Lindsey Graham on Blast by Ron Paul (NDAA)

Ron Paul put Lindsey Graham on blast. Here’s Ron taking it to Lindsey “Hitler” Graham:

Yea, it already passed, but the fact that it already happened doesn’t make it right. Be involved with your government and put all the corrupt figures on blast (slang for expose the facts about them) and out of office. Don’t let our government use our Bill of Rights as toilet paper.


Ron Paul was the first republican, and amongst the first people in congress, that pledged to vote against SOPA…oh, way back in November (PDF Ver.). Long before it became cool to speak up against SOPA (like what the other GOP candidates did tonight and 80% of facebook yesterday)
I hope the anti-war and liberty loving left, you know the ones who condemned Dubya as Hitler, has the courage to think pass party lines and push for Ron Paul

Ron Paul stands by his principles.

But he is crazy.

Let’s say that Ron Paul gets elected… how much of his stated goals would actually be allowed to come to fruition? I am not very learned in politics but from what I [think I] know, Ron Paul doesn’t play “the game” with anyone. Presidents always have to deal with Congress and Senate, who often oppose their intentions. It seems to me that, as a modern US president, he wouldn’t be able to do half of the things he says he will do.

Nailed it, unfortunately =/

Chances of him becoming president are nothing. He might become a candidate strong enough to split a vote, but some of the shit he wants to do (like eliminating social security) is waaaaaaaaaay too radical for the actual voting base (old people) to even consider him.

Good for him for standing against SOPA and standing by his guns. Unfortunately that includes him wanting to eliminate The Department of Commerce, the EPA, The Department of Education, social security and medicare among other things.

He usually candidly states that since he is not running for king, the possibilities of him getting his way with many these issues are small unless the entire mood of the country changes.
As far as im concerned, total gridlock is better than what is going on now. And also is just good in general.
Plus I would just love to see a RonPaul presidential bully pulpit on all the crap going on in the govt. hahaa

This thread is funny; the people that like his ideas wont vote for him because his ideas will never come to fruition, and the people that dont like his ideas wont vote for him because his ideas are crazy. What a perfect candidate (these two groups should get together and see what happens; constructive interference or annihilation).

I agree with him on alot of those, which is why I am not a politician.

Gotta give it to him at least for his honesty. A few years ago when I was pretty aligned with a lot of libertarian beliefs Paul was really appealing, but even now when I’d say I’m more moderate/apathetic than anything I still like Paul cause I feel like I truly know where he stands on issues.

What is far more important to me than social issues (not that I don’t support Ron Paul’s domestic policy because I strongly do), is the deterioration of liberties and continuous war. No one can deny on these issues less they be uninformed or idiots that Ron Paul is the strongest candidate.

I would be more apt to listen to him if he replaced “eliminate” with “reform”.

Some of those are being reform now but yeah I do get your jest.

Fuck it, if it means cracking a few eggs to get some major shit done, I say do it. We’ve been in suspended animation with political issues and seeing nothing really happening except for the worse. I’ll be voting for old man Paul or write him in.

Ron Paul believes global warming is a hoax and opposes abortion on the grounds that it constitutes an act of violence. Not only are those two things deal breakers by themselves, but they (and several other statements he has made, particularly the conspiracy-minded ones) seem to indicate that his positions aren’t necessarily related to a rational appraisal of facts, which is also a deal breaker. Never mind his amorphous explanation for the statements made against gays and blacks in his newsletters.

I like some of what he stands for, but he’s out of his tree.

Those first two are controversial. Global warming is deeply politicized, I personally believe in global warming but there are real skeptics that should not be easily dismissed. Abortion also divisive, and I support it to a degree but I understand both arguments and make no mistake, both have strong arguments.
Both sides will fight for along time on those issues ( I should add that Ron has a reasonable compromise on abortion to let the states decide. He strongly opposes abortion but at the same time recognizes the sheer divisiveness in public opinion. How about letting the people decide at the state level)

As for the newsletters, anchor Ben Swann did some real investigative journalism on the subject that i’ll post below. Unlike the rest of the media that spread the story simply copy pasted an older story from 2008. Of course, now that Ron Paul’s views have slowly integrated itself into the main stream, the hungry media needed something to marginalize him once again


Mystery Writer Revealed: Newsletters Part2[/details]

With all that said, it is my strong belief that instead of focusing on the typical partisan views on social issues, we instead tackle the real problems…its partisanship on the following: Debt, Foreign Policy, Candidates bought by special interests (obama no.1 donor–goldman sachs. Romney no.1 donor–Goldman Sachs), crony capitalism,the erosion of civil liberties (patriot act, National defense Authorization Act) …all the candidates are supporting the same status quo views of spending they just disagree on how to spend it.

