|
Post by Roland of Gilead on Jul 7, 2008 14:20:13 GMT -5
It's complicated. Most would say I should just let it roll off my shoulder. After all, he's been eliminated as a candidate, and probably has no chance to ever gain traction in future years.
He comes across as a very sincere, nice guy, although he clearly has some racist attidudes. For all I know, he really IS a sincere, nice guy. His approach is very seductive, which is how he's managed to suck so many idealists, both young and old, into his philosophy.
But, other than a few sensible changes, such as getting us out of Iraq, and abolishing the Federal Reserve, his ideas are very dangerous and would lead to total corporate takeover of all walks of life. And, I get very depressed when I see good people falling under his thrall.
Ron Paul will never be President. What I fear is that his ideas could catch on, and that a younger, more dynamic protege could someday seize power.
I would not want to live in a country in which Paul's philosophy of total privitization gained acceptance. Some things are best left in the public domain, those things that we all depend on for our basic life services, and which should never be done for profit. Paul would even privatize your local Fire Department, so that if you had a fire, your home would burn if you were not contracted with your local provider. Most alarming, is that I have seen him openly advocate the continued appointment of Nazi judges to our courts.
In a world such as this, I could not see myself going on. The man may not be evil, but his philosophy is.
|
|
|
Post by Shadout Mapes on Jul 7, 2008 17:13:51 GMT -5
Rico I agree, but that last line is the failing flaw that everyone will make. Nice is evil, never trust nice on that level. Damn he needs to be reversed some day! >< Tomasina ChicaWolverina!
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on Jul 7, 2008 17:42:18 GMT -5
I think he has been reversed, hasn't he? He comes across as very sincere, if I remember correctly. That's part of the reason why I don't condemn him as a person. I only condemn his ideas.
What's interesting is that Bob Barr seems to have attracted his supporters, and that totally draws from McCain. This will help Obama in the long run.... _____________________ Zogby: Barr Is McCain's Nightmare
Monday, July 7, 2008 9:14 AM
Article Font Size
UTICA, New York – As the race for President passes the Independence Day holiday and heads toward the dog days of summer, Sen. Barack Obama holds a 44% to 38% lead over Sen. John McCain in the horserace contest, but also leads by a substantial margin in a state-by-state Electoral College tally, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.
The extensive national poll of of 46,274 likely voters also shows Libertarian candidate and former Congressman Bob Barr wins 6% support, eating into McCain’s needed conservative base of support.
Neither Obama nor McCain breaks a 50% favorable rating. Obama is viewed as very or somewhat favorable by 49.7%. For McCain, that number is 43.2%.
Pollster John Zogby: “Obama is in the driver’s seat right now, especially where it really counts - in the electoral votes. Bob Barr could really hurt McCain’s chances. McCain can’t afford the level of slippage to Barr we found among conservatives in this polling. While there has been plenty of talk about Obama’s recent emphasis on his centrist positions, he can get away with it during these dog days of the campaign as McCain finds himself still trying to shore up the conservative base. McCain will have to move to the center because right now Obama is clobbering him among independents. But there is the rub for McCain: Bob Barr has some juice among conservatives and is hurting him in several states. ”
Bob Barr receives the support of 7% of voters who identify themselves as conservative or very conservative voters. Barr gets 43% of libertarians and 11% of independents. McCain’s support among conservatives is 74%. On the left, Ralph Nader gets less than 2% nationally.
Obama has the support of 83% of Democrats, while McCain gets 75% of Republicans.
Independents break 39% for Obama, compared with 31% who support McCain.
For white voters, race doesn’t appear to be playing a significant factor. McCain leads Obama, 43%-39%, with Barr at 6%. Among black voters, Obama wins the vast majority of support.
|
|
|
Post by davidlee on Jul 8, 2008 9:25:20 GMT -5
Here's the thing Rick and I'm sure you already know this. Even if Paul were to be elected (and there's no chance in hell), It takes the congress and the Senate to make the laws. So it would take something in the order of NWO mind control for something like that to happen. So you may get some sleep. Hehe
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on Jul 8, 2008 13:02:26 GMT -5
Here's the thing Rick and I'm sure you already know this. Even if Paul were to be elected (and there's no chance in hell), It takes the congress and the Senate to make the laws. So it would take something in the order of NWO mind control for something like that to happen. So you may get some sleep. Hehe Someone like Ron Paul could do considerable damage just through inaction. Yes, much of what he would want to do would require congressional approval, but much of it would come from executive orders and refusal to enforce regulation. He'd make GW look like a socialist through his refusal to enforce fair trade, anti-trust, and securites trading, for example. Also, Paul does not believe in public education, so imagine what he'd do in that arena. While it's true that education is mostly the responsibility of the states, Paul does not believe there should be any standard as to what consitutes education. He prefers parents should be free to home-educate their children and be to teach them whatever they feel is appropriate and withold knowledge they personally disagree with. Imagine what it would be like to give fundamentalists that license.
|
|
|
Post by Shadout Mapes on Jul 8, 2008 21:24:39 GMT -5
I just heard that lout Bob Barr on the radio too, now he's like Ron Paul without the pretense! >< Tomasina ChicaWolverina!
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on Jul 9, 2008 11:30:42 GMT -5
I'll give credit where credit is due. Here, Ron Paul is standing up for the 4th Amendment, and against retroactive civil immunity for telecom companies that cooperated with Bush. But please note that the amendment granting retroactive immunity is only civil and not criminal. Still, I support what Paul is saying in this instance. _____________________________ Statement on HR 6304, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments
20 June 2008
Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.
Madam Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.
The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.
In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration’s illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.
Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.
|
|