Meet The Press: Ron Paul on Taxes and Being the World Police
By Nicole Belle Saturday Dec 22, 2007 5:30pm
Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)
It was Ron Paul's turn to face Tim Russert this morning, and he certainly came out less bruised than past guests Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. I don't think that Dick Cheney's go to guy is a big believer in the libertarian ideals that Paul espouses, so I have to wonder if he just thought that Paul wasn't worth the effort. Certainly, Russert offers no follow up on any of Paul's assertions here that he would abolish income tax and cut spending. For example, aside from pulling the military from overseas assignments, where else would Paul cut spending? It's a valid question that may color what otherwise sounds sensible after seven years of ridiculous spending on war-mongering. If Paul had said that the next program to go was Medicare or Social Security, would it have the same appeal?
Download | play 
Download | play
As this second clip shows, Russert's entire M.O. appears to be dredging up every single thing a politician does or says in his entire career to find some evidence of flip-flopping, as if that fairly juvenile game of "gotcha" is the only way to be hard-hitting. Here Russert points out that as much as Paul complains about spending, he has no problem inserting earmarks to benefit his district, even though as Paul says, he votes against them every time. Personally, that's a little convoluted way to hold up your ideology, but expecting Russert to approach it in any other way than a bemused "you're a flip-flopper" tone is apparently unrealistic.
Login or Register to post comments.
Bull shit
someone needs to just clock Russert on his hideous visage.
really, just beat the hell out of him.
what a f****** shill.
Please, please please Paul... don't accept the Libertarian nomination.
I dont like Tim "I pretend to be one of the people, but I hang out with the elite in Nantucket" Russert, but I believe Ron Paul came across very badly in the interview.
A perfect example of foot-in-the door politics.
You realize that Social Security was ORIGINALLY meant to be a VOLUNTARY program?
Try backing out of it now.
Get something straight. NO ONE is allowed to work LEGALLY in this country unless they pay tribute to Social Security. Very few things fly in the face of liberty more than Social Security and the wage tax.
Do you also realize that the ORIGINAL retirement age was set at 62, while the average life expectancy was 55?
The only way Social Security works, as originally designed, is if there's no one around to collect it.
Lastly, why would a politician ever raise taxes on the people, when he can simply borrow money from the Federal Reserve, and tax an unrepresented generation yet to be born?
Stop being a mindless central government zombie.
First clip good. Ron Paul sounds the good old style Republican that made sense to me. An honorable opponent, and sometimes ally (I've always been an indie). I don't want him for president, but damn... it'd sure be nice if he could take over leadership of the Republican party from... whatever those people are now.
Second clip? Aww, you let him get your goat Ron. And Tim "I can be more willfully ignorant that you have patience for" Russert is a f*****g moron.
Just when you think Tim can't get worse. What the hell kind of conservative IS Russert anyway? Tool. I don't agree with Ron Paul on this, or many other issues (consumption? sales tax? boo!) but even a fucking 8 year old can understand what he is saying. But not our Timmy. Ron doesn't want taxes. But if there are taxes, of-fucking-course he's going to fight to get his fair share back! Other wise you're paying MORE income tax than everyone else, not less. How does that help? And Timbo knows this, but plays stupid. Can he PLEASE be fired already?
It's just like the assholes that insist that Edwards should live out of the trunk of a car and never showered if he is "serious about helping the poor". Because that would somehow help instead of spending your money to challenge the neocon empire, these Jackovasaurs insist.
I sure as hell hope people like Tim aren't breeding...
[edited by moderator]
Read my lips - NO NEW TEXANS!
No more George Sr.
No more George Jr.
No not never to Jeb
and no to Ron Paul.
Well, there's plenty of room for taking on Ron Paul about what he does compared to the Libertarian ideals he claims to hold. I'm not entirely clear on his voting record, and don't really care enough about him to bother looking it up, but, if memory serves me correctly, he tends to vote in near complete agreement with the very far right on social issues. If that's the case, he's just another one of these pseudo-Libertarians out there now on the right who hide behind the label of Libertarian to try and disguise the fact that they are really just Republicans with an agenda so extremely conservative that any sane American would kindly suggest they get themselves commited to a mental care facility if their true positions on issues were revealed.
But didn't Paul say in the interview he didn't want to touch Social Security? He doesn't want to touch it.
He usually speaks from philosophic ideals, and disagrees with Medicare and SS on that level, but when it comes down to actual policy, he has said he wants to take the money away from our military (cut it in half, in fact) and help tie people over in this country, people who are dependent on social programs. Too bad he wasn't more specific on numbers.
Anyway, it's true, he needs to be clearer on this.
It was an amusing interview - much better than Romney or Rudy, but I still think he is a nutjob.
Thread:
That's because he is a true libertarian conservative, not just giving people what he thinks they want to hear. He can give direct answers without having to worry about how he might answer the same questions tomorrow. That is the positive. The negative is that his ideas would be a likely disaster if they were to be implemented in this country. I guess he can't win them all.
But with no taxation, how do you find the taxpayer funds to divert to crony corporations???
Oh, that's right, Dick found a way around that one...borrow from China.
Well, I think republicans should pick Huckabee because he is the best politician on that side and the only one with a chance to beat the democratic nominee. Ron Paul is great though on most issues. I'm for social programs though like national health care and such because things like that should not be something companies can make profit on. My favorite thing with Ron Paul though, even better than his foreign policy, is his stance on the drug war. This so-called war have made us into a police state. I went up to a Canadian strip club last night and we didn't even have to show ID to get into Canada .. coming back to the US though felt like entering Nazi Germany. German Shepard drug dogs running around and everything. We have millions in jail over marijuana for God's sake. And then we wonder why blacks hate the police - these drug laws are the most racist things going. And you have people's lives being ruined over this. Clinton signed a law that said if you are caught with even one joint you loose your financial aid?
As soon as I'm done with college I'm moving to Canada - unless Obama or Edwards is President.
I seem to disagree with everybody else that has posted.
I thought he made sense.
I've heard that Paul is a bit nutty on other issues so I'd have to investigate him further
but he sounds much more human than Clinton or Obama.
America is in desperate need of intense domestic policy and spending.
But there has to be a way to get that without voting for Ron Paul.
Is he a Libertarian? I thought he was just a regular Republican? As in one of the non-neocon ones. He should have run for Senate, not President though. If he wants to cut spending, that's the place to be. He'd be useful there.
There's more to being president than the veto pen.
I do not share many of Paul's views, but I do support his candidacy and think that his common sense approach to government would be an excellent foil to the failed policies of our congress. Of course, his judicial nominations could be a problem unless the next congress has more of a spine than our current one.
Keith @ 8:
He said he wasn't going to run as a Libertarian in the youtube debate and that he is dedicated to the Republican Party, which I hope he changes his mind. It would split the Republican votes. The Libertarian Party in the United States holds greater concern for their economic policies than their social policies, at least that is true of the Cato Insitute. I would consider most Libertarians to be hypocrits in that regard because they are willing to betray the foundation of their beliefs for capitalism. Of course people think of Libertarians as capitalist when in reality that isn't always true. Noam Chomsky refers to himself as a "Social Libertarian".
Why does C&L kep posting semi-favorable features on this idiot?
He opposes abortion. Along with the religious nuts he believes "life" starts at conception.
He's against same-sex marriage.
He's a gun nut.
He defers to private property rights in relation to environmental protection.
He uses the "state rights" subterfuge to get around federal protections.
Just because he's opposed to the war doesn't mean much.
I agree, in a sense, with Boring Scott...no more Texans...and no more reactionaries.
Libertarians are anarchists with money. I understand why so many otherwise intelligent people like Paul, but wonder whether they really believe in his cause, or are just glad to hear someone on that side of the aisle calling today's parties for what they are - corrupt.
Of course, his solution is no solution. What do you think will happen to the distribution of wealth if we went with his flat, consumption-based tax? What do you think would happen to our local and national infrastructures? The only people that have really thought this through - and still want this outcome - are those with more dollars than sense.
The problem is the concerted push to move America back to the 19th century. Ignoring wealth distribution (or worse, assuming that some magical market faerie will spread it all around) is destroying what most in this country associate with freedom, liberty, and the "American way" - the middle class.
budda @ 13:
Yeah, but St Ronnie already did that one in.
I lost my student aid in 1987 because I had 4 grams, .5 grams over the limit.
So I don't get to go to school unless I pay for it ahead of time. Try that sometime.
I just got lucky and ended up with a hobby when I was a teen that turned into a tech career.
I don't expect that is the case for most people.
BTW - RP is just another conservative crackpot running as a Repug.
He's no threat anyway, but his cut and paste spam bots (soon to be all over this thread) are seriously annoying, uninformed and and in every way as fanatic as any al Qaida goon out there.
The flip-flop label is specious. It assumes that rigidity is a good trait and that the ability to assimilate new information and adjust one's views accordingly is bad. Look at the last seven years and the world wide catastrophe resulting from Bush's "core values."
