Ron Paul - Ignored by the media

[Jerome Scuggs]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods67.html

I think it's absolute bullshit. Ron Paul is the only guy who doesn't skirt issues and spit out whitewashed cliche party lines, but he's also not batshit like some of the past 3rd party candidates who fit the previous two criteria.

If you don't know who Ron Paul is (and even if you do), here's a fantastic article about him.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods63.html

I seriously weep for the future of this country.

[Kolar]

He doesn't fit into the current (very polarized) political climate, for the media to cover him it would require real work. Abolishing the IRS for example is a very sensational thing, it probably makes people feel he's not serious or really interested in his campaign. An Anti-War Republican President at this point in history is as foreign, if not more so, than a Black or Female President. While a lot of things he talks about are completely out there or wrong for the US, and the world, it's sad that someone can't just run for what they believe is right and not on what will get them elected. The US and most western democracies are not in these massive idealogical wars (Left vs. Right), it would be great if it were only that simple. There's a basic difference on how we should do things but a lot of the problems are from assholes lying, from people straying from their values, their principles and people NOT having a problem with it.

[gran guerrero]

Ron Paul also mostly ignored by the tw forum community

[Epinephrine]

It's cause he's a wackjob.


Personally I like Bernie Sanders. His mountainman look is more to my liking.

[Facetious]

Ron Paul also mostly ignored by the tw forum community

Ha I was also going to say that.

[Jerome Scuggs]

It's cause he's a wackjob.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...ding_ron_.html

The conservative pundits are now referring to Ron Paul as a "crackpot." Hannity predictably savaged him last night (see above). The Hewitt site has an image of a man in a tin-foil hat; Dean Barnett and Hugh Hewitt both call for removing Paul from the debates, when he has been the best thing about them so far. Bill Benett wants him out. I'm getting the usual ridicule for taking him seriously from the usual GOP apparatchiks. They're scared, aren't they? The Internet polls show real support for him. Fox News' own internet poll placed him a close second, with 25 percent of the votes from Fox News viewers. We have a real phenomenon here - because someone has to stand up for what conservatism once stood for. Whether you agree with him or not ( and I know few outside doctrinaire libertarians who agree with everything he says), he has already elevated the debates by injecting into them a legitimate, if now suppressed, strain of conservatism that is actually deeper in this country than the neoconservative aggression that now captures the party elite and has trapped the US in the Iraq nightmare. Last night, Fox News tried to destroy him. Today the right-wing blogs will. My view is that the Beltway has this wrong again, as Byron York is finding out. Paul is saying things many Americans and many Republicans believe. On the war and spending, he is venting a vital part of conservative opinion - and, in my view, the conservative critique of this war and these Republicans is more damning than any liberal one. I may not agree with him on everything and he is far from a smooth operator. But he has more balls than most of them put together.

I seriously think that beyond what his beliefs are for anything economic-related, he really is a breath of fresh air for the Republican race

[Jerome Scuggs]

As as far as the Guliani thing- Seriously, we all "went through" 9/11. I don't see why Guliani is so hellbent on doing this 9/11 sob story. He wasn't a great mayor and after 9/11 he really didn't do anything that was amazing or extraordinary. According to a few pieces I've read about the whole Paul/Guliani throwdown, Paul is taking the right position here - the 9/11 commission reports corroborate his opinion.

As much as I'd love to see this guy in the oval office, I think the blowback (pun intended) from the neoconservative elite is definitely going to fuck him up.

An interesting effect, though, is that Paul, IMO, has actually breathed life into the Republican candidacy. Like, before perhaps 3 weeks ago, I was of the opinion - my love for ron paul nonwithstanding - that the question was not "Who is it gonna be, Democrat or Republican", but instead "Who is it going to be - Obama or Hillary?".

Perhaps if the RNC actually, I dunno, listens to its constituents, there might be life left for the republicans.

Here's a relatively well-versed and objective analysis on the event:
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007...ni-whos-right/

And a more Paul-biased piece:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/..._realities.htm

[Cops]

raise your hand if you don't believe in evolution

[Jerome Scuggs]

http://www.dirtfromtexas.com/ron-pau...is-he-smoking/

The article and the comments pretty much spell out my prediction of what'll happen in the long-run. The public will be confused because he is a Republican who's a "Libertarian" who's a "Liberal" (because voting against war means you MUST be a Liberal, right?), and his supporters are in the minority, because they are either highly educated (read the first 2 comments on the blog), or pissed off teenagers who think Ron Paul is fighting THE MAN without a care about what he actually believes in (read the 3rd comment response)

[Troll King]

raise your opposable thumbs if you don't believe in evolution

Fixed.

[D1st0rt]

o i c wut u did thar

[Cops]

Libertarians = not quite Anarchists but way too fucking close for me.

[Cops]

Kolar I see you checking out this thread, coming home this weekend?

[IKM]

You know who's a whackjob? L. Ron Hubbard :wub:

[Cops]

You know who's a whackjob? L. Ron Hubbard :wub:

I still love katie holmes, even if my penis could break her in two.

Jerome I respect your political views, but I'd rather we have a spineless Liberal in power and not some backwards Libertarian. Libertarianism is one of those ideas that looks good automatically, it actually looks fucking sweet until you realize how messed up it really is. Libertarians believe that human nature is egoistic and competitive yet they only believe in laws that are a)negative rights i.e "you have the right to not be illegally searched" and b) personal property laws. I think the biggest flaw in Libertarianism is that they don't believe in social programs. I have always thought of social programs as something much bigger than the transaction of capital, its the idea that we as a society care.