Submitted by 4plexowner on December 14, 2007 - 6:48am.
I love America - I can rarely sing the Star Spangled Banner or God Bless America without a lump rising in my throat
I realized a few years ago however that the America I was getting choked-up about was not the America that I was seeing through my eyes
It was the IDEA of America causing my throat to constrict - you know, Land of the Free, blessed with inalienable rights by God himself, checks and balances, limited presidential powers - remember learning about that country in school?
Ron Paul remembers that country and he would like to live in it once again
~
I don't know if Mr Paul can be elected but he appears to be acting as a catalyst in our country - IMO he is an honest man speaking passionately about things he believes in and that is attracting attention - I see him as the best chance to restore the American dream that I hold in my head and heart
I am going to demonstrate my love of country on December 16th by donating $2300 (max for individual) to Ron Paul's campaign
Submitted by cashflow on December 14, 2007 - 8:43am.
I have to admit trying to ignore all the early politics right now, but after seeing that video, I'm going to check out what he's about...thanks for posting.
It infuriates me that we allow the media to control who gets elected in this country by their BIASed opinions! My mom told me that in the 60's the total losers with bad grades were the ones that got degrees in Journalism because they couldn't get through any other academic area. This is who is influencing our opinions?!?
Submitted by Arraya on December 14, 2007 - 10:06am.
you know, Land of the Free, blessed with inalienable rights by God himself, checks and balances, limited presidential powers - remember learning about that country in school?
This is very important when taking in context of what has happend in the country over the last few years with democratic approval. Everybody please look up.
Patriot act I and II
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
On Aug. 4th 2007, the Senate passed the Bush backed 'spy bill', which preserves & expands the illegal domestic spying program. I hope people are educated enough by this time to know that such legislations have nothing to do with Terrorism, and everything to do with monitoring and controlling American dissent.
Furthermore, on May 9 2007, Bush signed the
National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive,
which gives Bush near full dictatorial powers in the event of a "National Emergency". Bush, and the people he works for, will be able to do ANYTHING they want if a "National Emergency" is deemed. All they need is a "New 9/11".
The US Constitution will no longer be applicable.
From what I have read of the founding fathers I believe they would want us to have a second american revolution by now. This is exactly what they were fighting against. These are huge steps towards a totalitarian, oppressive, military style, surveillance based Police State.
Unless any other candidate promises to repeal these things I won't even think about voting for them. Ron Paul is the only one talking about them.
In a way, the world-view of the party imposed itself
most successfully on the people incapable of
understanding it. They could be made to accept the
most flagrant violations of reality, because they
never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded
of them, and were not sufficiently interested in
public events to notice what was happening. By lack of
understanding, they remained sane. "?~George Orwell,
1984
Submitted by kev374 on December 14, 2007 - 10:31am.
From what I can gather so far he seems pretty spot on with regard to the issues. Seems like an intelligent guy who recognizes that we need to make some tough decisions to get the USA back on track from the profligate nation it has become!
arraya: You wanna really scare the crap out of yourself? Do a little research on the NSA Echelon and Carnivore programs. If you believed in your constitutionally protected rights of privacy and due process, well, these programs will disabuse you of that right quick.
Let me say that I am no conspiracy theorist, and I love my country with all my heart. I served this country for five years and have lost a lot of good friends in her defense, but we have been steadily watching our rights being eroded, and all in the name of protection.
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak, and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all His laws". John Adams
Submitted by Borat on December 14, 2007 - 10:50am.
Hahahahahaha you Americans crack me up, you think you still have real elections! You haven't been paying attention. Here in Kazakhstan we have strongman system which works well for us. When we have enemy, strongman crushes them! When other strongman want take control, he crushes old strongman and take power. We don't have to have play elections like U S of A babies living in fantasyland. We know to stay out of the way of strongman and give him our money and daughters when he ask!
Submitted by marion on December 14, 2007 - 2:28pm.
I went ahead and watched the video. I will say it was a nice video. I haven't really looked into this guy, but I may want to check him out and see what he's about. Interesting.
Submitted by marion on December 14, 2007 - 2:28pm.