Still, I suppose being mule headed is at the center of conservative philosophy.
Now if someone will explain to me why the right feels that being mean-spirited is an asset...
I totally support Ron Paul--as candidate for the Libertarian Party!
Because otherwise, I really think some republican will win.
Ron Paul is the man, he is going to get rid of the welfare state and start making people take responsibility for their lives. Out of Iraq, no social medicine, no department of education, what more can the people ask for!!!
John @ 24:
Barefoot & pregnant. Yay!!!
Got to love Tim Russert.
Still the best interviewer when it comes to politics.
Make those Repubs squirm!
As a liberal Democrat who may lose all faith in this country if another fraudulent GOP victory occurs I find myself with mixed feelings about Paul. I think he is essentially right about mid-east policy and essentially wrong about domestic policy. While I could never vote for him, I think he has been the most personally honest and forthright of the GOP candidates. That is to say, he says what he believes and lets the public decide. He is the exact opposite of Romney who is a pandering fraud.
John @ 24:
Spoken like a true neo-conservative Republican! Straight out of the PNAC papers no less.
You guys didn't read those did you?
What the neoCons do and what they said they were going to do are two different things, and you are repeating what they said they were all for.
Well, first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And I think it’s a theory: The Theory of Evolution. And I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory. — Ron Paul on evolution, December 1, 2007
http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/ron-paul-thinks-evolution-is-just-a-the...
Symes @ 28:
Well. except for the Iraq bit, they want to rule the world. But the rest of it was spot on!
Ron Paul is bad for America. Google his name and read up on what he REALLY believes. Five seconds of actual reading would de-program any mindless Ronbot if they didn't purposely blind themselves to his massive flaws.
Symes, I took John@24 as being sarcastic, but maybe I was wrong.
Americans are the most politically unsophisticated people on the planet.
Damian @ 31:
What he really believes would make him better than every other Republican running. Some people just don't want to admit that they are liberal because they have been raised to believe that liberals are evil. They would rather believe that it is really the neo-cons fault for what has happen to the Republican Party when in reality libertarians at the Cato Insitute have sold out just as much by not being vocal against the neo-cons.
Symes @ 30:
You have to actually listen to what he says before you can make a comment, what he believe and thinks is way off the republican party right now. I know this makes many of your scared, having to actually be responsible and not been able to get hand outs, but eh, it needs to happen!!
Ron Paul is no more a "nutjob" than John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani, Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee.
It is obvious that America cannot have an adult conversation over the issue of "terrorism" and that its apparent that there us so much ignorance out there on this issue.
Terrorists do have political grievances as Ron Paul said on MTP. This in no way justifies terrorist acts. Instead of being able to have an adult and reasoned conversation of why terrorism exists and for what reasons "America is hated," Tim Russert only has to take the neocon talking points of "Islamic Fascism" in an attempt to rebut what Ron Paul had to say about an issue Mr. Russert brought up.
It is a shame that when Ron Paul did not answer the "Master" Tim Russert's question on the issue of "terrorism" that the MTP host resorted to emotionalism in his questioning style by injecting the psy-op term of "Islamic Fascism." It was a pathetic ploy on Russert's part.
Ron Paul is no less pathetic than the rest of the GOP liars. Like him or not, at least Paul is not a b.s. artist and at least his views on war and peace are more sober. I mean you cannot have everything. Do you prefer what McCain and Lieberman and Huckabee and Thompson and Romney and Giuliani say about war in the Middle East?
I am not necessarily for Ron Paul as far as president goes, but, he is more principled than the other candidates and he does not change his overall views, just to win the election, like the others in the GOP field have been doing all the time.
How many times have the media recreated the likes of Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, and Thompson? Ron Paul is not a "media darling" the way the others in the GOP field are. No matter what Ron Paul says or does, the media will make him out to appear as a fringe candidate even though his views on foreign policy and war are correct compared to the neoFascist outlook of his competitors.
No candidate will satisfy the electorate 100% anyway.
I just find it interesting the way the media's minds are made up regarding Ron Paul and that Russert used a term that the neocrazies like Michael Ledeen and the Norman Podhoretz use tall the time regarding people of the Islamic faith as "Islamic Fascists."
Muslims who do what the United States wants and are subservient to the interests of the West/USA are viewed and called "moderates." Those Muslims who oppose the American policies and want to engage in their own self-determination principles, brought about after World War I, while, not appreciating their repressive authoritarian puppet regimes to rhe will of the 'Washington Consensus' are seen as "Islamic extremists," or, as "Islamic Fascists" as Russert said today on MTP.
The last I knew, America has been invading and supporting the destruction of Islamic societies in a much more extreme manner than the other way around. I wonder what Americans would think if other nations demanded to build their own military bases in major U.S. cities and also wanted to takeover the agricultural domain of America? I mean Americans cannot even deal with the "immigrants" who come here without crying like big babies.
It is such a shame that "Big Bad America" cannot look itself honestly in the mirror and be truthful for once. Russert needs to look up the word "Blowback" in the CIA dictionary before he makes an ass out of himself again as he did today on MTP.
mudshark @ 354:
Perhaps you should actually do some reading about Ron Paul. He isn't going to vote for something that is unconstitutional.
mudshark @ 336:
Yes. He would not back off, because I and others would not let him back off.
Do you really think that the other candidates' kowtowing to an Unconstitutional Prohibition that directly infringes on a persons Cognitive Liberty is in the best interest of the citizenry?
You also never answered my question whether you agree with the Jurisdiction of the Federal Government to regulate Cannabis based NOT on a Constitutional Amendment (as was the case with alcohol prohibition), but based on the Interstate Commerce Clause. quotes went a little haywire but the message still be clear.
Paul/Belichick08 @ 291:
I am going to make this clear, and for the last time:
You are supporting a Republican after 7 years of Republican disaster.
You are on a Progressive blog pushing a conservative candidate.
You repeat the spin without thinking, then when cornered on how it will work back peddle and say "well, he wouldn't just do that outright..." like any of us are going to believe another Repug.
You all pay lip service to Kucinich and then keep supporting the Republican, do the same for Kucinich and he'd be the one out in front. But you are Republicans or at the very least ex-Progressives (you do support a conservative after all), so that will not happen.
I call you trolls, because you act like, smell like, and support a troll like candidate.
If you don't like that, perhaps you should push RP somewhere that conservatives hang out.
And again, the regulars aren't here kicking you as well because they are bored with you. Notice how you RP bot's dominate EVERY RP thread? It's not because there are so many of you here (there aren't, maybe about 10), it's because you are such little drones about a REPUBLICAN. Get it?
Read the whole transcript of what Ron Paul said to Tim Russert. He is for the legal use of all Narcotics, including Heroin, Cocaine etc. He said so on NBC Sunday Morning. All you Potheads for Paul stop trying to spin what he said into an Industrial Hemp magic excuse.
equilibrio @ 358:
personally I think marijauna should be decriminalized.....but RP is not being 100% clear on this......as for it ever happening....what we have here in Calif...is as close as your ever going to see..
The answer to what would happen to this country without the income tax is very obvious, because he said it..."get rid of the "welfare" state". Does anyone have any idea how big black market would occur if we had a 30% sales tax? People would be trading goods and services in order, among other things, to get out of paying the tax. Libertarians ideas sound great in theory, but in practice, it is a whole different thing.
Ron Paul told Tim Russert that he wants to legalize the use of All illegal drugs. That would include Heroin, Cocaine, Crystal Meth., LSD, Pot, etc. He wants them all to be handled the same way that Alcohol is now treated. All you Potheads for Paul need to put down your bongs, sober up, and read what he actually said, instead of coming on here with your absurd industrial hemp claims.
Liam @ 359:
Don't get me confused with the RP people..........I was merely trying to point out that he is for legalizing industrial hemp....as for legalizing hard drugs.......geeezzz....that guy is a loon.
But I want to be clear here....Prior to this episode of MTP....that was his stance on marijauna/hemp.......wide one? I couldn't tell ya.
No, we are on John Amato’s blog where according to his commenting policy:
All points of view are welcome on C&L
No where does it say it's Symes site. As I said before, if you have so much influence than delete my profile. Otherwise, I'd say you were in violation of the commenting policy.
Symes @ 359:
Liam @ 363:
you know why don't you.......taxes...bu.bu,but he says he wants to cut taxes......geezzz..give me a frickin break..........up is down,and black is white......uhuh....right
To defeat your enemy you need to know him. Obviously, you won't be able to beat him. Jr. grew up in Kennebunkport Maine. He is afraid of horses. The house in Texas has been a family campaign strategy for decades to connect with southern people. Ron Paul was born and raised in Pennsylvania. Jeb is in Florida now. That covers the north and south. Should we vote for someone from another country to be President? Who cares what they stand for. A bad apple does not ruin the bushel. If so, we shouldn't vote for anyone running for office. Look into what their voting history shows and hold people accountable, even if it means you will have to miss an episode of Dancing with the Stars or American Idol.
