Ron Paul

On November 16 2007 10:48 statix wrote:
nice argument.

On November 16 2007 10:52 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
lame

On November 16 2007 11:17 fusionsdf wrote:
racism? His views on abortion?

Of course those are pretty much his personal beliefs, and under his proposed government, it would still be up to the state to decide.

But anyone who proposes that many changes to government has the potential to be a very good president or a very bad one. In other words, he is a risky bet.

On November 16 2007 11:00 d4d wrote:


Both qft
You suck

On November 16 2007 11:32 Seraphim wrote:


risky voters are definitely not idiotic ones as geometry says -_-

On November 16 2007 11:31 Seraphim wrote:
5/5

On November 17 2007 01:14 fight_or_flight wrote:
Hes the only anti war candidate, hope everyone understands that (thats right, the democrats are for big oil too).

On November 17 2007 02:55 Mindcrime wrote:


You do not know what you're talking about.

EDIT: You probably won't take my word for it, so I should probably explain... Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel are all calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Kucinich and Gravel (I'm not sure about Richardson) are proposing foreign policies that are every bit as "humble" as Paul's.

On November 17 2007 04:49 CaucasianAsian wrote:


I think he meant of the republican party. IMO Ron Paul is the best republican candidate, sadly he doesn't have enough funds to run T_T

On November 16 2007 23:09 Artanis[Xp] wrote:
Wtf you people talking about, Dennis Kucinich ftw

On November 16 2007 16:50 AmorVincitOmnia wrote:
well, ron paul is old republican
what we're used to, george bush, is new republican.

republicans didn't used to have the beliefs (big government - bad!) they have now. because we're so accustomed to the g. dubya mentallity, everyone is going to get all riled up when someone like ron paul comes along claiming to be republican and starts talking about pulling out of Iraq and marijuana legalization. oh, and he wants to lower taxes, kill the I.R.S. and give money to the poor and not the rich?? republiwha?

the fact is he really doesn't have the funds and the "big support" that the other more popular candidates do. and because of that i don't expect him to beat out someone like giuliani, as much as i hate him. because of that i've really got my eyes set on obama, and i think a lot of other people do too from what i've been hearing?

paranoia update: ron paul and obama are also the only ones i trust

On November 17 2007 01:14 fight_or_flight wrote:
Hes the only anti war candidate, hope everyone understands that (thats right, the democrats are for big oil too).

On November 17 2007 13:11 MoNKeYSpanKeR wrote:

LAst time i checked, Clinton has a plan of removal, not sure about Obama, but i'm generally sure that most democrats use that as a major platform, since that's a popular issue.

On November 17 2007 18:17 oneofthem wrote:
hahaha oh wow. most of you have no idea what politics is about.

On November 18 2007 01:39 bine wrote:
You guys are silly. Ron Paul is a joke. Just go to his website and look at "issues."

A sample on the environment:

" The key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting.

In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbor's land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right. After paying damages, the polluter's production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue doing business the same way. Currently, preemptive regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes favor those wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance, while those who own the polluted land rarely receive a quick or just resolution to their problems."

Basically, I want to do nothing about the environment, and have it be worked out through law suits?