I went ahead and watched the video. I will say it was a nice video. I haven't really looked into this guy, but I may want to check him out and see what he's about. Interesting.
Submitted by marion on December 14, 2007 - 4:02pm.
Ok, how many of you would vote for this guy and how many of you think he could actually win? On the video, it showed Guiliani laughing at him. Not sure on what stance/position though. Everybody's got all these good ideas, etc. but when it comes down to it can he run the country and do it well?
P.S. yeah I'm bored at present-at least for another hour.:)
Submitted by nostradamus on December 14, 2007 - 4:32pm.
I think he has a good chance if he makes it past the primaries. IMO it all depends on how long the current admin can stave off economic collapse in the eyes of the voters. If they can keep painting a rosy picture until the elections, we may very well end up with another republican candidate, perhaps Ron Paul. If it all falls apart people are going to vote against any republican, even good ones, meaning we'll end up with Hillary or Barrack...
This is all IMO! I wonder what would happen if we caught Osama Bin Laden. That would be a new exit strategy and then Bush can hang the "Mission Accomplished" flag and mean it, walking away before support for this war gets even lower.
marion: I think the larger question is: Would he do a worse job of running the country than the usual group of clowns we're being offered?
As far as his stance on certain issues: He strikes me as a wingnut libertarian, but I do believe this country needs an enema of epic proportions, and he might be just the guy to do it. He is proposing some fairly radical stuff but, in light of present circumstances, it appears that he isn't far off in his recommendations.
I write this as an archconservative Republican (albeit an extremely disappointed one), so you know where I am coming from.
"I have to admit trying to ignore all the early politics right now, but after seeing that video, I'm going to check out what he's about...thanks for posting."
Submitted by pbnative on December 14, 2007 - 5:35pm.
He will make sure that I cannot be allowed to have a medical procedure that he believes is wrong. If he thinks he should be able to control what goes on inside my very own body, I'm confident that he would attempt to control my right to a vote, free speech, atheism, security, etc. I will not vote for him.
Submitted by nostradamus on December 14, 2007 - 5:47pm.
pbnative that is one point, but it takes a lot more than just the support of the president to enact an anti-abortion law. If everything Bush was for/against was passed into a law, we might be clubbing you and dragging you around by the hair by now. No one candidate can be perfect for everyone. You must look at all the issues facing the nation right now and see how each candidate will handle it.
People get fixated on believing that one man has all this power and everything he wishes will come true. It's not the case. It takes a combination of congress, the senate, the house, and all those other people you should be very familiar with before voting. If anything the president is highly symbolic in many ways. Just someone for us average Jo's and Jane's to focus on.
That being said, Ron Paul has extremely strong pro-life beliefs and as a congressman has even enacted legislation to overturn the famous Roe Vs. Wade case.
Submitted by blahblahblah on December 14, 2007 - 5:56pm.
He will make sure that I cannot be allowed to have a medical procedure that he believes is wrong.
This is not true at all. He has made his position clear on this topic many times. He believes that this issue is for the states to decide. As long as you reside in a state in which the people decide to make this procedure legal, you'll be able to have one if you choose.
The basic principle he applies in this case is that the more difficult or divisive an issue is, the more local the laws governing it need to be. This allows like-minded people to form communities in which there is general agreement. Trying to force everyone in a country of 300M+ people to adopt the same stance on an morally difficult issue like that one is simply unrealistic.
Submitted by andymajumder on December 14, 2007 - 6:07pm.
I think Washington insiders will always make sure that somebody like Ron Paul does not come into power. If he does a lot of people in Washington are going to loose their jobs. If there ever comes a time that somebody like Ron Paul has a realistic chance of winning the election, both democrats and republicans might unite against him.
Submitted by pbnative on December 14, 2007 - 6:33pm.
He believes that this issue is for the states to decide.
I disagree with that, but I will change my statement:
If he thinks *anyone but me* should be able to control what goes on inside my very own body, I'm confident that he would attempt to control my right to a vote, free speech, atheism, security, etc. I will not vote for him.
You must look at all the issues facing the nation right now and see how each candidate will handle it.
