I agree. To hear this man speak is truly a breath of fresh air. I don't see eye to eye with him on all the issues, and for the first time in my life...I'm o.k. with that. He is a man that will do more good than harm. I can't gaurantee that with any other candidate.
2007-09-12 00:32:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I agree with Ron Paul's conclusion that the US should turn back toward it's border's and abandon policies of intervention and wasteful UN involvement.
However, his plan is too radical. Once in office, now that he has practically insulted every single US politician, the US congress will grind to a halt. Nothing will get done.
The only way he could achieve the vision of America he has, from the corner he has painted himself into, would be to have himself installed as king of America and he would then be as unconstitutional as he says everyone else in Washington is.
Sorry but, Ron Paul took a good idea and shot himself in the foot with it.
The Responsible thing for him to do now would be to drop out and use his Internet machine to vigorously support his choice for president among the remaining field so as not to give the Democrats a victory with a plurality.
2007-09-12 00:45:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
That is not the way to save America, the way to save America is to vote OUT all the incumbents in Congress to remove the power of the political action committees and put the power back into the hands of the people. When Congress realizes that the American People are in charge, they will start to do it's biding instead of the biding of the special interest groups. The President only has the power to approve or disapprove (via veto) what congress generates. The rest of his job is foreign policy, and Commander in Chief of the Military.
2007-09-12 00:45:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by libsticker 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Ron Paul seems to be the only one who knows the Constitution. He's the only one that consistently defended the principles of the Constitution in Congress.
And for libsticker, Ron Paul is talking exactly about that. Less government means less power in the hands of the government and more power to the people. Power meaning freedom, the freedom to make your own choices for your own life.
2007-09-12 01:04:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
"you are able to no longer invade the mainland u . s .. There may well be a rifle at the back of each and every blade of grass." Attributed to Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Imperial eastern military) I heavily doubt that each and each man or woman might desire to take out sufficient of our militia to open us as much as invasion. yet from a basically hypothetical viewpoint, our usa has such countless weapons that it may well be decidedly uncomfortable for each and each man or woman who tried it. whilst we now no longer have capturing training and communities in each and every severe college, there are better than sufficient people who comprehend a thank you to shoot to show the completed usa right into a meat grinder that would bleed any invader white in a count of months. the version between a sniper rifle and a deer rifle is minimum. And no military in the international has sufficient experienced troops to attempt to hold that a lot territory against that variety of opposition for long. As for no longer being prepared, are you on crack? The French have been in a position to mount an effective resistance for years. and that that they had the desperate downside of being French to look after. in this age of prompt communique, do you think of that each and each man or woman might have the skill to close down each and every little thing and shop people from organizing some variety of resistance? wanting returning the country to the Stone age? seem on the countless modern issues our usa has long previous by way of. The floods in the Mid West, the place they evacuated all by ability of themselves, and controlled to get just about truthfully anybody to risk-free practices. The wildfires in San Diego in 2007, the place they evacuated a million/2 a million people in decrease than 12 hours, with no longer something a variety of bulletins and a few telephone calls. you think of we are able to't be prepared? the the remainder of the country isn't set up like long island or New Orleans. we don't all purely take a seat around and anticipate the government to return rescue us. this is a protracted anticipate a prepare that ain't too in all probability to return. And undergo in suggestions, John has a protracted moustache. John has a protracted moustache. The chair is against the wall...
2016-12-13 06:58:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by lacue 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ron Paul is a good man, without question. Some of his policies would require examination in full to find what the repurcussions might be, for example a flat tax and the abolishment of the IRS, but, he has credible presence on the hill, and, that's saying something!
2007-09-12 00:59:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by alphabetsoup2 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Give me a break. I gag when I see people on this site trying to drum up support for any politician, let alone Ron Paul. I am one person who will never vote for him.
2007-09-12 00:47:07
·
answer #7
·
answered by regerugged 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
You want to save America, here's how to do it. Destroy the PATRIOT ACT, allow warrants if you want to wiretap. In other words bring back the Constituion.
2007-09-12 01:59:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by White Star 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Ron Paul is the only Republican who can defeat Hillary Clinton.
Ron Paul is not a pacifist.
At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Paul, defining them as an act of "air piracy", introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, which would have granted Letters of Marque and Reprisal, as authorized by Article One, Section Eight, against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state.[17] He has also reproposed this legislation recently under the new title of Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Letters_of_Marque_and_Reprisal
Among all candidates, Dr. Paul is now first in total donations from military personnel and veterans.
Obama and McCain were second and third in donations from military and veterans.
http://phreadom.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-paul-is-most-financially-military.html
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/
1 Paul
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00432914/A_EMPLOYER_C00432914.html
2 Obama
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00431445/A_EMPLOYER_C00431445.html
3 McCain
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00430470/A_EMPLOYER_C00430470.html
4 Clinton
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00431569/A_EMPLOYER_C00431569.html
5 Richardson
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00431577/A_EMPLOYER_C00431577.html
6 Romney
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00431171/A_EMPLOYER_C00431171.html
7 Edwards
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00431205/A_ELECTION_C00431205.html
8 Giuliani
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00430512/A_EMPLOYER_C00430512.html
Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Hunter have the most conservative voting records on immigration.
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop2.html
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop1.html
Tancredo and Ron Paul have the best voting records for reducing government spending according to the National Taxpayers Union.
They were the only candidates to score 100 percent "A" Grades from 1992 to 2005.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=97#
Sportsbook.com rates both Paul and Romney at 8 to 1 odds which is approximately an 11 percent chance of becoming the next President.
Mitt Romney's campaign only had 35 percent more cash than Ron Paul after subtracting debts on 06/30/2007.
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_08+P80000748
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_08+P80003353
Paul's campaign has almost 5 times as much money to spend as Tancredo.
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_08+P80003429
Romney's contributions from individuals dropped by a third from the first quarter to the second quarter.
Paul's contributions almost quadrupled from Q1 to Q2.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/?nid=roll_08campaign
Ron Paul received more than 10 times as much in donations in the last week of June as he received in the first week of April.
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00432914/A_DATE_C00432914.html
Ron Paul's $2.4 million in fundraising after the second quarter placed him:
4th in total receipts to date
3rd in total current assets (ahead of former front-runner John McCain, and just $800,000 behind Mitt Romney)
Ron Paul has more friends in MySpace and more subscribers in YouTube than any other Republican.
As of September 4, Ron Paul has won 9 of 23 straw polls.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/
Thus far, 47% of the contributions made to Ron Paul's campaign are donations of under $200 from individuals (John McCain's 17% is the second-highest percentage).
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-small-donors-love-him.html
This is a telling statistic, as it highlights the fact that most other candidates rely heavily upon donations from corporate interests and political action committees (PACs) (i.e. moneyed, influence-seeking sources who can readily afford to contribute large sums). Since Congressman Paul has always voted against special favors and privileges for anyone, special interests know they have nothing to gain by stuffing Ron Paul's campaign coffers. As one member of my local Meetup group put it on a home-made sign, "Ron Paul is thin because he won't let special interests buy him lunch."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/sutton1.html
2007-09-12 05:57:22
·
answer #9
·
answered by Eric Inri 6
·
1⤊
1⤋