* He has never voted to raise taxes. - Excellent!
* He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. - Excellent!
* He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. - Excellent!
* He has never voted to raise congressional pay. - Excellent!
* He has never taken a government-paid junket. - Excellent!
* He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. - Excellent!
* He voted against the Patriot Act. - Excellent!
* He voted against regulating the Internet. - Excellent!
* He voted against the Iraq war. - Excellent!
I don't think never voting to raise a tax is something for any politician to hang his hat on.
In the real world, taxes are raised or increased to fund government services.
That's a fact of life in this country.
Now whether that tax is fair or not is another matter.
Not all tax increases or impositions are unfair. His voting record would seem not to take that tact. I think that is unreasonable.
I would love to see a debate between Mr. Paul and Sen. Russ Feingold. I consider Feingold to be a true statesman and political genius. His fidelity is to the US Constitution first and foremost.
I don't think never voting to raise a tax is something for any politician to hang his hat on.
Perhaps, but does Sen. Russ Feingold have any legitimate chance to become president?No he decided not to cast his hat into the ring.
No he decided not to cast his hat into the ring.
He's single (divorced) and Jewish. It's an uphill battle for him.
I think Ron Paul is a man of character.
But I don't think he has a chance in hell of becoming president.
The election game is one of dollars. His opponents will outspend him. The quality of ideas does not mean much to this equation.
I don't think never voting to raise a tax is something for any politician to hang his hat on.
In the real world, taxes are raised or increased to fund government services.
That's a fact of life in this country.
Now whether that tax is fair or not is another matter.
Not all tax increases or impositions are unfair. His voting record would seem not to take that tact. I think that is unreasonable.
I would love to see a debate between Mr. Paul and Sen. Russ Feingold. I consider Feingold to be a true statesman and political genius. His fidelity is to the US Constitution first and foremost.
Ron Paul for President in 2008 ;Domg hahahaha i never thought this would make it to getbig.this guy is from my hometown where i still live.he runs for nomination every presidential election.and i once dated his grand daughter who i graduated from highschool with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Ron_Paul
http://www.house.gov/paul/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign%2C_2008
wow what bullshit LOLnot working
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXE45ncH1a (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXE45ncH1a)
wow what bullshit LOLwas it the new world order video if so,that is fucked up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXE45ncH1a (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXE45ncH1a)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2fxzliDhSk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2fxzliDhSk)you know its funny because i am used to seeing the way he act's around his family.and its almost like seeing a different person in these videos
I'm getting "Ron Paul 2008" tattooed across my back! ;Di will tell him about it for you ;D
What is it with you and "yay 4 teh taxez", Decker?A national budget is a fact of life in the US.
Seriously, dude, wtf?
If you have so much faith in big government then give them YOUR money and let the rest of us have OUR hard earned wages and let us spend it as WE set fit.
A national budget is a fact of life in the US.
In our country, that BIG GOV. you speak of is us: We The People are the government.
It is one's constitutional and patriotic duty to pay taxes to support our great nation.
It is the scoundrel that takes tax avoidance to heart...paying little to no tax when he/she/it is capable of paying a fair share.
It seems that you want the benefits of government: armed forces, internet, telephone services, highways, GI Bill, etc but you don't want to pay for them.
There is no free lunch in america.
There is no free lunch in americaYes, those who pay taxes in America are able to pay those taxes.
Come on are you serious? You forget about all of your liberal handouts like welfare?
Yes, those who pay taxes in America are able to pay those taxes.
Those that can't pay don't.
You seem to have a problem with indigents and poor people not paying enough taxes.
I think that hard working people that are considered poor should get a major tax break. I don't think people should be able to not work and draw welfare for more than 6 months at a time. I believe in food stamps, WIC etc that help to offset costs for working americans.Good man!
Good man!
The poor pay practically all their taxes in payroll taxes. Those payroll taxes are used to finance gov. operations not related to payroll purposes--the funds are borrowed for other purposes.
Your view on welfare is coming to fruition thanks to Pres. Clinton's revamping of the system.
A national budget is a fact of life in the US.
In our country, that BIG GOV. you speak of is us: We The People are the government.
It is one's constitutional and patriotic duty to pay taxes to support our great nation.