Boring Scott @ 7:
site moniker @ 332:
IF RP is going to deny a scientific theory that has evidence in favor of a theological fantasy with none then how can you believe he has any kind of grip on reality at all?
Honestly, creationism? Evolution denial? You have got to be kidding!
DonsBlog @ 366:
Oh come on, you are a troll.
All you RP supporters are trolls.
You come to a PROGRESSIVE site and push a CONSERVATIVE candidate and cry when you get kicked around, how troll like does it have to get?
I didn't say you couldn't post little guy, I called you an idiot for trying to take over a PROGRESSIVE blog and push a CONSERVATIVE candidate. I suggested you would get better traction on a CONSERVATIVE site for your CONSERVATIVE candidate.
Other than that, grab your ankles an post away! I am sure someone will keep showing up to call you what you are well into the night. :)
What
Oh, and about being in violation of commenting policy? Where?
Not likely little Paulette.
Jeffrey @ 368:
One bad apple! You are rich!
Nixon
Reagan
Bush Sr
Bush Jr
DeLay
Santorum
Oh hell, you get the point don't you? Do I really have to post a 200 line post of just Republican politicians names?
You know, all the other bad apples?
Same tactics, different product.
You trolls never learn do you.
testing
Symes @ 357:
I see that... but you don't respond in kind when someone makes the same request of you...
Mike S @ 140:
Well Symes....all in all.....I'd say we did ok.........all in a days work.....ya know what gets me.....is all these people are fawning all over him for saying I'll get the troops out....of course we all want the troops out....and on another issue @354.....the federal catasrophy ins is for a major disaster.....there is no extra charge.....we already pay for it in our taxes.........some people will never look past the end of their nose....and in the event of a huge disaster...like say a major earthquake..in say.....San Francisco....you know a bad one...or maybe....a massive hurricane that levels 100's of blocks.....the federal govt needs to step up and help the tax payers....that's part of their job.....I buy my own disaster ins.....but after what happened to the people of NOLA with Katrina.......the feds should step up...oh and btw....NOLA is still screwed up.....yeah let the states handle it......but what happens when they can't.....I'll never understand why these people call themselves Dems,Liberals,Progressives.....and are all for RP.........something is not right here.But HEY....good job...........thanks for .
mudshark @ 315:
this is just a small portion of the govt he want's to reduce...
mudshark @ 375:
No prob, someones got to kick these trolls around.
That is what they are, notice how the usual trolls are gone as soon as RP popped up on the scene? Not we are flooded with RP bots and the ex-libs they have skimmed.
Like I've said before (and no one has rebutted, curious...) these are just the same old Repug trolls pretending their not trying to sell us more damaged Repug product.
heh mudshark =) we all know you and people like symes, who are now in the extreme minority, will probably never get it. i have nothing more to say that i havent said already, go back and read my posts.
I never thought they would get tired.....but the more they come the more I dig...and the more I find out...it's pretty easy really......they don't dig..they just repeat...well....have a Happy Festivus...for the rest of us...
Like I’ve said before (and no one has rebutted, curious…)
I rebutted you Symes, you never rebutted me. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you missed it?
Ron Paul is unique in that he doesn't vote liberal/conservative, but rather constitutionally. The way I see it, it's impossible to be an absolute of either and still obey the constitution. I hear allot of people say, "he voted no on that because he's a republican/conservative", but you'll also hear "he voted no on that because he's a liberal/fake republican". But really, it's neither that made up his mind. He simply checked to constitution for whether or not it was constitutional. Not right / left / conservative / liberal / democrat / republican - none of that stuff plays a role in his voting. Because of his lack of bias and his strict constitutional ways, he comes of an more of an independent to me if I had to classify him. If you really think about it, i mean - give it some real thought, all of the party nonsense is just that - nonsense. Liberal is Liberty, Democrat is Democracy, Republican is Republic, Conservative is Conserve. These are all the great things that go into making America - America. I wouldn't want an America without any of these. A few extremists on the outer edges have managed to divide all these good things into separate things that they can be fought over. United we stand, divided we fall. Is not the party, or the winner, or the debates - it's the constitution that must be upheld, not a point of view. Points of view can change, be skewed and corrupted - the constitution will not. I envy Ron Paul because he understands this, whether he wins or not.
Even if you have no intention of voting for him, my advice would be to give serious thought to what he has to say - even if you don't agree with it. It's like listening to George Washington back from the grave with words of wisdom straight from the constitution. Sure social programs seem great, but there's a reason why it's unconstitutional for the Federal Government to regulate them. You become dependent on the Government, rather then the Government being dependent on you, the people. We are quickly moving towards a time when nothing you say or do will matter, you voice will fall unto depth ears. You're vote will not matter, you will not matter. Too many people sitting around hoping for change and doing nothing. To do nothing is to approve it. They write a bill you don't like, you say nothing - and you might as well have signed you name on the dotted line issuing your utmost approval.
Hi. I'm a Paul supporter, ready to jump into the fray here.
First, I will set clear the air by saying that Ron Paul is, indeed, for legalizing drugs, not just industrial hemp. This is based on the theory that you own your own body, and therefore the government can't tell you what you are or are not allowed to put into it. Personally, I believe that most drugs can be used occasionally in a responsible manner. I think alot of the vitriol against drugs is perpetuated by people who haven't used them and who don't have the first bit of experience with them in the real world. The image of "reefer madness," of people getting stoned and then immediately destroying their lives, is simply not true. As a person who ocassionally smokes, I will tell you that the use of marijuana is honestly no worse or more damaging to your body or mind than the use of alcohol. (And may in fact be less damaging). Lots of people use marijuana without being a danger to themselves or others, and many "respectable" people who hold high paying jobs use marijuana, just covertly. Personally, I think occasional marijuana use is similar to what being gay was 15 years ago -- something you do in your private life that you try really hard to keep people from knowing about who weren't part of your private life.
I think so called "hard" drugs can also be used responsibly as well, although I personally do not choose to use them (although I have experimented with several of them). At any rate, whether you are talking about marijuana, meth, or heroin, I think it does no good to perpetuate the current failed "War on Drugs," which is in fact a war on the people within the US that have chosen to put these substances into their body. Would it not be better to treat an addict as a person with a medical problem rather than as a criminal? When you are treated as a criminal, you have no incentive to seek treatment. Also, would it not be better to severely reduce organized gang violence in the US by removing their #1 source of income? There is almost no black market in alcohol today, although during prohibition it fueled the open gang warfare of the roaring 20's.
To me, this is like many of Ron Paul's ideas... they seem "kooky" at first but if you really explore the implications of these ideas you may come to the realization that many of them are, in fact, good sense, and that the current failed policies are in fact the "kooky" ones.
I think he said drugs should be decriminalized at the Federal level - it would still be up to the state whether or not drugs other than alcohol, prescription, nicotine, etc will be legal in that state. If not, it would be local/state police kicking down your door, not the Feds. People have more control over state laws, which is why he wants to leave it up to the state. The only way it would become legal is if a majority of the people it a state wanted it to be.
down with neo-cons @ 383:
You are correct. He says something to that effect around the 4 minute mark in this video (part of the Meet the Press interview).
Symes @ 377:
Wrong.
We have been here and disagreeing from time to time of the popular opinion. For example when the law to drastically increases taxes on smokers many of us objected because it is not fair to do that to people just because you disagree with it...
Some of us also didnt think treating Don Imus differently than we would Richard Pryor was fair.
Some of us have less liberal but still progressive views. i.e. Ron Paul does NOT want a Constitutional amendment to ban abortions and neither do I. He does think though that it is none of the Federal governments business... and when I think about it I dont believe it is either... as long as the Christians dont try to make it a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion.
Thanks for clarifying that Duckman.
It would be really great if this federal marijuana prohibition was done away with really soon, since in a few short years, states like Nevada and Colorado are going to have recreational marijuana use legalized in some form. Check the election results from their 2006 ballot initiatives, they were both very close, and Nevada's effort gained quite a bit from the previous attempt in 2002. If nothing is done about the federal marijuana laws, recreational users in those states may be treated just as medical marijuana patients are right now, even though the states will have voted to allow people to use it legally.
As for decriminalizing other harder drugs, it wouldn't worry me a bit. I don't believe meth is an unpopular drug because it's illegal, but rather because it's a shitty dangerous drug. Since I believe 80-90% of people that use any illegal drug use only marijuana, repealing all federal drug laws isn't all that scary to me.
Symes @ 28:
Well everyone here seems to love obama or edwards who are both CFR scum. I don't get it, most people think the CFR is some casual think tank but they're insidious as hell. Also to the idiot who tried to link Ron Paul to PNAC. Sorry I don't recall RPs name anywhere in their literature. PNAC and the CFR = two think tanks who could care less about you.
