Ron Paul Presidential Video

lew · 02-21-2007, 09:42 PM

YouTube - RP PEC Video

Dumpy Dooby · 02-21-2007, 10:16 PM

For those that refuse to watch it because you just hate leaving this site (

)...

YouTube Video

Hot damn. I love this old fella.

Jas0n · 02-21-2007, 10:40 PM

Since Chris Walken pulled out of the race a while back, I'm 100% in for Ron Paul.

Diamond Cross · 02-22-2007, 07:28 AM

His name is too close to Ru Paul for my tastes.

Ugh.

SoFlaJDM · 02-22-2007, 09:55 AM

who the hell is ron paul?

lew · 02-22-2007, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

who the hell is ron paul?

The only presidential candidate willing to take this country back to it's constitutional roots.

Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SoFlaJDM · 02-22-2007, 10:36 AM

oh, then in that case, he's got my vote!!!

lew · 02-22-2007, 11:26 AM

I see hsmith

nbiggershaft · 02-22-2007, 06:34 PM

Their are alot of good things in my opinion but way too many bad. He seems to function as nothing more than a naysayer in congress and the only measures he actually votes for are against gay rights and abortion.

I just see him as a pessimistic republican that talks a good game at this point.

Ardentfrost · 02-22-2007, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Their are alot of good things in my opinion but way too many bad. He seems to function as nothing more than a naysayer in congress and the only measures he actually votes for are against gay rights and abortion.

I just see him as a pessimistic republican that talks a good game at this point.

I suggest you look into his reasons for voting no or yes. I'm pretty sure he publishes them.

He won't vote yes for anything that expands the rights/power/spending of government... even if the bill is good except for one little rider that breaks those ideals, he'll vote no.

He has conviction where everyone else does not. He'd get my vote certainly.

Dumpy Dooby · 02-22-2007, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Their are alot of good things in my opinion but way too many bad. He seems to function as nothing more than a naysayer in congress and the only measures he actually votes for are against gay rights and abortion.

I just see him as a pessimistic republican that talks a good game at this point.

Look closely at his voting history and the reasons for why he votes the way that he does. In the case of gay marriage, he's against it presumably for the same reason that I am: because people shouldn't have to seek permission from the state to marry each other. In the case of abortion, he's against letting the federal government decide that, and thinks that the states should be able to make that decision on their own.

As for "gay rights," I'd like for you to show me what "gay rights" he's in favor of violating.

nbiggershaft · 02-22-2007, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Look closely at his voting history and the reasons for why he votes the way that he does. In the case of gay marriage, he's against it presumably for the same reason that I am: because people shouldn't have to seek permission from the state to marry each other. In the case of abortion, he's against letting the federal government decide that, and thinks that the states should be able to make that decision on their own.

As for "gay rights," I'd like for you to show me what "gay rights" he's in favor of violating.

he voted to ban gays from adopting, and he voted to nationally ban partial birth abortion, both seem pretty big government to me

Ardentfrost · 02-22-2007, 08:35 PM

Post the bills please

kthx

nbiggershaft · 02-22-2007, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Post the bills please

kthx

partial birth abortion ban act 2003
the gay adoption thing was a ban in 1999 for dc

Dumpy Dooby · 02-22-2007, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

partial birth abortion ban act 2003

That's hardly pro-life fundamentalism or anything of the sort, if that's what you're implying. Most people on both the left and right are against partial birth abortions unless the mother's life is in danger.

the gay adoption thing was a ban in 1999 for dc

That makes sense. Like I said in my previous post, he thinks this stuff should be the decision of the States. He's voting for a small district, which is what he advocates. That doesn't go against anything else he advocates.

btw, I disagree with his position on both of those issues, and I think he's an asshole for insisting on violating people's rights, but you'd be hard pressed to give me the name of ANYBODY in the public sphere - not just those that are actually running for office - that advocates the protection of freedom more than him. Who else do you think stands for "freedom"? Hilarity?

nbiggershaft · 02-22-2007, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

but you'd be hard pressed to give me the name of ANYBODY in the public sphere - not just those that are actually running for office - that advocates the protection of freedom more than him. Who else do you think stands for "freedom"? Hilarity?

I don't doubt you are right, but these two examples represent the largest rights issues in the country. Essentially I disagree on the rights he is willing to infringe on, and I don't nearly as much value the protecting rights he is emphatic about (namely financial rights). If I could elect someone as a devil's advocate to the president, it would be Ron Paul (why I voted for a libertarian for state auditor), as an actual president he would not represent my interests at all.

Dumpy Dooby · 02-23-2007, 02:13 AM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I don't doubt you are right, but these two examples represent the largest rights issues in the country. Essentially I disagree on the rights he is willing to infringe on, and I don't nearly as much value the protecting rights he is emphatic about (namely financial rights). If I could elect someone as a devil's advocate to the president, it would be Ron Paul (why I voted for a libertarian for state auditor), as an actual president he would not represent my interests at all.

He isn't in favor of legislating those on a federal level, which means you wouldn't be affected by his position if he was president.

nbiggershaft · 02-23-2007, 03:39 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

He isn't in favor of legislating those on a federal level, which means you wouldn't be affected by his position if he was president.

Depends on the what you view as the role of the president, he (the president) isn't a law maker anyways, but his opinion seems to have a great influence on what is passed and party direction.

Ardentfrost · 02-23-2007, 10:56 AM

He isn't a law maker, but he's a law vetoer... Considering RP would veto any bill that expanded the powers of government, and only pass bills if their reduced federal involvement or didn't affect personal or state liberties at all, his presidency would be 4-8 years of increased personal freedom (or at least a slowed decrease).

Dumpy Dooby · 02-23-2007, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Depends on the what you view as the role of the president,

President is supposed to be nothing more than a military leader with the power to prevent legislation as a means of protecting our personal freedoms.

he (the president) isn't a law maker anyways, but his opinion seems to have a great influence on what is passed and party direction.

So if he's not in favor of outlawing abortion on a federal level, and he's not in favor of infringing on "gay rights" on a federal level, then I don't see how this could possibly be seen as a vice to you.