I take your point, but this one is a show-stopper. I disagree with all of them on some points, but this position is unacceptable for me.
Submitted by kev374 on December 14, 2007 - 6:20pm.
Ok, how many of you would vote for this guy and how many of you think he could actually win?
I *THINK* would vote for him but first have to know more about him that what appears on the surface.
However, about him winning, I don't know about that. The American public is notorious for being the most idiotic there is, after all they voted for Bush, not once but TWICE!
kev: And, as evidenced by some of the comments on this thread, the strength of the wedge issue persists. God forbid anyone spend the time necessary to educate themselves on the issues; rather, let's focus on single issues and lose sight of the big picture.
That is what got Bush elected twice: The ability of Rove to create divisive wedge issues that diverted focus, and allowed for an effective divide and conquer strategy.
There is not a single candidate out there right now that has offered a more honest, and pragmatic, view of what confronts us right now than Ron Paul. And I consider this guy a fringe player (based on his politics and voting record). I wouldn't vote for any of the Republican candidates (other than Paul) and certainly none of the Democrats.
Submitted by marion on December 14, 2007 - 6:51pm.
"People get fixated on believing that one man has all this power and everything he wishes will come true. It's not the case. It takes a combination of congress, the senate, the house, and all those other people you should be very familiar with before voting. If anything the president is highly symbolic in many ways. Just someone for us average Jo's and Jane's to focus on."
Nostr, well said and I agree to a great extent. However, the president of this country has considerable power and that kind of power in the hands of an idiot (e.g. President Bush) can be disastrous.
pbnative, I'm conflicted on the abortion issue, and I don't choose to turn this into an abortion debate. Having said that, any woman that walks into a doctor's office and tries to get an abortion in her second trimester or later, with a kicking, fully-formed baby in her belly should be run out of town.
Are there any of you that think Obama would make a good president?
marion: Not me. Way too inexperienced in foreign policy matters, and weak on defense. His willingness to engage in dialogue on a peer basis with Syria, Iran and North Korea strikes me as nearly infantile.
Bush was a very weak President and a studied reading of his time as governor of Texas would have shown exactly what to expect from his Presidency. While Republican, I voted against him in both 2000 and 2004, mainly because I couldn't support someone I knew had nothing in common with either Goldwater or Reagan Republicanism.
Submitted by condogrrl on December 14, 2007 - 7:11pm.
What is Reagan Republicanism? Falling asleep at cabinet meetings? I could never see the attraction to Reagan. Nothing but a B grade actor, actor being the key word.
Submitted by davyjames on December 14, 2007 - 7:17pm.
If anybody other than Ron Paul gets in you will have to worry about people controlling your rights a lot more.
Ron Paul is for the decriminilisation of all drugs restoring all rights, repealing the patriot act, ending the unjust war, legalising all prositution and gambling and basically allowing anything so long as it does not harm anybody else, almost in line with classic libertarian thinking. No other candidate offers any of this.
I understand what you feel personally about abortion, but just so you know, Ron Paul is not a typical politian trying to regulate your body and force you to live by his rules, but he believes that the abortion question fundamentally ties into the issue of liberty. Liberty is all about people being free and not being allowed to hurt other people. Ron Paul just views the unborn as a life and therefore sees it as a question essential to liberty, that of giving the unborn feotus the right to life and liberty.
Now I'm personally not against abortions in the early stages but I admire and respect Ron Paul and wanted to make sure you understood his position fully. Also, he doesn't want the federal goverment banning it, just the states deciding more locally. You probably agree it is a very difficult issue.
condogrrl: Not a huge fan of Reagan myself, especially given my experiences in the Army during his Presidency, but I have never questioned his ideological priorities.
Given the pathetic history of the Democratic Party when it comes to ideology, and the waffling of the present group of candidates on foreign policy and national security issues, almost makes one long for the Reagan years.
Submitted by Blogstar on December 14, 2007 - 7:29pm.
Hi Allan,
A friend of mine was talking about how Reagan created the bubble in the defense industry specifically aerospace that lead to the SOCAL economy, including housing that wasn't really incredibly overheated, to suffer a fairly severe setback in the late 1980's. IF you get back on this thread could you let me know what you think on that topic. thanks. If this is true was he beholden to some profiteers as politicians often are?