Whether or not Paul is correct on every issue, he represents a large contingent of people in this country that are growing ever more frustrated with the status quo and business as usual in Washington. Both major political parties in this country have been so subverted and compromised by big business corporate interests that they no longer represent the public, they represent the the lust for the almighty dollar regardless of the consequences. Tweedledeedee and tweedledeedum has been the tradition forever and it's time for that to change. As both the Legislative and Executive branches of our government continue to be little more than pawns of oligarchial big business interests and are so out of touch with Joe Six Pack that they have basically adopted an ever increasing pandering and condescending attitude towards the American public in general, I would expect more third party, fringe or alternative candidates to be taken seriously as contenders for major office and I am all for it. Paul may be running as a Republican but, his ideals are so far away from the neocon mainstream absurdity that he might as well be considered a political outsider. Like him or not, Paul supporters and his entire campaign in general are sending a clear message to Washington that there exists an enormous and ever increasing segment of the American public that is just completely fed up with a corrupt and self- serving federal government that they feel no longer represents their interests.
What does it take to explain that Ron Paul is a conservative republicans?? He believes the war is wrong the same as many democrats not given a chance to say or prove it.
But, Ron Paul's other policies are very strict republican, and if democrats are drawn to him they should not consider they self as having democratic values.
Ron Paul , Hagel, Huckabee are conservatives which if they run on the libertarian ticket would be to screw the democrats "period".
No matter how bad you feel about some of the democratic candidates running for office, they are certainly a far better choice then the republican candidates which are going to try to tell you they are our constitution, democratic and rights.
All one has to do is to check their voting record under Bush and they will see that every d... one back Bush on his policies of destruction to our constitution, democracy and bill of rights.
Since they have say that the republicans would be in trouble this coming election you have some republicans playing the Lieberman game, just like some of the other democrats like Feinstein, Schumer, Hoyer and Blue dog democrats.
"IF" we have an election at Bush's discretion, we need to vote a democrat into office no matter how much you dislike some of the candidates or the BS about our candidates you hear from the corporate news media and the RNC posters, posting as democrats.
There seems to be a lot of people here that are under the impression that the U.S. would
collapse into a pile of rubble if the IRS were eliminated. Well, the FACTS are that not ONE
PENNY of what we pay in Federal Income Tax ends up in the Federal coffers. ALL of the
monies collected as Income Tax go directly to the Federal Reserve, which then lends it
back to the U.S. Plus interest of course. The FACTS are that if you eliminate the Federal
Income Tax it would have ZERO effect on our ability to fund any program that exists
currently. There is only one candidate who is willing to tell you the truth about this.
By the way, The Federal Reserve is neither a Federal entity -it is a private bank which congress has zero control over- nor does it have any reserves. The IRS and the Federal
Reserve are nothing more than a huge scam that has been perpetrated on the American
public. Why do we tolerate this crap?
Sporty @ 389:
Don't know if this post will survive as my last post mysteriously disappeared from C&L - something I would never have expected.
Regardless, you obviously have no clue when it comes to Dr. Paul. There is essentialy nothing that Bush has done that he backs.
Where do you come up with that pray tell?
Check his voting record before you spout off.
In case anyone hasn't figured it out yet...identifies you as either an idiot or a Zionist retard, or both.
Get a life, Tim Russert. Evryone is wise to you.
Damian said, 'Ron Paul is bad for America....' but didn't explain why.
Personally I don't agree with Paul 100% but he is the ONLY politician worth voting for, in my opinion. The rest work for whoever bribes, er, pays, er, lobbies them the most.
Russert is a whore and not worth watching.
hadenuf @ 32:
Nope, John is a total RP bot.
You go it right about Americans though, easily led around by sound bites and no capacity for analysis.
Spending is not the problem, it's the way we spend. So I agree with Paul that we shouldn't waste money on deploying troops all around the world, especially stable places like Germany and Japan, but that we should use that money HERE. I wouldn't cut that spending, I'd spend it somewhere else. Universal Healthcare, improving public schools, improving our infrastructure, etc.
Russert seemed totally outmatched on the fascism question. He obviously has no idea what Paul is talking about. To Russert, Fascism = Hitler. It's not that simple.
Also, when Russert said that had we not fought the civil war, there would be still slavery in the South. Well, that was just idiotic. They might still be segregated, but slavery would have ended at some point anyway. Paul's right on that.
Ron Paul was on Timmeh's show because he's got $18 1/2 million to spend on advertising. Which I've come to believe is the real reason candidates get treated better or more time in media run debates.
c. atrox @ 19:
Maybe because some of us like him.
But in all these cases he believes a state should be able to set the laws they want. He's for legalization of marijuana in states that have voted it in, though he stands against recreational use of it.
Like Dr. Paul, I oppose abortion, I just don't believe the federal government should stop it by criminalizing it.
Dr. Paul isn't a true libertarian, even though he's run as a libertarian candidate. He's a believer in the old style Republicanism that believed in small federal government, staying out of the business of citizens and other countries, states rights, and the rights of a property owner.
He has his ideals, but admits it's not practical to implement all of those policies. But at least he's a good start against a very corrupt oligarchy that has invaded our congress.
John @ 34:
What I said stands, your eliminate the government and self reliance schtick is straight Repug.
You are in the wrong place to be expecting a warm fuzzy welcome for it little RP bot.
The best part of the interview was when the conversation turned to fascism and Paul defined the Bush admin as fascists.
I thought, wow Russert lost control.
Damian @ 31:
yes and everything on google is 100% correct ;)
also where has all this "ron paul is racist" BS come from ?... for a kcik off what sort of racist cites Martin Luther King and gandhi as there all time heros ?.... oh yeh, thats just his cover isn't it. :)
Russert hasn't ever really gotten over the idea that he's a tv figure. His sense of journalistic responsibility is clouded by narcissistic concerns with the perceptions of his TV audience. Like its already been said, he's out for the "gotcha" move because it shows, at least in his mind, how good he and his research crew is at sifting through the data and finding the "important" information. And most reasonable people can see through that kind of self serving nonsense....stress the reasonable part. ;P
Symes @ 40:
And BTW - I have never gotten a "hand out". So shove that condescending crap.
You are playing in the rooms with the adults now little bot, we already ARE the responsible crowd that you Repug types want to be.
Mr. XXXX,
'Russert needs to look up the word “Blowback” in the CIA dictionary before he makes an ass out of himself again as he did today on MTP.'
The war pigs would love for there to be some blowback on US soil so they could justify more Patriot Act laws and more wars. The "defense" contractors and oil companies and related (Halliburton) are really doing great. They think Afghanistan and Iraq are a huge success because they're making scads of money, the public has less power than ever, and they now have a power base in the oil producing countries, they don't have to work with Saudi Arabia any more, which was slow and problematic.
If you think they care about human beings, well, I think the record shows that that is certainly not the case. We are now unfortunate enough to live in a time when the rich ruling class is grabbing up everything it can instead of transitioning the world into non-polluting power sources, among other things.
One example: there is enough geothermal under the US alone to supply the entire world's energy needs over 1,000 times. How many geothermal power stations could we have built all over the world with the money we spent enriching the war pigs?
They're happy as can be. Blowback would just help them further their aims.
Vote Ron Paul, end this insanity.
The concept of social responsibility is lost on RP's little repeat-o-cons.
Has the word social in it so it must be communist.
What do you want?
A candidate who says what you want him or her to say?
Or a candidate in whom you trust?
I forgot to say...use of the expression 'Islamic-Fascists' identifies you as either an idiot or a Zionist retard, or both.
noitaluspacne @ 358:
Unless it's to overturn Roe v. Wade. Which would violate the 4th Amendment.
Miss Kitty:
Where did you get the information that Ron Paul wants to make abortion illegal?
He is personally against it but HAS NEVER said that you should not be allowed to have one.
His point is this: Why are women still getting pregnant who don't wish to be and why do
we, the TAXPAYERS, have to pay for it? If you want to get pregnant..like Britney's
little sister, great!! Knock yourself out! But why do I have to pay for it?? Lets be honest
here.. Why is ANY young lady still getting pregnant unless she wants to be or she is too
stupid to understand the meaning of birth control? Rape is another story, but the small
percentage of rape victims who get pregnant is an issue onto itself.
watched some of the interview, not all. have to say i was imjpressed with ron paul. Yeh, i know he brings a lot of baggage,but still of all the candidates on the other side, he rings most sincere. I couldn't watch the entire segment strictly because of the prostituting interrogating methods of the quasi journalist Russert. He is so "probing" with candidates that he never wants to achieve office, and yet he devises softball questions for those whom he wants to sit along the emperor in the decsion-making process. Russert needs to go when the madness finally ends. take names and ensure that they are all remembered and prosecuted or at least lost their coveted positions. media whores all. it's all about the money, prestige and the ratings. they're all in the Bush camp.
Russert asked Ron Paul, in regards to being a Constitutionalist, why Paul would support an amendment to the Constitution. Was this question intended for a dumbed-down population? Mr. Russert, the amendment process was put in place to allow for cautious evolution of the Constitution--you might want to read the Federalist Papers (an instruction manual for the Constitution) and understand the intent of our founding fathers—I’m sure “Meet the Press” could do better than Russert—find someone that understands the Constitution.
Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson's greatest fear was that unelected Judges, unaccountable to the people, would garner more power than the executive and legislative branches if they believed they could reinterpret the original intent of laws, applying them toward their own agenda, which happens to be the social jurisprudence that is practiced by today’s Supreme Court—thus, our elastic “living breathing” Constitution that is propagated by the media today.
Ron Paul has stated numerous times that he would like to eliminate many of the un-Constitutional Federal programs, yet will not cut people off that are reliant on these programs—he wants to educate people about how less government will benefit them, where implementation would be a gradual process away from government dependence, toward the freedom that self-reliance is.
Clinton, Bush, and most politicians are all in the same s**t pail of lairs. Ron Paul may have some nutty ideas but at least he speaks his true thoughts. If elected he would surely help stop some of the B.S. in Washington however he would not be able to change much without the help legislative branch of the government.
Ok...I guess I'll jump in now, too. Except I'm not going to attack anyone personally.
Ron Paul does not want to legalize drugs. He only wants those laws to be made at the state level as prescribe by the Constitution. He does support medicinal marijuana, but he's not going to prevent a state from continuing a ban on it either.
Ron Paul personally opposes abortion... but at the same time, and he's said this in several interviews, there are circumstances when it is ethical to save the life of the mother. He gets chastised because he says life starts at conception. The funny thing is, so do the laws of the land because if a doctor practices medicine in a way that kills an unborn child, he/she can be charged with murder. So, legally, the U.S. kind of has a double-standard when it comes to this subject. Paul is most opposed to late term abortions, and he told of how he witnessed an abortion that ended in a crying baby being thrown into a trash can and ignored. Surely, the baby was a living thing and doctors are supposed to protect life. However, Ron Paul says those laws should be made at the state level. As far as overturning Roe vs. Wade being unconstitutional... It is not unconstitutional to overturn an unconstitutional decision. The Supreme Court simply says a law is unconstitutional and it is done away with. Any federal law dealing with abortion is exactly unconstitutional.
Ron Paul has stated many, many times that a federal ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. He has always voted AGAINST the federal ban on gay marriage, saying it should be left for the states to decide. So what if he's personally against gay marriage...it doesn't affect his vote. For all of the gay folk, that would mean that states like Vermont and California could resume marrying gay couples... because it would be left up to the states. This would make gays happier quicker, instead of waiting for Congress to completely divide gays from the rest of Americans and grant/deny them certain rights while the Christian Coalition fights to keep gays from having any rights at all. Take out all the BS and what you have is a Constitution that says everyone has the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness... add in a little 1st amendment that says the federal government can't prevent the gathering of people to worship how they want (aka: it can't tell a church who they can/cannot marry) and you have instant liberty for all. No more debate. No more Human Rights Coalition vs. Congress. No more Dems vs. Rep. Just life and liberty and happiness for all. I am a republican. I am Christian. I don't believe in gay marriage. But I am gay... and Ron Paul is the first and only candidate I've ever heard that doesn't want the federal government all up in my little gay life, telling me what happiness they will allow me, or refusing the happiness so many others can enjoy. Hillary will get absolutely nothing done for gays. If she gets elected, this is what the gay community will wake up to her saying: "After much debate, and careful consideration from all sides, I have seen that gay marriage is not the answer to our problems. From all the experts I've spoken with, all evidence points to gay marriage as being a stepping stone to further ridicule and condemnation for the gay community. So I have decided that for now, the gay marriage ban should remain. But we will fight hard for domestic partnership rights throughout the country." And a week later, the news will report that she receives hundreds of thousands from Christian organizations who invite her to talk at conferences. It will turn out just like her health care plan. She talks a good talk, but walks like she has a wad of money shoved up her you-know-what. At least Ron Paul, unlike any other candidate, has a 20-year voting record that is impeccable and really backs up what he says. Which brings me to the next issue...
He has never, ever voted in a "neo-con" fashion. He has never, ever, ever voted for anything that was unconstitutional. He's a representative, so of course he's obligated to get some money back for his taxpayers. After all, the amount of money up-for-grabs is already determined before any earmarks are ever introduced in the House. Money not taken from this account gets redirected to bureaucracies and seldom accounted for. No earmark actually increases the national debt, since it is going to be spent by someone regardless. Example: "I have $40. You four can divide it up amongst yourself for your districts, or I'm going to invest it in domestic spying programs. It's up to you." That money will not be magically returned to the tax payers if representatives don't present earmarks. Ron Paul introduces earmarks, but doesn't vote for them, because it is unconstitutional for the government to take your money and redirect it to someone else. It makes perfect sense to me and I don't see how people view this as contradictory. He's obliged to do both things under the corrupt system we have. Which is why we need to get back to the Constitution so good politicians aren't forced to live a double-standard in Congress.
Oh, I was talking about neo-cons. Anyway, he has never supported them. Check it! www.RonPaulLibrary.org
Nor have the neo-cons supported him, which is why it's so amazing that he raised more money than any other GOP candidate this quarter, and now holds the world record for a one-day fundraising event that surpassed Hillary's well-publicized old record... all because of his supporters. Now answer me this: Does he have a lot of supporters that gave the median $50 donation... OR... are the 6% of Americans that support him rich? LOL. Give up? It's the first one! All the rich people are already in bed with the neo-cons.
and by the way...
Ron Paul is probably polling in the 30's! Not at 6% like the media are saying. Ron Paul supporters are not getting polled and the ones that accidentally do get called... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whptaVhCtWc
Don't let 'em lie to ya.
And what about his foreign policy? The world says he's right www.whowouldtheworldelect.com Pay attention to Iraq, Iran, Israel and Afghanistan.
Don't forget the U.S., U.K., Australia, Ireland, Italy, lol...everyone just about.
Symes @ 373:
Wow he sure likes to call people trolls doesn't he? According to the definition though Id have to say its more like the pot calling the kettle black.
1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, “Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll.” .
Comparing Ron Paul to the rest of the GOP supports the second sentence in the definition. Hes got no other purpose or intent then to bag on Ron Paul. Funny in a sad kinda way.
Dr. Bombay @ 398:
From his own website. I guess you guys don't read all the shit you exhort others to...
"Life and Liberty" (Well not so much of the Liberty, ladies)
"...In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”
Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life."
He's a paternalistic, hypocritical twat. And I'm sure you have a pre-programmed bullshit-laden spun-up POS rebuttal for this. Don't bother. I've seen them all.
Enjoy your Ron Paul Kool-Aid. I think is smells like urine, but then, I've always had a highly developed sense of smell.
I think some commentaries are quite sad in their ignorant dogmatism. See the Google interview for a more in-depth look at his views. For example:
Not true. He actually said that the abortion issue is difficult to decide, but that he opposes abortion in the late months because there's no significant difference between a new born baby and, say, a six months fetus. He also said that he has nothing against the selling of the morning after pill, so its pretty clear he doesn't believe life starts at conception. I find it quite amazing that, at least to my knowledge, he never makes any kind of religious arguments. At Google he didn't even use the word "God" but at one time said "my goodness". You have to admit that that's pretty curious for someone who's supposed to be a "religious nut".
Totally false! He is actually totally in favor of gay marriage. He said that he is in favor of all kinds of voluntary associations and that they have the right to call these associations whatever they like, including "marriage".
Well, this depends on what you mean by "gun nut". He thinks the right to bear arms is a good idea. Protecting yourself might often be more efficient than waiting defenceless for the police to come. However, he did say that some restrictions could be justified if it was clear that the reason why somebody was buying the arms was not self-protection but aggression. He also said that private venues like Googe have the right to ban all guns on their premices if they choose so.
He actually points out that environmental protection is best achieved via the enforcement of property rights. E.g. he pointed out that the most polluted places in the world are the former communist countries and China, and that the proberbial pollution in the early days of the Industrial Revolution was due to the fact that property rights were not properly enforced.
His point is that "the more difficult the problem, the more localized the solution should be" because it's not a good idea to have a supposed federal expert imposing a single solution to the whole country. It's better to have more solutions tried in parallel and eventually see which is the best. Where you do have a solution imposed from above you usually get bad results, e.g. the case of education which is getting worse and worse (that's why he wants to abolish the Dep of Education).
Symes @ 40:
Notice that your not refuting the argument on its mertis, just calling me names, kind of scary for you huh, its ok, your can make it, just work hard......
I think the size of the government should reflect the size of the population it represents. He's twisting though his desire to gut spending with everyone else's desire to bring troops home. He would bring the military home then find it didn't save $1 trillion and then he'd start cutting SS, medicare, etc.
That's pretty two-faced underhanded of him to put into spending bills things that his district needs then not vote for them so that he can say he doesn't vote for higher spending but he can tell his constituents he works for their benefit.
This guy sucks and he's pulling a fast one on these innocent college kids.
