I hear Dr. Ron Paul on Meet the Press Sunday, Dec. 23, 2007 and the man is awesome. He is by far the best candidate we have had in years. He is well informed and he has an 8 or 9 point platform that is outstanding.

Dr. Paul wants to get out of Iraq. He thinks we should never have gone there. He says American sons are dying for nothing because Saddam Hussein was not an enemy to the United State. Israel is the one that did not like him!!! (I say let Israel fight their own wars.) He says we should bring all out troops home and stop trying to police the world. Other countries resent our military presence and all it does is create hostitlity. Wars put a lot of money in the pockets of big Corporations while it robs the tax payers.

Dr. Paul wants to get rid of the income tax. He says the middle and working class were never supposed to pay a federal income tax.

He wants us to stop giving aid to other countries. Most of them hate us, so why are we giving them billions of dollars of our tax dollars?

He wants to get rid of so called fair trade laws like NAFTA, GAT, ETC., as they are ruining the economy of this country and creating joblessness. He also wants to reinstate tariffs to protect goods coming into this country.

He wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve. The Founders Fathers never wanted a large privately owned banking system like the so called Federal Reserve (which is not federal and has no reserves.)

He is against illegal immigration and the incredible cost to our communities in free hospital care, free education, welfare handouts, rising crime, etc.

He thinks most issues should be handled by the States and not the Federal government.

There is more, much more. Go to http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues

__________________
Hi, I like communications. I like intelligent and amusing people. We might disagree, but that's okay. Just don't be boring.

I think he means well, but ultimately, he's "way too into" everything. I highly doubt he can accomplish everything he wants to, IF elected (which in itself is highly unlikely).

Also, our military is for "defensive purposes." And I don't think going to other countries and "causing trouble" is defensive. But that's just me.

__________________
Believing that McAfee is going to protect you from hackers and viruses is exactly like believing that republicans can actually protect you from terrorists.

When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die.

1) I never thought much of him prior to the interview and my fears were confirmed by the interview.
2) You are correct in that he is well informed. He's been in Washington long enough to have picked up a few facts.
3) He is an isolationist that believes we should never go anywhere.
4) I have to agree with him that our military is overburdened and stretched too thin by continual deployments in relatively safe regions. I also believe we should bring the majority of our troops home from Iraq, but we can't just yank them out which is what he appears to advocate.
5) I didn't hear any substantive plan for replacing the income tax and I'm not sure where his supporters think that revenue will come from, but it appears crazy on the face of it. I believe the IRS should be reworked and that the income tax laws need to be revised and simplified, but abolishing it is a simple minded solution with few alternatives (that he laid out)
6) I suppose you only give assistance to the people you know personally and like? Some of us actually give our time, money and assistance to those in need on the basis that they need it not a popularity contest.
7) I honestly don't know enough about trade or the Fed to comment on that one so I'm leaving it alone... However, I will say that since most other things flying out of his mouth appear idiotic then I can only assume his stance on these things follow suit.
Immigration - isolationist mumbo jumbo. Obviously we need to figure out a way to maintain border security and I don't believe there is one candidate, Dem or Rep, that is advocating we open all the borders. The key is cracking down on employers - period. You lock up the employers for giving out the jobs.
9) You failed to mention his intention to abolish public schools and social security - wow.

His views seem to be seated in oversimplification of complex issues. You can't fix education by getting rid of public schools any more than you can fund our government by getting rid of the IRS.

You also failed to mention my absolute FAVORITE part of the interview when Russert nailed him to the wall on his earmarks.

Here is a guy who rails against earmarks and yet has submitted over $400 MILLION in earmarks over the last decade for his district.

What a joke this guy is! He claims to "vote" against them all the while knowing they will pass and that if he doesn't play the game then his district will vote him out. Seems he is far more concerned with staying in Congress than following his conscience.

Just wondering - would you really vote for a guy who says he is against something that he actually actively participates in? If so, why?

This, coming from someone who's display name is "Democrat."

__________________
Believing that McAfee is going to protect you from hackers and viruses is exactly like believing that republicans can actually protect you from terrorists.

When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die.