BTW please be patient with me, what I lack in spelling grammar, punctuation and social etiquette I make up for integrity, depth, and concern for my fellow man.I am also no dummy. In exchange I will be patient with you for having expectations that others meet your ideals to qualify as "the right kind".
that is an awesome video...
I hope he wins!!!!
Here's another video, quite in line with this blog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otwKWzdu7Ps
I love America - I can rarely sing the Star Spangled Banner or God Bless America without a lump rising in my throat
I realized a few years ago however that the America I was getting choked-up about was not the America that I was seeing through my eyes
It was the IDEA of America causing my throat to constrict - you know, Land of the Free, blessed with inalienable rights by God himself, checks and balances, limited presidential powers - remember learning about that country in school?
Ron Paul remembers that country and he would like to live in it once again
~
I don't know if Mr Paul can be elected but he appears to be acting as a catalyst in our country - IMO he is an honest man speaking passionately about things he believes in and that is attracting attention - I see him as the best chance to restore the American dream that I hold in my head and heart
I am going to demonstrate my love of country on December 16th by donating $2300 (max for individual) to Ron Paul's campaign
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/
I have to admit trying to ignore all the early politics right now, but after seeing that video, I'm going to check out what he's about...thanks for posting.
It infuriates me that we allow the media to control who gets elected in this country by their BIASed opinions! My mom told me that in the 60's the total losers with bad grades were the ones that got degrees in Journalism because they couldn't get through any other academic area. This is who is influencing our opinions?!?
you know, Land of the Free, blessed with inalienable rights by God himself, checks and balances, limited presidential powers - remember learning about that country in school?
This is very important when taking in context of what has happend in the country over the last few years with democratic approval. Everybody please look up.
Patriot act I and II
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
On Aug. 4th 2007, the Senate passed the Bush backed 'spy bill', which preserves & expands the illegal domestic spying program. I hope people are educated enough by this time to know that such legislations have nothing to do with Terrorism, and everything to do with monitoring and controlling American dissent.
Furthermore, on May 9 2007, Bush signed the
National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive,
which gives Bush near full dictatorial powers in the event of a "National Emergency". Bush, and the people he works for, will be able to do ANYTHING they want if a "National Emergency" is deemed. All they need is a "New 9/11".
The US Constitution will no longer be applicable.
From what I have read of the founding fathers I believe they would want us to have a second american revolution by now. This is exactly what they were fighting against. These are huge steps towards a totalitarian, oppressive, military style, surveillance based Police State.
Unless any other candidate promises to repeal these things I won't even think about voting for them. Ron Paul is the only one talking about them.
In a way, the world-view of the party imposed itself
most successfully on the people incapable of
understanding it. They could be made to accept the
most flagrant violations of reality, because they
never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded
of them, and were not sufficiently interested in
public events to notice what was happening. By lack of
understanding, they remained sane. "?~George Orwell,
1984
From what I can gather so far he seems pretty spot on with regard to the issues. Seems like an intelligent guy who recognizes that we need to make some tough decisions to get the USA back on track from the profligate nation it has become!
arraya: You wanna really scare the crap out of yourself? Do a little research on the NSA Echelon and Carnivore programs. If you believed in your constitutionally protected rights of privacy and due process, well, these programs will disabuse you of that right quick.
Let me say that I am no conspiracy theorist, and I love my country with all my heart. I served this country for five years and have lost a lot of good friends in her defense, but we have been steadily watching our rights being eroded, and all in the name of protection.
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak, and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all His laws". John Adams
Hahahahahaha you Americans crack me up, you think you still have real elections! You haven't been paying attention. Here in Kazakhstan we have strongman system which works well for us. When we have enemy, strongman crushes them! When other strongman want take control, he crushes old strongman and take power. We don't have to have play elections like U S of A babies living in fantasyland. We know to stay out of the way of strongman and give him our money and daughters when he ask!