Paul did about as well as could be expected given the format, Russerts M.O., and the fact that he espouses a pretty radical change in direction based on Constitutional first priciples. I dont agree with all his interpretations on how that would work out, but at least I know where he is coming from, which is a lot more than you can say about the rest of the field. A Paul presidency would of course have to deal with a Dem/Repug Congress, so there would be pretty significant limits on how far these changes could go, but we all know we would be out of Iraq, Japan, Korea, Germany etc etc pretty quick.
c. atrox @ 19:
I assume C&L is less against him (maybe even favourable toward him) because he is open and honest, not obviously a crook or liar. You can disagree with his policies but I think they are at least worth discussing.
In msg 46 Symes said, "The concept of social responsibility is lost on RP’s little repeat-o-cons.
Has the word social in it so it must be communist."
Please explain what you mean. Doesn't more power in the hands of the states translate into more responsibility given to the people who live in that state?
I just read that Huckabee and Obama are on MTP next week. That sounds a little risky right before Iowa. I hope Obama doesn't get beat up. Russert may feel he has to be hard on Obama to make up for the debate where he was tough with Clinton. If I as Obama I'd consider it make or break. Huckabee will be alright though because he can talk his way out of anything. Too bad Russert couldn't get Hillary on, bash the hell out of her, and put her third behind Obama and Edwards.
wow people sure have got a bug up their asses regarding ron paul...and people on here who shoot him down,i want to know...which candidate has got YOUR support?
let see which one you choose that doesnt fit the label kooky or crazy or etc etc
I find Ron Paul's run for prez interesting precisely because the media didn't pick him.
c. atrox @ 19:
Ok, why should they cover him? Cause he's on the fast track to double digits in Iowa and New Hampshire. Its basically a 5 or 6 way race on the repub side, and he's in it. You don't have to like it, but its true. And look, a divided, discourseful repub party is *healthy* for this country. At least we can all agree we want the neocons out, right?
He's personally pro-life? True. He also believes the federal govt should have no say on this issue. I'm pro-choice, but I also agree the fed govt should have no say on this issue. In that sense, I agree with him, and find some semblance of common ground on a divisive topic (that again, shouldn't belong in national politics, like religion, and so many other things). I think there are many pro-lifers and pro-choicers who are for him, and he's the only candidate who can claim that.
He's against same sex marriage? Where in the world did you get this? He's an old school conservative... separation of church and state. He thinks govt should have no place in religion and vice versa. You and I can marry whoever we want, its up to people and their churches. He is the ideological opposite of Huckabee.
He's a gun nut? He's pro-2nd amendment. I don't have a gun, probably never will, but I also don't think I should have the right to tell someone else they shouldn't be able to buy a gun. I see this as a nonissue. I've never been threatened by a gun and I'll probably never threaten anyone by using a gun.
He defers to private property rights in relation to environmental protection. True. I can see how this is controversial, the Goracle has taught us to think otherwise. There are 2 upsides to his stance however: 1) he believes in science and that we should always do more science, more research and more study 2) you and I won't be taxed to have a nanny-fed involved in enviroment protectionism. How well does the fed work on these issues really? Maybe we should let it come down to laws and property rights, what is the harm in exploring that idea? I am of the opinion that our national economy, taxes and the dollar is a more pressing topic than the environment (although you can argue that, I agree the priority is debatable). This is especially true if say, you are one of the 7 million low income Americans who will probably lose their houses. There are problems sure, but we may have to think about the order they're addressed in.
He uses the "state rights" subterfuge to get around federal protections. I don't think he's trying to get around anything. This is a sincere belief: the Fed shouldnt tell us what to do, in fact you could argue that sort of "one rule fits all" protectionism erodes certain rights, or at least puts them at risk from the other side. It also polarizes people, and is inefficient from a bureaucratic standpoint. I am personally sick of the polarization that goes on in this country, and I see this constitutional viewpoint as a potential solution to our toughest social issues.
Just because he's opposed to the war doesn't mean much. This is not my top issue even, but he is the only one within any party, except Kucinich and Gravel, who say "get out now". The difference between Paul and those 2 is that Paul has real support and could win the Repub primary. I think its wise and I think he's right that exiting all other (or at least most other) locations around the world could only be a good thing ultimately. To anyone opposed to the war, you have to know that even Clinton and Obama flubbed this question- they won't get us out anytime soon. They are willing to continue neocon philosophy. Shouldn't this be a red flag issue?
I agree, in a sense, with Boring Scott...no more Texans...and no more reactionaries. I'm sorry, but this is not a healthy way to get to the bottom of our problems. What if he's the candidate to restore our confidence in both Texans and Republicans? I understand the hatred and vile towards Bush, but we have an entire system that is failing all of us in one way or another. I don't care where the solution comes from, if its reasonable and sane then I accept it.
RP matters because he is the least corrupt Republican by far.
Of course, he's also a very distant third to Edwards/Dodd as far as a decent president. I highly doubt any sane self-titled "liberal" or "progressive" would vote for Paul. That just wouldn't make a bit of sense. But I can see many disillusioned Republicans voting his way in the primary -- he gets his money from somewhere. Good for them, they SHOULD punish the Guliani/Romney/Huckabees of the world. Meanwhile McCain might quietly scoop the nomination.
Russert's an idiot. The line on "earmarks" was fishing.
Earmarks are the system as it exists. Paul wishes to change that system (income tax/spending).
My first choice is Dennis. Paul could get my vote in certain scenarios.
...
Paul has my vote
the neocons set aside a couple million dollars for fake "commenters",these guys come to websites and flood threads with disinformation and smears whenever some one threatens the neocon agenda...hmmmm....
[deleted--keep your comments on topic and not on other posters]
Ron Paul supporters believe that the federal government should defer to the states on most issues. What happens if the legislatures in some states pass laws which do away with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid? Does that then mean that the Paul devotees would have no problem with retirees not receiving their Social Security checks and/or the poor and the elderly not receiving their benefits? Are Ron Paul fans against the idea of Universal Health Care, which would ensure that everyone, not just those in Congress, should be entitled to basic and catastrophic health care? It should not be too difficult to observe that Ron Paul and his followers, unlike those dreaded socialist countries, are not exactly overflowing with compassionate toward their fellow man and woman and to those less fortunate than themselves.
Vote Libertarian.. because every neighborhood needs a meth lab, cougars owned by irresponsible frat boys and criminal escalation unseen since the days of Prohibition in Chicago. To the libertarian, freedom from society is the same as freedom within society.
I saw this idiot whine and complain about that whole non-issue of "Big Government vs Small Government". First of all, the size of the government has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of power held by that government. Secondly, a larger government holding a set amount of power would mean that every branch would have less power at any given time than those within a smaller government wielding the same amount of power. This is why the words dictatorship and monarchy go hand in hand so often throughout history.
The reality is that its not the size of the government but how separated they are from the people they govern and how accountable each member of that government is to the people. That accountability is the true nature of a representative government.
Ron Paul was right, however, about this country leaning toward fascism. This is why I am striving for Egalitarian Socialism.
tin foil hat rockin @ 60:
let me adjust my tin foil hat just a little tighter..
;)
John @ 48:
I refuted you on the thread I linked to, no need to keep that nonsense up anymore.
Now I think I'll just call you what you are.
Mike S @ 52:
Not really, if that were the case then I think civil rights would never have happened.
There are times when Federal intervention and regulation is essential to ensure the rights for all citizens in all parts of the country. Yell states rights all you want, but the reality is segregation would still be in effect with whites only fountains had the Federal government taken RP's attitude at the time.
You want to take responsibility, then do it. Nobody is stopping you.
But if you want to roll back this countries hard won civil protections then you are going to be stopped.
Isn't what you RP bot's keep preaching exactly the same thing a Grover Norquist saying, you know about shrinking the Fed until he could drown it? How very NeoCon of you.
Ron Paul '08!!! Cause nobody is as real
John @ 48:
PS - I already HAVE made it. I more than likely have a better education, higher income and brighter prospects than you do, after all I am not grasping at straws.
Grasping at straws... that's you RP bots alright. So who's really the scared one here?
Wingnut,just like the rest of them.
It's funny, but I think the Democrat closest to the positions of Ron Paul are Dennis Kucinich, someone else I also like.
Erroll @ 61:
No, it means that either the Federal Government would issue block grants to states so they can figure out how the money should be spent, or that the Federal government shouldn't be taking enough money out of a taxpayers check to pay these benefits in the first place. States could enact taxes and benefits as needed. He does not advocate throwing people off of SSD or other programs.
He does believe that Tricky Dicky screwed up the health care system in the first place by forcing employers to buy health insurance through HMOs. Once the HMO has taken their cut there's not much left for the patient. Does anyone remember how many millions of dollars BCBS took out of the California healthcare system to send back to the main office?
But Dr. Paul's main mission has been to make us discuss these issues. He never thought he'd get this far. If we'd stayed in the media controlled world of the primary candidates we'd never be really discussing a state's right to approve medical marijuana, pulling troops out of Japan or letting the Koreas continue the excellent job they've been doing of reconciling when Bolton hasn't been screwing things up.
