Ron Paul - on the rise?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 14 2007, 04:42 AM) [snapback]539346[/snapback]</div>

In reality my view doesn't differ that much, and before I saw someone come along who I feel could influence change (as long a shot as it is), I too was over it.

But I'm still relatively young at 33 and I still have some fight in me. I have a 14 month old and I have to believe that there is hope or why even bother? If I felt the way you did, I would be gone (Costa Rica is really nice). Who knows, that day may be coming sooner than I think, but until I feel equally defeated, I'm staying. Even if Ron Paul doesn't win, I believe that if enough people learn about who he is and what he is about, that things may start to change. Maybe not. We'll see soon enough I suppose.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(steve-o @ Nov 13 2007, 09:00 AM) [snapback]538922[/snapback]</div>

While few people would turn down something for nothing, most people work hard and take pride in giving as much as they get. Deadbeats and welfare cheats are the exception. A characteristic of the lunatic fringe is their propensity to pick out a group they don't like and accuse everyone in that group of being deadbeats and cheats, sucking money out of the system.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 14 2007, 01:42 AM) [snapback]539346[/snapback]</div>

A few states tried leaving the country a while back, and they had a hard time of it. I think that the changes are moving in the opposite direction: Polities are merging, not dividing. As big as CA is, it cannot go it alone. And Texas can no more "deal with" its immigrant "problem" by itself than it can as part of the U.S.A. In any case, we have immigration because employers want cheap labor.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(steve-o @ Nov 13 2007, 09:00 AM) [snapback]538922[/snapback]</div>

Poor kitty!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 14 2007, 11:59 AM) [snapback]539483[/snapback]</div>

Just couldn't leave it alone, could ya? LOL. Lunacy to me would be lumping Ron Paul and his supporters in with the Neo-Nazi's. But, to each his own.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriuStorm @ Nov 14 2007, 09:05 AM) [snapback]539401[/snapback]</div>

I agree that George W. Bush has severely damaged our foundations. But I don't see how a Paul Presidency would "finish" the destruction?

Ron Paul has little in common with George W. Bush.

 

Even if I grant him the point that it doesn't now, what time in history is he talking about when that was true? When the government restricted where you could live, where you could work, and who you could marry based on your race?

I have to conclude one of the following is true:
1. He isn't aware these things have happened in history.
2. He thinks they're okay as long as they're done by state governments, not the federal government (the traditional "States Rights" defense).
3. He thinks "all" just means rich white men.

I think any of these should disqualify him as president. He's no defender of individual rights.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(alanh @ Nov 19 2007, 02:48 AM) [snapback]541478[/snapback]</div>

You would have had to read and comprehend the entire quote in order to understand what he was saying. What he was referring to was detailed in the very next sentence. No mention of marriage as far as I could see. My individual rights go far beyond simply who can hire me or who I can marry, although the government DOES in fact dictate the very items you mention, which it should not. Your focus is far too narrow. You'll need to open your mind up a little to really appreciate what he is trying to say.

 

That's my point -- Paul is glossing over some pretty oppressive actions by the government in the past. Don't say "things were great, except for the stuff I don't want to talk about." There was no past utopia when "equal rights were guaranteed to all."

What he really means is "taxes were lower and that's the only thing that matters" so why not just come out and say that?