Ron Paul for president of USA 08? Your thoughts.

[The Telcontarion]

Congressman Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital and is seeking the 2008 Republican nomination for President of the United States. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

Short youtube videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BB3NrSpRGE

Most Recent debate Ron Paul highlights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjnT1EyUfkQ

What do you think about the so called "Ron Paul revolution."

A significant video related to this issue - JFK speech, believed to have gotten him killed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru4TbL8aweE

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I think people should definitely vote for Ron Paul, because I have a standing bet on how long it wouuld take some right-wing nutcase to assassinate him. Also, I like gridlock in Washington. So, go wild.

My second choice would be Rudy Guiliani, because I like seeing third parties embarrass themselves, and the Green Party just has not been amusing, recently.

It is my opinion that Dr. Paul hasn't gotten the memo that the Republican party has completely abandoned all their principles except "Rich people are better than poor people" and "Religious plurality sux." and therefore he can't be elected by them, but it would be a better world if he could be.

[Ingwe]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I think people should definitely vote for Ron Paul, because I have a standing bet on how long it wouuld take some right-wing nutcase to assassinate him. Also, I like gridlock in Washington. So, go wild.

My second choice would be Rudy Guiliani, because I like seeing third parties embarrass themselves, and the Green Party just has not been amusing, recently.

It is my opinion that Dr. Paul hasn't gotten the memo that the Republican party has completely abandoned all their principles except "Rich people are better than poor people" and "Religious plurality sux." and therefore he can't be elected by them, but it would be a better world if he could be.

Amen, same here. Ron Paul and if not Ron Paul then Rudy! Agreed about the Rep party. At least we know there are some out there that reject what seems to be the standard principles of the Rep party. Those two, either of them, would most likely be great presidents, especially Ron though.

[brownjenkins]

He's has some decent views on spending, but he doesn't realize that near-zero government regulation leads to the exact opposite of free trade, the complete dominance of a select few people/corporations that control nearly all the capital and eventually stifle free trade, much like in the 20s.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

near-zero government regulation leads to the exact opposite of free trade.

Absolutely right. Why doesn't the Left make this point more clearly? It is so manifestly evident.

[D.Sullivan]

At first I thought Ron Paul seemed great, too. I think someone who sees upholding the Constitution as a priority is a good thing. We could certainly use someone who cared more about our rights. But we need more then rights, and all he cares about is our rights. He's an extreme Libertarian. In a Libertarian's mind there's NO TIME for the government to step in, which I don't agree with. Anyone who's a hardcore anything I think is dangerous. Balance I think is what we need in a president, and as great as Ron Paul would be, I think there are things he would neglect.

That's how I feel, anyway. I'm eager to see how this whole election thing unfolds.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

In a Libertarian's mind there's NO TIME for the government to step in, which I don't agree with.

I was having this conversation elsewhere, as regards the rights of children and homeschooling.

Anyone want to point me to a "good reasons for the government to get involved" thread?

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

At first I thought Ron Paul seemed great, too. I think someone who sees upholding the Constitution as a priority is a good thing. We could certainly use someone who cared more about our rights. But we need more then rights, and all here cares about is our rights. He's an extreme Libertarian. In a Libertarian's mind there's NO TIME for the government to step in, which I don't agree with. Anyone who's a hardcore anything I think is dangerous. Balance I think is what we need in a president, and as great as Ron Paul would be, I think there are things he would neglect.

That's how I feel, anyway. I'm eager to see how this whole election thing unfolds.

Just as in Numinore when the dunedain were estranged from the valar and not for the sake of the faithful or Tar - palantir's return to faithful rule, could numinore be saved, in that way too (in that way only) I feel Ron Paul could not save america; he is too late.

Maybe if he was president instead of the first bush or even Clinton, but now, no. You see I see this as a spiritual battle more so than a physical one. Just like Palantir, Ron Paul's policies are exactly what is needed, but the people (not just in america, this is a world desease) are degenerate, depraved, arrogant, pathetic, selfish, caluss, thus fearful: the wicked!!!

Though I believe the paradigm is shifting and the tide is turning, people are waking up to the machine, the lesson learned as a result of our folly cannot be fully appreciated/comprehended/understood before we face the consequences.

Alas!!!

"Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short." Matthew 24:22

"Those days," these days , unless they are cut short no life, no flesh, will remain; but for the sake of the elect/the chosen/ the faithful, those days will be cut short, meaning an intervention by god/the savior (according to the bible - none here may need swear by it, I do not force you to) will happen to save the faithful.

Ron Paul is a sign of the time (JFK come again) but it is to late; I might be wrong, I hope I am wrong, but I know I am not; to my deepest horror and terror and regret and sadness.

I am afraid of what else, is to come. May god have mercy on us all.

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I was having this conversation elsewhere, as regards the rights of children and homeschooling.

Anyone want to point me to a "good reasons for the government to get involved" thread?

Well, I think one of the biggest for this coming election will be Health Care. America is far from one of the better countries to live in when it comes to health care and health insurance. It's about time we started learning from our fellow countries, which is what a good nation does when it wants to improve itself. It looks to it's peers, what they're doing and if it's working, and if so, emulates them.

But Ron Paul doesn't think so. He's so enamored with free capitalist America that he's not even willing to consider that we might need a nationally funded health care system, when many think it is a given that we need one, or at least that the system needs some serious reform.