It is the scoundrel that takes tax avoidance to heart...paying little to no tax when he/she/it is capable of paying a fair share.
It seems that you want the benefits of government: armed forces, internet, telephone services, highways, GI Bill, etc but you don't want to pay for them.
There is no free lunch in america.
Yes, those who pay taxes in America are able to pay those taxes.
Those that can't pay don't.
You seem to have a problem with indigents and poor people not paying enough taxes.
I want the benifit of a small and ACCOUNTABLE government that provides for our nations infrastructure and it's defense. Not a big government that spends billions on pork projects, welfare programs, and God knows how many other useless programs it wastes tax payer dollars on. What we have now is a government that, IMO, illegally taxes OUR wages, is slave to WORLD banks with dreams of a global government, and a budget that gets bigger and bigger and is out of control. If you want to support that then more power to you. I, on the other hand, will support candidates that support my point of view and will fight socialism whenever I can. Big government means centralized power. Power taken from the states and the inviduals that make up this great republic. It's very idea sickens me and is as un-American as it gets.I don’t make a whipping boy out of libertarian capitalists even though I think the dream of a smoothly humming laissez faire economy and small centralized government is just that—a dream.
And you're damn right there are no free lunches in America. It's time to rip lazy bastards that won't work and contribute to society away from the nipple.
He's a nice quote from a good friend of mine that really struck a cord with me because it's dead on accurate:
They (liberals) think they have a deep enough understanding of capitalism (and the universe, for that matter) that they can mock it but when you see, hear, or read their glorious finished product (the art, the article, the song), though often interesting, at its core it's always so empty and puerile. Always an adult with a child's mind complaining about the debauchery and unfairness of the system that keeps his welfare checks paid so he can go through life painting pictures of bad people with money and Christian values.
Filthy Socialist pigs.
Decker, what we have a problem with is people who choose to sit on their asses and stay poor and milk the system when they are capable of working.I don't like it either but your reference is anachronistic. Clinton changed the character of Welfare so that five years is the maximum time a person in his lifetime may collect federal assistance.
I don’t make a whipping boy out of libertarian capitalists even though I think the dream of a smoothly humming laissez faire economy and small centralized government is just that—a dream.
Total free marketeering ends up in centralized monopolies—the very thing you abhor about government. Competition is fine but like with any competitive endeavor we need rules and referees to keep the game running smoothly while maintaining a sustainable economy w/ respect to resources. We need a moderated capitalist system where the markets are regulated (e.g. anti-trust laws) so that we don’t have monopolistic capitalism nor do we exhaust our resources. The federal government provides that moderating effect.
The US government has always played a role in the development of this country—from land acquisition and redistribution of land rights to water rights to the development of our railroad system to our highway system and the Internet.
In essence I agree with you about the size and role of government. However, I want a big federal government, at the moment, to reign in the corporate rule that exists: corporations have the same constitutional rights as you and me but they have infinite lives and require no food, air or water to exist and they have more influence in our government moreso than any person could have. They are not people. With the federal gov., at least I have a voice and vote. With corporations, I have no representation.
When the federal gov. reigns in corporations by stripping them of their personhood under the Constitution, I would like to see the federal government reduced in size and scope with some current federal functions devolving to the States.
The only thing dead-on accurate about that quote from your friend is the fundamental error of calling liberalism the same thing as socialism. It’s a horrible quote. Liberalism means that private individuals should own the means of production operating w/in the bounds of the law (our current situation). Socialism is collective ownership and control of the means of production. Socialism doesn’t necessarily mean ‘Big Government’ owns everything. It is impossible to characterize the ‘top down’ control of corporate enterprise as anything but capitalist.
Sort of a live and let live way of life. IMO, left wing liberals do not share my view of liberalism. They want law after law created to grant special rights and tell the masses how to think and act.
michelle malkin of fox said Ron Paul should be removed for questioning the 911 story and associating with alex jones.
turns out miss malkin was writing articles on what bullshit the official story was, in 2002.
Hello, Ms. Hypocrite!
Rob, I like you, I trust no one else with my site, but between you, Enigma, Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy, I can't figure out who's more Liberal!
