positions or plug him as a candidate you need to be aware of and able to explain his positions...otherwise how do you even know if what youre saying is legitimate.

well, Ive already said that the things he wants to do need to be voted on, where we differ is that you already know how the voting will go and I think it should be voted on first before determining the outcome.

Ray, that's not how our system works. The President has veto power when a bill lands on his desk, but does not bring his own bills to congress.

Powers of the President of the United States

My frustration comes in that you seem to think Ron Paul can change the world if he were president when the president has limited power - for good reason. I'm sorry to say, the United States has much bigger problems than the President alone can fix.



Unless you want to go into specific issues, can we give the Ron Paul rhetoric a break? Please?

Im not saying Ron Paul can fix the world, I just think hes the best person running. Thats all. The reason I think so is because hes anti establishment and will put real issues on the table. After reading through the link you posted about presidential powers I really believe that Ron Paul would be able to make some positive changes.

Ron Paul would pardon all people in jail for drug possession. Great idea!

Ron Paul would be responsible for preparing the Budget of the United States.

It seems like everything I'm reading right now says that a president has the ability to withdraw troops.

He could veto bad bills.

I really do believe that he would be able to do some stuff that could potentially really help.

thanks for the link.

A1pha i think you are underestimating how much power the president of the united states actually has.

For example you ask how the president could curtail the war on drugs. Is it not obvious? Who is it that appoints all of the leaders in the justice department and therefore in the DEA, FBI, and all the other federal law enforcement agencies? Who is it that proposes the budget for all those various agencies to Congress?

^ I think the drug issue would best be addressed by the DOJ - but nonetheless I understand the Powers of Appointment. The point I'm making is this country has been heading towards the ice berg for years now, and I wouldn't tust a radical republican from Texas at the helm.

This is so redundant it's not even funny. Smoke DMT.

I see you've already voted for Dmt, good choice .

tell that to the hundreds of thousands of paraplegic and quadriplegic's who have a cure right there in front of them but must live confined to a chair and miss out on the beauty of sexual intimacy because of bullshit christian values being forced down their throats.

my very good friend who i began base jumping with is now paralyzed from the chest down after a jumping acccident in Hawaii and is a prime candidate for stem cell therapy. he has slight sensation in one toe. he has the highest of probability's of being able to walk again but these gdamn Christians wont let that happen.

im sorry guys i don't usually go off on rants but this one hits too close to home for me. i love my buddy, his name is Jarrett Martin he is 21 years old and he is a huge inspiration to me and the world. i cant express the amount of frustration and rage i have against these christian groups and there bullshit values keeping my friend confined to a wheel chair. for what? why? because some cells from donated embryo's would rather be destroyed by conservatives instead of used to cure a list of ailments and human suffering. these people make me sick to my stomach and i would never ever ever support anyone who would stand by and let this happen. how dare they!

i know i said i wouldn't chime in again but i had to get that off my chest. it hurts me every day when i see Jarrett, i see how talented of a young man he is and i know how its killing him a person that knows the freedom of human flight to be stuck in a chair because of other peoples dogmatic religious views.

now imagine how Jarrett must feel.

I just dont get how someone out there can justify being against stem cell research. If Ron Paul is agaisnt that than he is a retard in my opinion reguardless of what else he says. He does say alot of nice things I agree but when I here some of these other things it makes me do a full 180 and wonder where they the guy left his brains. Saying SOME nice things is not good enough to impress me personally. I want someone with some brains.