  1. Of course there is a political controversy over global warming. Politics is full of business interests that stand to be hurt by measures we’d have to take to fight this problem. There is a lot of money being funneled into big media for the express purpose of manufacturing the appearance that there is reason to doubt scientific findings that indicate global warming.

However, there is no scientific controversy over global warming. There is no scientific organization of national or international standing in the world–not a single one–that disputes that global warming is happening and that human activity is a significant driving force. At the individual level, there are far less skeptics now in the relevant fields of expertise than there were even a couple years ago, and the number is dwindling.

To get the impression that there is anything resembling a controversy, you’d have to ignore the countless scientists who concur with the worldwide consensus, listen only to the tiny handful who for whatever reason have declined to do so, and, more importantly, pay less attention to scientists and more attention to politicians, corporate spokespeople, and their mouthpieces in the major news outlets. In other words, ignore the people who know what they’re talking about and pay attention to the people who parrot the ongoing narrative that the matter isn’t settled yet and that we have to keep to a holding pattern until it is.

But that isn’t enough for Ron Paul, because he’s not just saying that the matter isn’t settled. He’s saying that it’s a hoax altogether.

This is a real problem.

  1. It was already decided in Roe v. Wade that the authorities cannot overrule a woman’s right to stop a pregnancy. This legal decision was made with the rationale that the government should not be given domain over what is essentially a personal health matter. Essentially, this makes the controversy moot… except for government officials, many of them socially conservative career politicians, who seek to reopen it.

Ron Paul, a self-styled proponent of individual rights and opponent of excessive government authority, comes down hard against the individual in this case. He seeks to give back to the government the ability to step in and make women’s health decisions for them.

This is a real problem.

  1. Ron Paul’s newsletter woes have been ongoing since 1996. At the time, he claimed that his opponents were taking the comments out of context. It is immaterial whether or not he actually wrote the comments, because by defending them when they came under fire, he gave them his implicit endorsement. Later on, in 2001, he modified his story somewhat. He stopped defending the comments and asserted that they were written by others under his name (presumably with his endorsement, given that they were his official newsletters), but that he had “some moral responsibility” in the matter. This is well before the issue resurfaced again in 2008.

One of the main claims people make in support of Ron Paul is that other politicians are bullshitters and he isn’t. Yet, in the matter of the newsletters, he showed that his explanations for the skeletons in his closet are just as subject to change as those of any other politician. Furthermore, the “some moral responsibility” comment brings to mind the whole “mistakes were made” masterpiece of semantic smoke-blowing from the Iran-Contra scandal.

It’s actually pretty ingenious. By not taking material responsibility, he can disavow any sympathies with the comments in question, but by acknowledging “some moral responsibility”, he still gets credit for being a class act who doesn’t pass the buck. He is an excellent bullshitter, right up there with the best of them. He hides it well, which is probably worse than a politician who hides it poorly.

This is a real problem.

I don’t think he bullshits at all 'cause look at the stuff he does say without giving a fuck. I think it is people calling him out, calling him out, calling him out over the newsletter and that is probably where he took advice from his political advisors or whatever.

The newsletter stuff is whatever to me, since a lot of the stuff he wants either unacceptable or completely insane. The abortion thing is really weird for him, but he says it was because as a doctor he saw abortions where the kid was like, moving and shit.

he is one of those “I respect your right to ______________, but that doesnt’ mean that I like it”.

The saying whatever he wants without giving a fuck is part of a carefully cultivated image, because of course he gives a fuck. Of course he watches what he says. The image is in achieving the appearance that he doesn’t.

As if most people in the U.S. (not just voters) even know where the hell the candidates stand on the issues. Paul is the only edible thing on a small shitty menu.