Keith @ 8:
Not True. He is says he would legalize prostitution and gay marriage. He is for absolute freedom to do whatever you want.
Though a democrat anyway, I was ambivalent about Paul until this interview. I had heard him make some not-too-outrageous statements in the past and even agreed with him on some few limited issues. This interview however changed my mind. Paul had his clock cleaned by Russert and came across as whiny and defensive. A presidential hopeful needs the ability to stand up to at least such soft-ball problems as an interview with Tim Russert (who was, as mentioned, quite on the offensive) if they expect to be able to manage the presidency. Add delusional grandeur, complete lack of ability or intellect and a disdain for the constitution to Paul and you have what we have now. It's time we put a pro back into the oval office.
Wait until you see what guiliani or romney's strict constructionist judges do. They've already thrown out racial targets.
Symes @ 65:
Anthology @ 14:
How about Chris Dodd? The man has recently convinced me he is the best candidate. The worst I have heard about his is, "I do not know much about him".
Erroll @ 61:
Lets talk about this bit by bit ok? =)
What happens if the legislatures in some states pass laws which do away with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid? That's an interesting 'what if', but I don't think its a realistic concern. SS, medicare, etc are federal programs. They're not gonna suddenly change them to state programs. What has been talked about though is young people could opt out, and the money we save from removing ourselves from so many military bases around the world could keep these federal programs going through a transitional period. Of course its not even his top issue, but it is a welfare economy and if we're going to transition out of it, it would have to be done carefully and with comprimise. I believe he's sincere in not harming any Americans via a change in policy.
Does that then mean that the Paul devotees would have no problem with retirees not receiving their Social Security checks and/or the poor and the elderly not receiving their benefits? Nobody wants this and there's no threat of it happening if we can manage a smooth, charitable transition. Get out of wasteful spending where we can, remove taxes wherever possible, get out of military empires, reject welfarism whenever possible, but never to the detriment of Americans. I know its a tough pill, but you could at least agree with me that we do have real financial problems in this country and we need real objective solutions. I think what we're doing has to end.
Are Ron Paul fans against the idea of Universal Health Care, which would ensure that everyone, not just those in Congress, should be entitled to basic and catastrophic health care? I think yes, I know I am. I'm absolutely 100% opposed to universal health care, because it means health care run and managed by the federal government. How efficient would that be really? Maybe it won't increase my taxes, but there's zero chance it would reduce them. When have we ever seen an example of a well run federal program like this or anything else? Medicare, SS, FEMA, homeland security, the Iraq war, Katrina, these should all be indicators. I'm not trying to be offensive, honestly, but you have to admit that putting your hopes on universal health care run by the Federal Government and corporate lobbyists is naive and has almost no credibility.
It should not be too difficult to observe that Ron Paul and his followers, unlike those dreaded socialist countries, are not exactly overflowing with compassionate toward their fellow man and woman and to those less fortunate than themselves. Actually, I think not involving the Federal Govt is more humanitarian than welfarism. The problem with welfarism, socialism, etc, is that it robs one citizen to pay another. How humanitarian is that? We ought to rely on a charitable society and people, without govt interference or restriction, so that welfarism and inflation won't destroy our economy. Ask yourself, why is it that 40-60 million Americans don't have health insurance. Is it because government isn't mandating it enough? Or is it because we have a system that favors corruption where costs go up and corporations charge the maximum. The problem is that government is involved, and it shouldn't be, except when rights are violated and you need protection in a court. That's it. Corporations know how to manipulate our government, and regardless of what you believe politically we ought to be doing everything we can to decouple that relationship.
Symes @ 67:
Attacking arguments with emotion and name calling instead of fact doesn't sound very educated to me.
filipurr @ 75:
In the old days of news readers we used to say you could always tell when the colleges were out for the holidays. The level of discourse dropped considerably.
Paul just came across looking like the nutjob he is during this interview. He never wanted to talk about anything specific. He wanted to just rail on about how things aren't working. When russert pinned him down on a few things, he changed the subject, went into ramble mode and never did end up answering the question.
ron Paul is anti-choice. He is therefore supporting forced childbirth. How that can be a "libertarian view" is beyond the pale.
Paul's a nut and he was shown to be a nut during this interview. He has that wild-eyed crazy kind of look in his eye that you see in the homeless dude who smells like pee who keeps claiming that the government has planted an electrode in his brain and is controlling his thoughts.
Ron Paul: Candidate of choice for skin heads and neonazis.
I take exception with #74 above.
First, no tax-cutter has ever explained where from the government receives it's revenue, and there is much only a federal government can do.
Second, Universal Healthcare is the only cost-effective way to provide healthcare to citizens. The current system of private insurers requires an ever-increasing profit for investors. It requires an infrastructure that is repeated for every company selling insurance and needs updating every few years with new technology. There is a workforce of millions syphoning from the premiums people, employees and employers pay.
All of those dead-set against univeral healthcare appear to be laboring under the impression that it degrades medical care, which it doesn't. It just makes sure that healthcare given gets paid and hospitals will no longer need to eliminate the ER because it bankrupts them, since they are required to treat everybody, regardless of their ability to pay.
Those who are insured pay approximately $1,500/mo for a family of 4. If that premium, or a major part of it goes to Medicare, who already have a system (may need expansion), There may not even be an increase in taxes. Those wishing to expand their coverage beyond what is necessary would be free to purchase additional coverage
DonsBlog @ 72:
So what, I wouldn't vote for them either.
filipurr @ 75:
Explain why I should keep saying the same thing to the same cut and paste spam trolls every single day?
[Because you're making it personal, address the issues, please. Thanks. -- the moderator]
AConfederacyofDunces @ 58:
The point russert was making is that Paul put the earmarks in, and then voted against them... and accepted the money for his district when they were voted in by the majority of congress. He wants it both ways. He wants to say he wants small government, but then he wants to accept the government perks and services. As much as I dislike russert, he wasn't fishing on that one - it was a legitimate point. And Paul's double-speak on this one is typical of "small government" wingers. They don't want to pay taxes, but they want the services. They want small government, but they still want to collect their government services. The "small government" talk is just BS that gets votes. In practice, the populace doesn't want it.
Wait a minute. I just realized that Ron Paul himself called us the world police ("America, fuck yeah!")...
I wonder if that means he's a fan of the movie? Forget Chuck Norris, if he can get an Eric Cartman endorsement (and I sure he could) that'd be something!
#78-ronhohn
Very well said and intelligently stated. It is long past the point that people in this country, as Michael Moore has pointed out, start thinking of we instead of me. One of the best places to begin is with Universal Health Care, which would remove the insurance companies from the equation and would elevate people over profit.
Symes @ 67:
WOW, you got inscure rather quickly, you don't even know me so what makes you think your statement is true, no matter, you knew you could not back up your argument so it was ATTACK!! I'm not a RP by the way, but if I was would that make you a Commiecrat??
Between clinton and paul I'd be tempted to vote paul. paul gets us out of iraq.
Sometimes we supporters come across as being dogmatic and it's unfortunate, because when comments become personal attacks they become counter productive. I encourage anyone seeking the truth to take it upon yourself and become educated. There's plenty of material on all the candidates, there's plenty of books on foreign policy, monetary policy, the constitution, the founding fathers, the history of our CIA, the history of the Republican party, socialism, fascism, federalism etc...
Read and question everything! It's so important that regardless of who we vote for in this election we don't allow emotion and ignorance to cloud our judgment, we do make a difference.
ronhohn @ 78:
Right. And then there's the fallacy repeated by "libertarians" that private insurance will be more efficient. By "more efficient" what they really mean is more cost effective. It doesn't mean better care or even the same care. It means that private companies will cut and cut - labor, services etc. - in order to squeeze the maximum profit out of the operation. The extra money doesn't go toward improving care or adding additional services. It goes straight into the pockets of the share holders. This isn't a theory. It's a fact. Anyone who doesn't believe it, probably isn't old enough to remember what it was like some years ago before hospitals became "for profit" institutions.
Symes @ 79:
So it's not the Ron Paul types that are trying to strip us of our rights, it's the main stream Republicans. And from what I've seen so far Hillary is planning on continuing the Post Turtle's policies. Ron Paul is actually the one person that believes in an individual's rights, white, rich, poor, black, or green to take action.
I had Direct TV a few years ago and I used to watch the old Laugh-In shows, something our new politically correct land would never allow to go on. It absolutely amazes me how the conservatives have stripped us of legal rights no more than the liberals. With liberals we just can't talk about how we might want to do things our own way, or we can lose our property to the newest strip mall, or we can't use that can of thinner even if we're 200 miles from Los Angeles and despite the fact it works better. With conservatives I have a better chance of being arrested in a political protest or for donating to muslims. Either way, I'm losing my right to choose for myself because a bunch of idiots think they know better how I should live my life than I do.