By the way, I was homeschooled, and to me the right to school your own child is Holy. There are some things we definitely don't want the government putting there noses into, and in my opinion there are some things we do.

[brownjenkins]

In my mind, saying that the government can't do any good for humanity is basically saying that there is no community at all. We are all individuals out for ourselves, with not a care for our fellow human beings.

I don't buy it. Humans are a communal animal. We simply can't survive without trying to act together. It's what made us the dominant species on this planet, as opposed the all the other lifeforms that act singlely or in very small groups.

One can argue that a particular government doesn't do a very good job at expressing communal interests, but just giving up an basically saying that everyone is just better if they only concentrate on looking out for themselves is a copout in my mind.

Pure capitalism (which is not a free market) is fine for perpetuating success from generation to generation for those lucky enough to be born to a family with a successful member in its past. It's basically what the world was all about before the modern democratic era. But if you want to bring humanity, as a whole, forward, the lucky have to be willing to sacrifice a bit for those not born with the same advantages.

It's thinking about the whole of human society at the level that most consider themselves. A tough prospect, since humans are generally quite self-centered, but worth it.

[The Telcontarion]

On the 5th of November, Ron Paul broke records for raising money in one day online. Almost 5 million dollars.

[The Telcontarion]

Amazing video on why Ron Paul can save this country. It is his economic policies. Ron Paul : House of Cards

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

lol. We might have to move this to the advertising thread, dude.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

lol. We might have to move this to the advertising thread, dude.

Well, just bringing up a valid point about Dr Paul's proposed policies. They are "radical" yet historically sound from a economic stand point that most people are not familiar with. I think in this thread, talking about that would be a better way to approach this than talking about random issues like education (which is fine later) as of now the main issue with Paul is his ideas about economics and foriegn policy.

[Mari]

When reading all the things on the American presidency etc. it makes me think of only one thing: I'm glad I'm not American.
It sounds like such a hassle.
I know, I'm lazy.
I wonder if the new president will end the war on terrorism or let it die all by itself or will continue with it. For me as a foreigner, there's nothing to do but wait and see how it works out.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Well, just bringing up a valid point about Dr Paul's proposed policies. They are "radical" yet historically sound from a economic stand point that most people are not familiar with. I think in this thread, talking about that would be a better way to approach this than talking about random issues like education (which is fine later) as of now the main issue with Paul is his ideas about economics and foriegn policy.

I don't agree. Ron Paul is running pretty hard for the homeschooling vote, so discussing his posted educational platform is appropriate.

Do you think no one has heard of free markets and isolationism? I think they're pretty common points of discussion, during election campaigns.

[BeardofPants]

If you think that you leave clannish-nish or clique-iness is left behind in high school... That never stops. What high school does is TRAIN people for life later on. Home schooled children learn the same skills through social groups, etc. It's a very important skill - socialising & dealing with cliques. Teens just exaggerate those skills like a thousand-times.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

If you think that you leave clannish-nish or clique-iness is left behind in high school... That never stops.

Absolutely. I see that at work. I see it in our religious divisions. I see it in our extraciricular activities. In our politics. Even in how manicured our lawns are or who owns what car or where they live etc. It never ends. Its human nature. The difference is kids are more in your face about it and you get phenomenon like "mean girls". Adults tend to be somewhat in denial about it and go about it in a subtler more hypocritical way. Its all sad though. And kids who arent prepared to deal with the clannishness of human nature are sure to have a rough time dealing with it in their real lives.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Absolutely. I see that at work. I see it in our religious divisions. I see it in our extraciricular activities. In our politics. Even in how manicured our lawns are or who owns what car or where they live etc. It never ends. Its human nature. The difference is kids are more in your face about it and you get phenomenon like "mean girls". Adults tend to be somewhat in denial about it and go about it in a subtler more hypocritical way. Its all sad though. And kids who arent prepared to deal with the clannishness of human nature are sure to have a rough time dealing with it in their real lives.

Well, I don't see it. I have neighbors I don't like much. Probably there are neighbors who don't like me. But I don't believe its "human nature" at all to be mean and compete. It's not my experience, and the rough things I've experienced in my life have not been related to it.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

If you think that you leave clannish-nish or clique-iness is left behind in high school... That never stops. What high school does is TRAIN people for life later on. Home schooled children learn the same skills through social groups, etc. It's a very important skill - socialising & dealing with cliques. Teens just exaggerate those skills like a thousand-times.

Maybe I'm inattentive. And maybe my experience is unusual. But, on the whole, I find people friendly, interested in new people, and open to new ideas, with very few exceptions. I work in political environments with people from all walks of life, I work in theatrical environments, similarly. Most adults I know are more interested in accomplishing something than in excluding anyone, and they'll take almost any input or assistance that helps them do it. Even the "vulgar display" aspect of life (about which I read, and see on TV) is pretty unusual irl. Online environments are different...I've seen a lot of people behave online in ways they wouldn't consider in person.

"Dealing with people" and "behaving cliquishly" are two completely different things, I think. Some people (homeschooled or otherwise) have more people skills than others, that's natural. But adults, who are tasked with the responsibility of educating children, need to give them skills for not being bullies, as well as for coping with bullies, and for not excluding people, as well as for coping with exclusion. Those skills aren't learned from peers, generally. And I understand why teachers, with other pressures, don't take them on in school, as they used to. But it's a shortcoming of the system I don't see repeated in the larger world.

As I said, maybe my experience is unusual.