Borat: Wait a minute! I thought your elections were certified "Free and Fair" by Jimmy Carter? Or was that Venezuela? I always get those two confused.
I went ahead and watched the video. I will say it was a nice video. I haven't really looked into this guy, but I may want to check him out and see what he's about. Interesting.
I went ahead and watched the video. I will say it was a nice video. I haven't really looked into this guy, but I may want to check him out and see what he's about. Interesting.
Hey Borat,
I liked the way you referred to this country in your movie:
The U S and A.
Carry on!
Ok, how many of you would vote for this guy and how many of you think he could actually win? On the video, it showed Guiliani laughing at him. Not sure on what stance/position though. Everybody's got all these good ideas, etc. but when it comes down to it can he run the country and do it well?
P.S. yeah I'm bored at present-at least for another hour.:)
I think he has a good chance if he makes it past the primaries. IMO it all depends on how long the current admin can stave off economic collapse in the eyes of the voters. If they can keep painting a rosy picture until the elections, we may very well end up with another republican candidate, perhaps Ron Paul. If it all falls apart people are going to vote against any republican, even good ones, meaning we'll end up with Hillary or Barrack...
This is all IMO! I wonder what would happen if we caught Osama Bin Laden. That would be a new exit strategy and then Bush can hang the "Mission Accomplished" flag and mean it, walking away before support for this war gets even lower.
marion: I think the larger question is: Would he do a worse job of running the country than the usual group of clowns we're being offered?
As far as his stance on certain issues: He strikes me as a wingnut libertarian, but I do believe this country needs an enema of epic proportions, and he might be just the guy to do it. He is proposing some fairly radical stuff but, in light of present circumstances, it appears that he isn't far off in his recommendations.
I write this as an archconservative Republican (albeit an extremely disappointed one), so you know where I am coming from.
"I have to admit trying to ignore all the early politics right now, but after seeing that video, I'm going to check out what he's about...thanks for posting."
Don't wait too long fuguring it all out...
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Party change deadline is Jan 21st.
He will make sure that I cannot be allowed to have a medical procedure that he believes is wrong. If he thinks he should be able to control what goes on inside my very own body, I'm confident that he would attempt to control my right to a vote, free speech, atheism, security, etc. I will not vote for him.
pbnative that is one point, but it takes a lot more than just the support of the president to enact an anti-abortion law. If everything Bush was for/against was passed into a law, we might be clubbing you and dragging you around by the hair by now. No one candidate can be perfect for everyone. You must look at all the issues facing the nation right now and see how each candidate will handle it.
People get fixated on believing that one man has all this power and everything he wishes will come true. It's not the case. It takes a combination of congress, the senate, the house, and all those other people you should be very familiar with before voting. If anything the president is highly symbolic in many ways. Just someone for us average Jo's and Jane's to focus on.
That being said, Ron Paul has extremely strong pro-life beliefs and as a congressman has even enacted legislation to overturn the famous Roe Vs. Wade case.
He will make sure that I cannot be allowed to have a medical procedure that he believes is wrong.
This is not true at all. He has made his position clear on this topic many times. He believes that this issue is for the states to decide. As long as you reside in a state in which the people decide to make this procedure legal, you'll be able to have one if you choose.
The basic principle he applies in this case is that the more difficult or divisive an issue is, the more local the laws governing it need to be. This allows like-minded people to form communities in which there is general agreement. Trying to force everyone in a country of 300M+ people to adopt the same stance on an morally difficult issue like that one is simply unrealistic.
I think Washington insiders will always make sure that somebody like Ron Paul does not come into power. If he does a lot of people in Washington are going to loose their jobs. If there ever comes a time that somebody like Ron Paul has a realistic chance of winning the election, both democrats and republicans might unite against him.
He believes that this issue is for the states to decide.
I disagree with that, but I will change my statement:
If he thinks *anyone but me* should be able to control what goes on inside my very own body, I'm confident that he would attempt to control my right to a vote, free speech, atheism, security, etc. I will not vote for him.
You must look at all the issues facing the nation right now and see how each candidate will handle it.
I take your point, but this one is a show-stopper. I disagree with all of them on some points, but this position is unacceptable for me.