Ron Paul is a decent Republican and that says ALOT! I think the best two candidates are Kucinich and Paul. Both are men of integrity and constitutionalists. They have different bias but that's how it should be. It should not be like it is today where EXTREMISTS rule the day.
John @ 84:
Nice reframe Repug!
You accused me of being scared and I responded, project much?
I already dealt with your arguments and a couple of dozen other RP bot arguments in past threads, debating you guys is debating a wall.
And I know why.
You are here to siphon off Dem votes to the Repug camp. You are the same old trolls we've always had with new logins and a new product to push.
You aren't here to debate, your here to sell.
And I'm here to call you on it.
c. atrox @ 19:
Wants to leave it up to the states and is against partial birth abortion. Also, being against abortion doesn't make you evil, I certainly don't consider myself evil.
Total lie. He supports same sex marriage, but again, wants to leave it up to the states.
Constitutional right.
Yep, and yet the democrats still took congress.
Some of those on the left, with the silly rants, are sounding like those on right wingnut sites.
I would like to see Dennis Kucinich win the election but the Dems aren't falling behind him it seems. The internet polls show a different picture. Hope?
Ron Paul, like Dennis, voted no to war and no to the Patriot Act. I watched them both go through and remember wishing more Democrats had his cahones.
I would vote for Paul over any of the CFR lapdog Dems. Dennis Kucinich even said he had considered him as his running mate if he were to win the primary.
If the Democrats want to keep the majority they should have left our guns alone. The bill that just passed is going to turn the tide on a lot of independent (Dems) voters. This bill will be used to take guns from a lot of veterans or whomever a shrink deems have mental problems. We all may need guns at some point if this police state keeps escellating.
Ron Paul was right about the fascist state we are in. Why have no Dems like Hillary brought this to the debate. Kucinich is the only Democrat with guts like Ron Paul.
John @ 84:
Now you are a liar, I dealt with you 2 days ago after a series of RP bit cut and pastes you posted on the Beck wants to kiss RP thread.
Ahh, the cold war rhetoric surfaces. No progressive EVER talks like that Repug.
I'll be saving this for reuse later.
Objectivism doesn't work. Ayn Rand was a sociopathic ****. Is it really so hard to see why the people with all the money 9 times out of 10 believe in these warped social doctrines. What is really scary is that money and entitlement have absolutely nothing to do with skill or knowledge anymore. It's become control, and what your born into. Case in point: a CEO encourages unstable financial practices in his company, nearly bankrupts it, forces the company to cut thousands of jobs and pensions, and then walks away with millions and millions of dollars.
Libertarian is the opposite of authoritarian.
Kucinich and Gravel are the most libertarian of the Democratic field. The longer this race goes- the more authoritarian Clinton and Obama become.
But the simple fact is that, at this point, Paul has a slim shot at the republican nomination. He's raising the most money and there are a lot of independents that are going to vote in the republican primary, myself included.
Paul is probably the one republican that couldn't win against Hillary or Obama. If he got the nomination, the media would eat him alive.
Hype-Jersey @ 81:
No. That isn't quite true. He doesn't want it both ways, that is clear to everyone that understands the difference between cause (income tax) and effect (the need for earmarks). Nor does he want income tax OR the services. He very plainly wants no taxes, no services. No need to lie about his stance or be slimy about it.
Of course, he's completely pie-in-the-sky wrong about not needing government oversight, or income and capital gains taxes on the rich to at least restore balance to this country. So he's completely wrong because his proscribed policies would be detrimental. But not "wanting it both ways" or "flip-flopping". Bush and the neocons quite obviously want it both ways, and are world class hypocrites. Ron Paul is just idealistically deluded.
Think of him as the yin to Ralph Nader's yang. They both have been important voices, but they should probably stay on the wings of the party pulling strings, because reality just doesn't work that way (either way).
Russert has become an asshat, and was in full form there. He didn't want to "discuss" or "clairfy" anything, he's just a simple hatchet man. I don't even know why he bothers to have guests, he should just read slanderous statements to the camera for the entire show. I fully expect Timmy to just drop trou in some future show and pee in the guests face until commercial. It would be basically the same thing, but easier for him. Certainly just as uninformative.
The noxious Russert aside, while I tend to agree with Paul on the premise of our foreign policy blunders I disagree on his notion of a very small federal govt.
We need a federal government of appropriate size. What is appropriate?
Capitalism is very good at supplying things. Cars, books, gum, etc. but it is not good at supplying essential services like defense, police, fire protection and mail. (FedEx doesn't go where it doesn't make money.) So, "appropriate" is the govt doing the things we collectively determine are essential that private enterprise has show it isn't capable of of doing effectively or is too important to be left to profit motives rather than the public good. When private interest succeeds at providing services we are better off letting it do so but there are things that need to be done one can't make a profit at and shouldn't.
A private system cannot be expected to protect the country because it could be bought or go broke. You can't have everyone buying individual fire protection because one person not participating jeopardizes whole neighborhoods. It is socially irresponsible. You can't have privately owned public transportation.
The same thing applies to healthcare. One sick person can infect a city. It is as socially irresponsible to have sick people running around as it is to let a fire go unattended.
No one wants big government until they need it... then they demand it. Unfortunately, you can't create it fast enough after an emergency. You have to plan in advance.
In a world where we are forced to bid for resources and markets and labor, it is absurd to think we can operate as a series of individuals or even states. The decisions of the federal govt have far to large an impact on our lives to believe we should not be democratically in control of it.
If we do not have big enough democratic government we will be dominated by big undemocratic corporations. We are already in big trouble. To weaken the peoples collective power is to make us subservient to corporate power. And we cannot let the corporations control the government. These are dangerous times and as the founding fathers said, democracy requires eternal vigilance. You can't do that when you cripple your democratic institutions.
Erroll @ 83:
I'm not opposed to what you guys are saying philosophically, but I don't believe its ethical, responsible or even humanitarian to increase everyone's taxes to get universal health coverage. In fact I'd call it an immoral act. But if what you guys support is universal healthcare without increasing taxes or cost to citizens in any way, I'd be for it as a comprimise. Honestly this isn't even that important of an issue to me personally, I think there are more important issues to tackle.
IE, the Iraq war, the economy, the environment. Health care redesigns are about 4 or 5 issues down, and it is not a dealbreaker issue for me personally.
Erroll @ 83:
Here's my problem with universal health care. Anyway you cook it, the system has to be managed by Government, and Government has proven time and time again that they are inefficient at running these social programs. It was government that forced HMO's on us, it's Government that created this problem were facing now, not the free market. There's no reason to assume that Universal health care will work in this country, what's more likely is long waiting periods, lack of choice, poor quality, and frustration.
The best candidate is the one that will remove Federal influence on the Health Care system. No more Government regulations, no more mandates. If pharmacists and nurses were allowed to perform basic functions it would increase access and lower costs, but the Government won't allow it. What makes the Government so capable of deciding what's best for our family’s health care?
Ron Paul is an objectivist, if you need fiction that warns of the dangers of this kind of thinking, I'd recommend playing through Bioshock if thats your thing. When man learned how to take and of power, so did he learn how to justify what his actions might to do others. Of course there are always going to be parasites who feed off social systems, just like there are parasites who feed off of their employees or their parents businesses and money to benefit themselves, but that doesn't mean that these social systems should be abolished. Where reaching a tipping point in this country, I advise anyone here, and especially the Ron Paul people, to choose wisely.
DonsBlog @ 88:
And RP is not the answer.
He MAY give you back what appears to be rights (as defined in 1789) but he will strip the country of any mechanism of guaranteeing those rights. That will be left to the states in his own words.
So the net result is what you have right now, but far worse since any agency or regulation that could be invoked to force your rights would no longer exist.
And once again since you all seem to be ignoring it:
RP is Norquist's wet dream com to life.
This is another ploy to bring forth the domestic agenda of PNAC by a back door method.
Again:
RP is openly planning on doing what the main domestic policy architect of PNAC wants to happen.
That makes RP supporters NeoCon shills.
And it make you guys pushing him here on a progressive site nothing more than the usual Repug trolls we have always dealt with.
Anonymouse @ 20:
No, it is free-market capitalism that creates the middle class; rampant socialism and corporatism destroys the middle class creates a large wealth gap. The period from 1880 to 1910 was the greatest period in the history of the United States economy: prices fell, wages rose, and the nation absorbed millions of immigrants. When you have corporatism and socialism, where the government manages the economy for the "benefit" of the people, the middle class and upward mobility are destroyed.
A word about earmarks since everyone is making such a ridiculous big deal about them:
Earmarks do not increase spending, they merely allocate the funds to a specific project, which is the point that Ron was trying to make while Tim was busy interjecting. The spending levels are first determined and voted upon, and then after the spending level is set the earmarks are inserted. Any funds that are not allocated in earmarks are discretionary spending by the Executive Branch bureaucrats. Tim Russert and everyone else are making such a big deal about earmarks when they are a red herring, plain and simple; the real problem is the spending levels.
Jake @ 93:
Amen....
Login or Register to post comments.