Thursday
Jun072007
I dig this guy.
Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 10:11PM
I've been reading up on Ron Paul at his official website and watching some clips of him on YouTube. It is unbelievably refreshing to watch a politician with an understanding that history affects us and common sense still applies on a grand scale.
Reader Comments (21)
Meh.
You can have him. Texas will give him to you for father's day.
Interesting. I had a negative first impression of the guy after hearing him lambasted by Sean Hannity while hanging out with my dad (who always has talk radio on in the car). I should have known better.
From a quick glance of his website, he seems to be the sort of guy I could get behind.
hm...........i checked out the youtube clips.
hm............ will have to get to know this guy.
Stephanie,
Can you share the source of the negative comment? I like what I read on his site (but that can obviously be skewed). I also know what I hear in the media (NO bias there).
I really am curious to hear your opinion. Are you a constituent? Are there things that his site and the media are conveniently ommitting? Just curious. It would help me research the guy a little more and be more informed.
Stephanie, I'm with sevenmiles. I'd love to know more of what you think about Paul. Right now I'm as enamored as I can be, but you, I'm sure, know more than I do. Please tell us more...
I, too, am really liking most of what he has to say. I haven't been very impressed with the media's treatment of him. He has a pretty strong grassroots following on Facebook and other networking sites, with the exception of MySpace.
Please elaborate, Stephanie.
Sean Hannity is a tool. Foxnews and CNN are exactly the same thing. Peel back the layers and it's pretty easy to tell.
I agree -- Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air.
everyone is in this country needs to re(read) the constitution and bill of rights and re(discover) what governmental principals the United States was founded upon. It was totally genius! We could get back there if we tried.
God help us.
I want to hear from Stephanie, too.
Partly because her comment was hilarious, and partly because I'm currently on the RP bandwagon and if I should bail, I wanna hear about it.
This is why the Constitution Party likes him. I think they would like him to switch to their Party and run as a third Party candidate for Prez. Don't know if that will happen. But if you like Ron Paul, you probably should read up on the Constitution Party. If you don't think he gets much positive press, try being a third party in our lovely two party system.
Transient - thanks for the post on the Constitution Party. At a quick glance, I liked what I saw. I'll read more later. For awhile I thought I was starting to trend to a conservative/libertarian mix of idealogy, but the CP looks like a possible alernative...
tim
Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate that seems to realize
1) We (the US) doesn't exist is a bubble
2) The Mid East is something that the US doesn't understand (I recommend the book "A Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs" if you want a difficult but worthy read of the Mid East), and the repercussions will be more than we can stomach
3) The government is woefully inefficient at many tasks we have commissioned them to do, and many entities (the church, the free market, the individual) would be far more effective than the US government, who is the largest bureaucracy in the world, yet manages to be completely inept at any number of duties
Hmmm...our actions and policies over the years invited hatred, and eventually attacks on our country. i get that. what i don't get is why that makes them wrong. maybe paul doesn't think they're wrong for that reason, but i kind of got that vibe. the civil rights movement increased the amount of racism and hatred toward a particular race, but it was still the right thing to do. if you do the right thing and that pisses people off enough to attack you, does that mean you shouldn't have done anything?
i'm not saying that we've always done the right thing. but i don't care for the mentality of "let's not do what we think is right for our country and allies today because it might anger someone else." THAT is just as big of an invitation. i love you andy.
I like Ron Paul. I disagree with how he puts the economy before national security though. I'd much rather be free and poor than living in fear of muslim extremists or being dead. That's my major hang up with him.
woa, be careful andy or you'll lose your tax exempt status.
Wait...Andy doesn't have to pay taxes? Because I'm sure he'd love that =)
Wow this is actually a pretty good discussion.
Chris Mason, I think you raise some interesting points. I think the point that Paul makes, which seems to be largely ignored, is that many times with our foreign policy we are doing things much more conniving than the civil rights movement. For example, giving a dude name Osama weapons, training, etc. Also, giving a guy named Saddam weapons, training, etc. We tried to overthrow a dictator during the Bay of Pigs... we tried to overthrow Mohammed Mossadegh....
Noticing a theme?
Let's talk about places like East Timor, Rwanda.... maybe think of Pol Pat (Cambodia)... these are much more (thought not always)... how about the famine several years ago in North Korea...
Noticing a theme?
The first group are situations where we supported a faction in a foreign country... every time is had a BAD impact for the US, and only led to long term complications. The second group are situations where we *could* have been involved in a country's slaughter/genocide/disaster, yet... we did not.
The point is, we aren't just the benign world supervisor. The US makes choices in difficult situations to protect future interests, usually taking sides in a struggle. However, many times in a humanitarian effort, we will still contribute, but our contribution is a FRACTION of what it would be if it were a "conflict" situation where can install "our man" or protect "our interests".
If we are going to get involved, why can't we get involved against hunger, and floods, against tsunamis... rather than get involved in civil wars?
Cody, I think your comment falls in line somewhat with the (in)famous Ben Franklin quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
This country was created by a people who fought rather than live without freedom. I, for one, think a slow spiral into socialism and unhindered bureacracy may do worse long-term damage to our "way of life" than a terrorist attack.
I'm not, however, saying that defense doesn't have equal weight with the economy. 9-11 was about destroying our economic center with the World Trade building. But I see why Paul puts the economy "ahead" of defense. Plenty of countries defend themselves - and dot it well. But our economy and freedom are what single us out.
Mandomatt, it can also be much more subversive. You may want to do a search on Confessions of an Economic Hitman.
My daughter told me the other day that I worry too much and should try to be more positive. Yeah, well.....Hebrews 13:14
I give Ron Paul two smiley thumbs up!
Sorry, I just realized that there was a demand for what i know! ;)
I never lived in his area, but I am the National Vice Chair of Events for Students for the Second Amendment, and I've worked VERY closely with him over the years.
Personally speaking, he is not a nice man. I can think of about a million people who, ideologically, I am completely opposed to, but whom I'd rather be locked in a small room with besides him. I've heard some incredulous words come out of his mouth when describing his constituents... Not that that's unique, but it's still disgusting. He's kind of a "No" voter at the weirdest times, and often the ONLY "No" which only demonstrates his showboat and self-righteous attitude that I don't like.
As far as his political beliefs, I am pretty much on board with him. I just don't like some of the attitudes he has demonstrated.
Also, he advocates gay marriage, which isn't the WORST possible scenario, but not exactly ideal. He supported the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which seems to me to be in direct opposition to his "party". Again, not serious, but not ideal.
There ya go.
Thanks Stephanie!
It was helpful to read hear a different take. And I'm not surprised. I believe Jimmy Carter to be one of the better all-around people ever to serve as president. That said, he might have been the weakest president we've ever had in the areas that matter to me (economy, defense).
It begs the question: how much do we put up with in order to have the elected officals that will do the job each of us wants? If they do a great job, does it matter if we like them? I'm just talking about personality issues. Major character issues are little different in my book, because poor character can rear it's ugly head in all aspects of one's life.
Thanks again, this has been a helpful line of discussion. I'll keep researching.