Lies??? Those are opinions of a syndicated columnist solicited by supporters of Ron Paul. You guys are a bit thin-skinned for a group trying to install someone to be the next president of the United States. Ron seems to be a good guy with interesting, albeit, dangerous ideas, but I question his ability to lead and build consensus...plus his plan on downsizing or eliminating government entities such as the Federal Reserve and the EPA, thereby letting the private sector have complete free reign seems naive. Here's a question. Didn't he vote back in 2001 against raising fuel-economy standards saying Detroit shouldn't be told how to build cars? In Paul's world we would still be riding around without seatbelts in cars using leaded gasoline.
For the record, I've never called him a weirdo. As for do I think we're heading in the right direction? Not necessarily. But frankly, Congress is to blame for that one, as well, not just the President. I don't really back anyone right now, because nobody has really separated themselves. But I'll tell you I don't back Hillary, Obama, or Paul. Sure, Paul seems to have some good ideas on paper, but they're a bit overzealous and far-reaching. And I've said before that I think his foreign policy ideas ain't exactly the best out there. I'm sorry, but you don't stay a world power without keeping a military presence around the world. You gotta flex your muscle when you can. Yes, I can be. But jesuit_flyer is right, you Paul supporters are extremely thin-skinned when somebody attempts to rebuke your points.
I think this is a fair argument considering how is often on his own when voting against this bill or that. But his own people like him and he has easily won praise from a number of people because of making principled and sometimes unpopular stances. When he speaks he doesn't sound full of crap and that resonates with many. Paul wants these governmental entities phased out because he thinks the private sector and the states could do a better job. I think Paul's presidency would force a serious look at reforming our federal government, but Paul alone won't be able to sculpt everything as he sees fit. I agree that asking the questions you are asking is important, but fearing what Paul is capable of doing on his own seems extreme. To change things he will need consensus. I've seen governmental entities first hand and I've seen their inefficiencies. Perhaps privatizing the EPA would be in everyone's best interest. I really believe Paul would be unwilling to change things overnight and/or without consensus. If he made very unpopular stances he would be circumvented. I believe Paul would enact gradual change in our federal bloat and that the people he served would actually appreciate the changes he'd make. That is very true. Paul is all for a very strong military, but he believes in stationing them and maintaining them at home. This would be good for local economies, this would boost the moral of our soldiers, and most importantly this would save us a ton of money. You and I are paying to maintain a presence around the world. We've funded both sides of many wars, we've funded our declared enemies in humanitarian aid (freeing up their money for less savory activity), and in many instances money spent on foreign entanglements has not gotten us very good return on investment. Many countries benefit from our presence and are able to spend their money elsewhere, giving these other countries advantages elsewhere. All the money that is spent overseas is our money - imagine how useful that money would be if it were spent domestically. We are in a very poor situation financially because we can't afford the foreign expenditures that we are making. We are stretching ourselves too thin and causing our financial stability to seriously waver. Our finances need to change abruptly, but no candidate wants to seriously get into that beside Paul. You seem to believe that Paul would weaken our military, but Paul is pro-gun and pro-defending yourself and taking responsibility for yourself, both individually and nationally. I'd venture to say our military would be stronger under Paul and we'd be better off as a nation in general because even though Paul couldn't change everything overnight he would force politicians to answer tough questions that are currently glazed over. He would force a change for the better. With any other candidate we'd have more or a little less of the same. How is that better? Fearing Paul is foolish IMO. He wouldn't be able to shape the world any way he saw fit, but he'd get people asking themselves important questions about the true role of government and the important role of self-reliance and personal independence. I'm surprised to see so many republicans afraid of weening the nation off of big government. Thinking any other candidate will do this is crazy. If you keep doing the same thing and expect different results, isn't that crazy? Ghouliani is a disaster waiting to happen. Romney has proven that his word is flexible and he won't bring about significant change. Maybe Thompson would be ok, maybe Obama (though Obama would not shrink government). Huckabee has been taking pot shots at Paul and likes to throw around religion because he knows that is an easy way to gain political capitol. Paul is a very religious man, but he doesn't flaunt it for political gain. LOL, I'll call anyone out for lazy criticisms (name calling, inaccurate arguments, etc). I don't feel the need to resort to that. I think I may take our conversation more seriously than you, but that is to be expected considering I am the one actively trying to get people to consider Ron Paul. I still wish people would consider Paul more realistically. When compared to the alternative, I'm really baffled why this is a tough choice.
Ron Paul is truely the only conservative Republican out there. Guliani/Thompson/Romney/McCain/Huckabee etc. are all big goverment big spending candidates. Both are stances that the Republican party has stood against for many years. Quite honestly I think of the new Republican party as Democrats and the new Democrat party as SUPER Democrats. haha If everyone wants this country to go broke then don't vote for Paul.
Ron Paul is every bit as big a spender as any of the mentioned candidates. He has earmarked $400 million in pork.
Paul Requests 400 Million in Earmarks Hypocrite!!! He speaks out against spending, chastises his Senate colleagues for earmarks, and then makes them himself. The Ron Paul revoloution is a farce. He is just a politician. I really wanted to like him, but examination of his record reveals he is full of it.
Ron Paul voted against all the pork he earmarked. If he were to hold up to his ideals and not earmark pork his constituents would be footing the bill for Paul's message, which is obviously not getting across to the rest of the senate as Paul is one of the only congressmen to vote against pork. Instead of asking his constituents to pay for Paul to make a statement, he simply makes an official statement by voting against the pork. In addition, Paul doesn't believe the federal government should be taking so much of his constituents' money, so he doesn't have a big ethical problem with asking for the money back. Obviously the message of no pork spending isn't resonating with the majority of congressmen, so to simply allow his constituents' money to go to other districts (who would then gain an unfair economic advantage, doubly costing his constituents) is unreasonable of you to expect. It isn't realistic. And even if you can't agree with what Paul is doing, I think you could understand the reasoning behind it. IMO, this shows that Paul is able to balance philosophy and reality. And I really can't believe that this one issue makes you believe another candidate is better suited for president. By listening to each candidate it is obvious to me that Paul is the most genuine and that his view for the direction of our country is much more sound than that of the others, who have obligations to special interests and have flexible stances on most issues. Even Huckabee seems to be exploiting his standing in religious circles and I find Paul's approach to his spirituality and how it shapes his political philosophy more ideal.