Ok, how many of you would vote for this guy and how many of you think he could actually win?
I *THINK* would vote for him but first have to know more about him that what appears on the surface.
However, about him winning, I don't know about that. The American public is notorious for being the most idiotic there is, after all they voted for Bush, not once but TWICE!
kev: And, as evidenced by some of the comments on this thread, the strength of the wedge issue persists. God forbid anyone spend the time necessary to educate themselves on the issues; rather, let's focus on single issues and lose sight of the big picture.
That is what got Bush elected twice: The ability of Rove to create divisive wedge issues that diverted focus, and allowed for an effective divide and conquer strategy.
There is not a single candidate out there right now that has offered a more honest, and pragmatic, view of what confronts us right now than Ron Paul. And I consider this guy a fringe player (based on his politics and voting record). I wouldn't vote for any of the Republican candidates (other than Paul) and certainly none of the Democrats.
"People get fixated on believing that one man has all this power and everything he wishes will come true. It's not the case. It takes a combination of congress, the senate, the house, and all those other people you should be very familiar with before voting. If anything the president is highly symbolic in many ways. Just someone for us average Jo's and Jane's to focus on."
Nostr, well said and I agree to a great extent. However, the president of this country has considerable power and that kind of power in the hands of an idiot (e.g. President Bush) can be disastrous.
pbnative, I'm conflicted on the abortion issue, and I don't choose to turn this into an abortion debate. Having said that, any woman that walks into a doctor's office and tries to get an abortion in her second trimester or later, with a kicking, fully-formed baby in her belly should be run out of town.
Are there any of you that think Obama would make a good president?
marion: Not me. Way too inexperienced in foreign policy matters, and weak on defense. His willingness to engage in dialogue on a peer basis with Syria, Iran and North Korea strikes me as nearly infantile.
Bush was a very weak President and a studied reading of his time as governor of Texas would have shown exactly what to expect from his Presidency. While Republican, I voted against him in both 2000 and 2004, mainly because I couldn't support someone I knew had nothing in common with either Goldwater or Reagan Republicanism.
What is Reagan Republicanism? Falling asleep at cabinet meetings? I could never see the attraction to Reagan. Nothing but a B grade actor, actor being the key word.
If anybody other than Ron Paul gets in you will have to worry about people controlling your rights a lot more.
Ron Paul is for the decriminilisation of all drugs restoring all rights, repealing the patriot act, ending the unjust war, legalising all prositution and gambling and basically allowing anything so long as it does not harm anybody else, almost in line with classic libertarian thinking. No other candidate offers any of this.
I understand what you feel personally about abortion, but just so you know, Ron Paul is not a typical politian trying to regulate your body and force you to live by his rules, but he believes that the abortion question fundamentally ties into the issue of liberty. Liberty is all about people being free and not being allowed to hurt other people. Ron Paul just views the unborn as a life and therefore sees it as a question essential to liberty, that of giving the unborn feotus the right to life and liberty.
Now I'm personally not against abortions in the early stages but I admire and respect Ron Paul and wanted to make sure you understood his position fully. Also, he doesn't want the federal goverment banning it, just the states deciding more locally. You probably agree it is a very difficult issue.
condogrrl: Not a huge fan of Reagan myself, especially given my experiences in the Army during his Presidency, but I have never questioned his ideological priorities.
Given the pathetic history of the Democratic Party when it comes to ideology, and the waffling of the present group of candidates on foreign policy and national security issues, almost makes one long for the Reagan years.
Almost.
Hi Allan,
A friend of mine was talking about how Reagan created the bubble in the defense industry specifically aerospace that lead to the SOCAL economy, including housing that wasn't really incredibly overheated, to suffer a fairly severe setback in the late 1980's. IF you get back on this thread could you let me know what you think on that topic. thanks. If this is true was he beholden to some profiteers as politicians often are?
BTW please be patient with me, what I lack in spelling grammar, punctuation and social etiquette I make up for integrity, depth, and concern for my fellow man.I am also no dummy. In exchange I will be patient with you for having expectations that others meet your ideals to qualify as "the right kind".