I voted Bush then Dole while you were wearing a clinton button.
I carry a gun every day of my life.
I am against most social welfare BS, I want criminals locked up.
I support the war because we need the oil and the position over CHI/RUS.
I have a masters in business/econ, and a degree in history. I spent a year looking at 911 before i spoke a word about it. Joe, it was allowed to happen to justify these wars. you don't have to believe it - and if it helps, I don't believe bush had any say in it - that decision was made way over his head by the groups which control GLOBAL policy, not 4-year popularity contests called presidencies. And I can understand, in the util sense, why it was allowed to happen - we needed that oil and position.
I'm not a liberal. I think you know that. I'd execute 10 death row criminals then 10 jihadists with my sidearm in the time it would take most people to blink and clear their throat. I'm a fairly cold man :) I like justice, I love america. but the facts show, we knew it was gonna happen and we didn't act. So don't call me a lib, I am not. I just like to talk about 911, and I don't like it when people who haven't researched it will tell me I"m wrong - when I am right on this.
you are a liberal, and you become more of one every day.
you're an obedient sheep. If Gore was in office, you'd be blindly defending his policy.
You'd be right about his interpretation of liberalism if that what left wing liberals believed -they don't.That's interesting. You make some very sweeping statements. Personally I have not felt the imposition created by special rights for other people. Which rights are you having a problem with?
I for one happen to be very liberal in respect to individual liberties. Sort of a live and let live way of life. IMO, left wing liberals do not share my view of liberalism. They want law after law created to grant special rights and tell the masses how to think and act.
That's interesting. You make some very sweeping statements. Personally I have not felt the imposition created by special rights for other people. Which rights are you having a problem with?
The masses. How and what do the liberals tell the masses to think and act?
I'm not being facetious. I think you are addressing important points.
Come on, Decker, you're an intelligent man. It's very obvious.On the national stage I usually look at 3 things to inform my opinion about the propriety of certain pieces of legislation: How does the legislation affect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's a starting point. That's how I develop my analysis. Hate crime legislation seems a bit over the top but I don't see how that affects you or me.
Hate crime legislation, the attack on the family unit and Christian values are just a few examples.
Don Imus ring a bell? The man was FIRED over words he said because special interests groups pitched a fit. Now while I find what he said very offensive it should have been the market that decided his fate. He's just the beginning of what's going to be an ugly assault on our free speach rights. Are you familiar with the "Fairness Act"? That's another example of how people the far left are trying to silence those with opposing views.
The things I've listed above are issues that should greatly concern true liberals. I don't care if it comes from the far left or the far right. No one has the right to tell a free man how to live and when I say that I'm talking about personal choices that affect that person. I'm not talking anarchy.
On the national stage I usually look at 3 things to inform my opinion about the propriety of certain pieces of legislation: How does the legislation affect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's a starting point. That's how I develop my analysis. Hate crime legislation seems a bit over the top but I don't see how that affects you or me.
The attack on the family unit, in my opinion, is an economic argument and not a values one. It started in the 1970s when the stay-at-home mother disappeared and latch-key kids were 'born'. It's an economic attack--the elites wring out more work hours/productivity and pay less for that effort. Both parents have to work nowadays and wages have not grown significantly since 1973 in relation to the executive class. That's the true assault on the family unit.
The Fairness Doctrine promised equal time for important political discussions. It was important and its demise was bad. Why? The vast majority of radio stations in this country are monopolized by corporations: The top four radio station owners have almost half of the listeners and the top ten owners have almost two-thirds of listeners. Corporations support anything pro-business/bottom line so lookout for the constant conservative/pro-business pitch. And last, the elimination of equal time means the fruition of slanted debate: O'reilly, Hannity, and of course Rush.
Don Imus was a private employee. His employer--NBC News--should be looked at and not the liberals. NBC is a hardly a liberal bastion. So what if people complained about his remarks, it's a free country.
michelle malkin of fox said Ron Paul should be removed for questioning the 911 story and associating with alex jones.
turns out miss malkin was writing articles on what bullshit the official story was, in 2002.
Hello, Ms. Hypocrite!
Not suprised, I am sure if NBC or CNN wanted her to report otherwise she would oblige.