Personally, I think Ron Paul is very impressive. I really like the guy, both from a political standpoint, and also 'cause of just "who he is" (I mean, you know, being a "smart doctor", and also, the kind of kindly grand-pa type of doctor that you'd kinda "trust" 'cause he has a "good bed-side manner" and a "good doctor-patient relationship", right?) -

Politically, here's my take:

Right now, Ron Paul has about 10% of the vote (a little less, but let's use round numbers). And those people, his supporters, are a rag-tag bunch, they're "all over the map" politically, they're a bunch of disaffected Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Anarchists, Communists, KKK types and other right-wingers, you know... all "kinds", right? They show up at the rallies wearing pirate hats and stuff.... pretty nutty.....

But I mean, the one thing all those people have in common, is that they're polittically pissed off citizens who have an interest in "adherence to the Constitutional contract".

'Cause I mean, that's the only reason to vote for Ron Paul, right? That's really the "only" thing he brings to the table, politically. I mean, you know, kinda the same way that Tancredo brings his "immigration issue" to the table - if you understand what Ron Paul's all about, it's the contract.

And I mean, you know, out of all the candidates, with the possible exception of Huckabee, he's the only guy who's made it absolutely perfectly clear, that he understands the difference between his personal opinion, and how he's gonna cast his vote.

And I mean, that's exactly why people love this guy, right?

It's because he's aware of, and adheres to, the terms of the contract.

Heres' my prediction: this election, in '08, "someone else" will get elected. ('cause Ron Paul can't win the Rep nomination, and if he goes independent the best he's gonna end up with is some kinda "king-maker" role with his 10% voting block) -

But the next President, whoever he or she may be, is gonna (*)(*)(*)(*) people off even more than the last two Presidents have, and for the exact same reason, 'cause they're gonna be pulling non-existent government Powers out of their backsides, you know, whatever whimsical power-du-jour they dreamed up and thought they needed this morning -

And then what you're gonna see, is that in the next election, the percentage of Ron Paul supporters, is gonna go from 10% to 30%. Why? Because there will be more pissed off people who will be "concerned with the terms of the contract".

'Cause after all, that contract is the only way to make sure, that our elected weasels, don't do entirely random and stupid things on the basis of their own "human nature", which changes from day to day. Yes?

So.... the more important that becomes, the more Ron Paul supporters you're gonna see.

About 4% and holding:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ation-192.html

Yep. I dunno how they do these things, that's the "nation-wide", right?
But I keep hearing like 8 or 9% up there in Iowa, and I mean, that thing's
a "straw poll", right? It's kinda a little "different" than some.....

Ron Paul is the most ridiculous candidate in the bunch. His ideas are weak and fatally flawed. A good example is his promise to return to the gold standard... Obviously, Ron Paul has ignored the reasons for the failure of Bretton Woods.

Another is non-intervention... the US cannot hide at home if there are people outside its boundaries that intend to attack it.

Furthermore, the elimination of taxes is absurd.

Moreover, he possesses neither the experience nor the charisma to lead major diplomatic coups.

Are you in the military fighting in Iraq right now? Or are you hiding at home?

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

ROTFL. You people really need to work on your critical thinking skills.

First of all, Tim Russert is a collectivist statist, so it's no wonder he doesn't like Paul's ideas. The interview was nothing more than a hit piece, but Paul held his own.

In the incident you're referring to, Russert tried to claim that Paul's introduction of spending bills at the request of his constituents, while voting against those same bills on the floor, equated to a contradiction. Paul refuted him by correctly noting that the money was going to be taken by force regardless, and that he had no control over the process as a whole. Since the money was going to be stolen regardless, Paul's constituents had as much right to it as any other citizens who had taxes stolen from them. There is no contradiction there.

I loved seeing Russert's ignorance on display with gems like "If we didn't have the Civil War there would still be slavery in 2007." ROTFLMAO. These buffoons really crack me up. Paul countered brilliantly stating that we could have done what every other country in the world did and end slavery without a war killing over 600,000 people. He specifically mentioned the British example in which the British government simply purchased all the slaves and then freed them. That shut Russert's ignorant trap on that subject for the rest of the interview.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer