Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[Zig]

I responded to your argument you just choose to ignore it because you have nothing intelligent to say.

[CILONE/SK]

You have not said anything except ideological viewpoints from RP.

[fiascoes505]

Nymph and Cherubs

>,Angels Oil Paintings

Paintings cover axiological key credibility which align sun and rain from the breezeattempt to be able to get a being's eye with the admirers beeline into and about the account in the advantageous access aswell to agencyize the next wind storm in to a analytic accomplished.

You can acquisition about bottomless means to anatomy angels. Sanytimeal are acceptedly credible,Portraits Oil Paintings, as getting a new madded angled aloft additional attention your comatose or even comatose ancillary to side ankler. An added bright accomplish up would be the opassuming abandon with 2 actioners central of a duke tebuttonques fit.

Several of the advisercurve affiliated with structure:

Attraliveness can be adaptd alternative.

Range accordant allure.

A clear craves a ascendant aspect,Music Oil Paintings, the sub-above agency forth with accessory ablueprintts able aural absorbing animal accords.

[Zig]

CILONE I said a LOT more than simply RP's ideological viewpoints. The fact that you are even claiming that discussing RP's ideology is irrelevant to this particular conversation about whether or not he is fringe shows me that you just don't want to debate with me and you'd rather dismiss everything I've said altogether. That's fine, go right ahead I made my points anyway. You have yet to respond to anything I've asked you, or anything I've said period.

 

To continue this thread in support of RP, here is a new video of why the US troops overwhelmingly support him over every other GOP candidate.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcpg9e2JXT0

(Old Video BTW)

 

and another

 

http://youtu.be/W_0DHwiIVOU

[CILONE/SK]

Wrong again. You think that his viewpoints make him mainstream? That is what you are saying and you are wrong. His view are not mainstream and he is not followed by a majority of Americans. To dispute this, shows how blinded you are.

 

He is fringe, this is based on his viewpoints not being mainstream and him not having a large following of voters to impact a national election.

 

Also to imply that troops overwhelmingly support him, shows how wrong you are on almost everything. Ecspecially considering I am a troop and have been for many years. During those years of dealing with troops, it is not a regular experience that I come into contact with a RP supporter. Most troops do not even know anything about him.

 

Do you have anything else?

[Zig]

To be honest I should stress that I'm unaware of how exactly RP is doing with military support during his current 2012 campaign, but in 2008 it's a fact that he was doing quite well in that area when compared to the other GOP candidates.

 

I don't really want to continue this conversation with you because you aren't interesting even slightly, and you don't really respond to anything you are just continuously dismissing everything I say as wrong or irrelevant, so it's not even really a conversation it's pretty much like trying to talk to a brick wall. I'll just say that, for the record, I never said his viewpoints make him mainstream at all you aren't reading what I've wrote correctly and you're jumping to your own conclusions about me and about what I've written here. That's all good that you're a troop and everything, I actually have respect for that but you can research the 2008 statistics on who was donating money to RP in 2008 and learn for yourself that he was the GOP candidate receiving the most support. Maybe people would just rather not talk to you about politics in whichever division of the military you happen to be in? Or possibly the people surrounding you are not interested in political discussion? This could be the reason you have never heard or experienced coming into contact with a RP supporter during your time in service, there are many factors which could lead to the results you've personally experienced. I don't know.

[CILONE/SK]

From being in the military for so many years, i can tell you most of people do not realy get into politics all that much. You RP supporters are very much into him and you give him money. The same goes for the RP supporters in the military. I does not surprise me that so many people gave him money, but if you look at how many people were in the military at the time and compare that to how many people actually gave him money, you will see that although it was a majority of the money given to a candidate, from military personnel, it still only represented only a small portion of the military as a whole.

 

For the most part the military is conservative, but they are not political. Although there is a sizable portion that are minorities and are not supporting a republican. I have been a voting assistance officer for few elections and I can tell you most of the military does not vote. Some do, but I would guess that a majority do not. One of the problems is that there is a small window of opportunity to vote absentee in alot of the states, so if you are not paying attention, you will not get the chance to vote. My problem is that my state said I was not resident anymore and I became stateless. I had to fight to get my voting rights back and ended up in the paper on the front page before they let me vote again. If I went through all that, I could just imagine how many people would not have gone through the ordeal I did, just to vote.

 

So you might be right that RP received alot of contributions from the military, but my view is that most of the military do not vote and most of them might have political opinions, but they stay non-political as a whole.

 

Also, I have not ignored your point you have made, I just do not think they applied to our argument about whether or not RP is fringe. I think you were talking viewpoints and I was talking about the aspect of being fringe. Two different things.

[Decyferon]

I think for the discussion to continue someone needs to define fringe. If you take the established democrat and republican viewpoints as mainstream and anything that veers from the party line to be fringe then you can say that RP is fringe, but without the 2 of you defining what you mean when you say fringe then your just gonna continue back n forth.

 

Or you could define fringe as minority support like white supremacy, communism in America etc etc, you just gotta give a definition.

[Zig]

I think for the discussion to continue someone needs to define fringe.

 

I think that's a very good point. Thank you.

 

I've never given RP any money.

 

Also, your point about the military was a good one and I agree with it somewhat, in that those who've donated to RP in 2008 represent a small minority of the military, as well as the fact that most of the military doesn't vote and is conservative. That's probably true, but also keep in mind that many veteran and inactive military also supported RP in the 2008 campaign as well.

 

The definition of fringe should really be addressed here in this thread if you are going to insist on sticking to your guns and keeping the label of fringe on RP and his supporters. It really falls on you to define what you believe a fringe political candidate is, but the textbook definition would be:

 

Fringe

a : something that is marginal, additional, or secondary to some activity, process, or subject <a fringe sport>

b : a group with marginal or extremist views

 

In current times it's difficult to define just exactly what is and isn't extremist. You could consider RP's views on the federal reserve extremist, yet you could also view it as classic and constitutional. The founding father's were considered extremists in their day and age as well, so in actuality you could even label our founding father's as fringe.

[CILONE/SK]

Double post

[CILONE/SK]

Defining fringe is not going to be easy, because for the most part, that means you are backing a losing candidate. No one wants to be on the losing side. So, with that said, I think fringe is any candidate that holds viewpoints that a majority of Americans do not support.

 

Considering how many Americans there are and how many voted for him in the past, I consider him a fringe candidate, because if more people shared his viewpoints, they would have voted for him, but the last two presidential elections RP was in, he did not even come close to being a front runner.

 

We can argue all day about the legitimacy of our election process, but in the end of the day, it does not matter, because it is the system we have and the only one we use.

Notice, I did not get into what his viewpoints actually are, because for this, it does not matter. What matters is if he is supported by a large amount of Americans that are willing to vote for him, and he has proven that is not the case.

[Zig]

OK... this is a forum so I'll leave it to others to chime in on your definition of fringe. I think you have accurately pinpointed certain aspects of what makes something fringe, but overall I feel your definition is very very weak especially when applied to this overall argument we've been having.

 

On your point about the military support also, once again RP is leading in donations among the GOP candidates in 2011... his active duty donations more than doubles all of the GOP candidates COMBINED. This also occurred in 2008.

 

 

Let me ask you this CILONE, are these active duty members of the military who are donating to RP part of his "fringe support"? Would you consider them fringe as well?

[CILONE/SK]

Romney is leading the funding of the GOP candidates. You will have to show the source of your numbers to include the military numbers for 2011.

 

My side of this is not weak. You just keep trying to bring in his viewpoints to support your side, but you fail to realize that it does not matter and what matters is that he is not supported by a large portion of the population that can affect a national election. You have not shown anything that supports he has a chance against a front runner like Romney. If he has no chance in hell of getting elected, odds are that the American people do not largely support him and if he is not supported by a sizable chunk of the population, this would make him a fringe candidate. Arguing that his viewpoints make him mainstream, means you are arguing something different then if he is fringe or not. The only place his viewpoints come into this, is if they are supported by a large enough population of Americans to be able to affect a national election, and his history of elections show us that he does not have that support. If you want to argue about the validity of his viewpoints, we will have to redefine what we are talking about.

 

As for the military, I really do not want to get into it, because honestly, unless you are well versed in the military, you probably would not be able to understand the dynamics of my culture in the military.

[Zig]

You are either skimming through my posts and not reading entirely or you just have poor reading comprehension. Romney is most definitely leading the funding of the GOP candidates, but what I was referring to was not the overall funding. I was actually clearly referring to the military donations for 2011, and I posted my source which was the youtube video. Not an entirely credible and thread worthy source, but I'm certain the numbers are accurate if you do a little research on your own.

 

As for your claim that I am attempting to bring RP's viewpoints into this debate to validate my argument, this is wrong because the only reason I was even bringing up RP's ideals were to correct your inaccurate statements about them. Originally you stated that not only was RP fringe, but so were his supporters. It's necessary to discuss the ideals of a candidate if you are making claims that his views are only supported by a marginal population of Americans. When I question you about this, you avoid answering.

 

You can hold yourself above others because of your military experience, since it seems like you are thumbing your nose at me in your last response, but it really is irrelevant because you've proven to me that your definition of fringe is based off numbers alone. The actual literal definition of the word fringe has little to do with numbers and statistics, so you have to clearly and precisely define why you believe RP and his supporters are fringe which results in a discussion of his policies and his ideals. Let's make it clear though that the only reason I was discussing them was due to your inaccurate statements about RP in general.

 

You didn't answer my question about whether or not the active duty military personnel who are overwhelmingly supporting Ron Paul through individual donations to his campaign in both 2008 and 2011 should be considered fringe according to your definition, which is based off of statistics. But then again you have pretty much avoided every question I've thrown your way so I don't expect a good answer from you.

 

I'm certain if this conversation were to extend into a debate about RP's policies we would also learn how severely you misunderstand them.

[CILONE/SK]

How can you say that although only a small portion of the population supports a candidate, his view points make him mainstream? Being mainstream implies that a large part of the population supports him. You are trying to redefine the argument into whether his viewpoints are right or wrong. You keep trying to go there, because you do not have anything else. I have read your post numerous times and you have not provided one single thing to support your side except for items that rely on the validity of his viewpoints and not on wither they are accepted by the American people as being mainstream. He is fringe because he is not supported by enough of the population to make a difference.

 

As for the military, I call bullshit on those numbers because they are too low. I would have to see the source that came from to buy off on that. There are a few million serving and if even 10% donated to a candidate, those numbers would be higher. If those numbers are right, that just shows us that what I was saying is true, a majority of the military are not political, so those that donated are fringe, because they represent a small portion.

 

If you get your referenced from questionable sources, maybe that is why you can not logically reply to if he is fringe or not, without talking about the validity of his viewpoints. His viewpoints are not what makes him fringe, he is not supported by mainstream Americans and that makes him fringe.

[Zig]

How can you say that although only a small portion of the population supports a candidate, his view points make him mainstream? Being mainstream implies that a large part of the population supports him.

 

I've already expressed in the long response with orange text about your point on what is and isn't mainstream and what generates large polling numbers in elections. I'm not going to repeat myself. You also seem to be implying that Ron Paul's support is small and insignificant...

 

I am not attempting to redefine, or control, or even discuss that validity of his viewpoints. I really don't know where you are getting this from, I haven't in any of my responses stated anything about the validity of RP's viewpoints or even whether or not his ideals are right or wrong. Obviously I support them, because I support his candidacy for president but I haven't ever stated or attempted to debate them in all of my responses to you.

 

Those numbers aren't bullshit, I can assure you of that. I'm not going to research shit for you. If you find numbers that are to the contrary and you have a burning passion to prove me wrong feel free to research them yourself and post it here, otherwise those are the numbers and you clearly misunderstood me in your previous response.

[CILONE/SK]

You seem to have a comprehension problem. Those numers are extremely small compared to the number of actual military personnel. You threw it out there, back it up. You seem to not be able to back anything up.

 

You have nothing to back up that he is not fringe and you keep saying you provided prove that he is not fringe. You have not. It is that simple. You do not even provide me anything to argue against, unless I agree that his viewpoints are wrong, which is what you want and I am not doing.

 

I am really begining to think that you have further issues other then being a RP knob slobber. You might actually be slightly mentally retarded.

 

Back up your points or shut the fuck up.

[Zig]

:rolleyes:

[Zig]

here is your source, you can look through them yourself:

 

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2011/Q2/C00495820.html

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2011/Q2/C00495820/A_EMPLOYER_C00495820.html

 

taken from RonPaulForums.com, thread is here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?303482-Ron-Paul-Most-Donations-From-the-Military!

 

article about it here:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5223477.html

[Zig]

Here are the latest Poll results putting Ron Paul at 9%

 

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_0719.pdf

 

So... let's see according to you...

 

Newt Gingrich must be fringe since he is at 6%

Oh look Rick Perry must be fringe, he's only sitting at 11%

Pretty much everyone there is fringe besides Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney according to your statistics right?

[CILONE/SK]

You do have a comprehension problem.

 

What you do not understand is that the donatations from the military for all candidates is extremely small considering the over all size of the military. You do realize their are a few million military, right? You seem to think that retires factor into support from the military. I am here to tell you that some guy from WWII has no idea about the military of today.

 

You are drawing conclusions that the military supports someone based on such a small percentage of donors. That would be a wrong conclusion. The military for the most part is non political.

 

The case for newt being fringe is actually very strong. He probaly is going to end his campaign soon. As for the rest of them, they represent more mainstream republican view points or tea party view points. They are more mainstream then RP. At least the tea party seems to be, we will see if they impact the election like the last time. Because if they do not, they will be fringe too.

 

I have never said that RP can not get money from his supporters. He has definitely attracted a small group of people that are willing to help him along, but that does not mean there is enough of them to impact a national election.

 

His viewpoints make him fringe and the results of previous elections back that up. He is on the same train as before. I will give you that he will get more votes then before, but it still will not be enough to do anything in the primary. He is not attracting the more mainstream voters, or at least in big enough number to make a difference.

[CILONE/SK]

Also straw polls have been shown not to make a difference at election time.

 

So keep trying, good job with the stats, too bad that they do not support what you are saying because of other factors.

 

It makes me laugh that you used a RP forum to back up your points. This just shows that you are not able to be objective.

[Zig]

I didn't use a RP forum I used the FEC official website. The RonPaul forum is where the number crunching originated, which is worthy of posting here since it is indeed the original source. The FEC is the source I linked you to so that you could prove the numbers you called "bullshit" to yourself.

 

Of course your point about the military being non-political is something I've already agreed with, and obviously the military overall can not officially endorse a candidate. This is common sense, the point is that Ron Paul has received in 2008 and in 2011 the most military active duty individual donations to his campaign. My question to you, which you're still ignoring, was whether or not these supporters are considered the fringe of America today. My point is not to say that the United States military endorses Ron Paul, so there can't be any conclusions drawn on that issue by myself. Where you're gettlng that from? I don't know. Seems like you are the one who can't comprehend, and I think your responses thus far consistently show that but I'll leave it up to others to decide.

 

My point's so far have been,

Ron Paul can raise as much money as other candidates and in some cases more,

RP can generate substantial political support,

RP has a large grassroots following that consists of a diverse populace including retired and active military who are not considered the fringe of this country,

RP has substantial name recognition among Americans, including successful mediums such as books and notoriety on television

RP has credibility in the Congress from serving 30+ years,

 

You claim RP's following is small, insignificant, and fringe pointing to the nomination result statistics in his previous campaigns as proof of your claim. I've already addressed the biased and corrupt nature of our election system in America, and you've chosen to disregard that probably out of disagreement. Actually you just said "live with it, this is all we've got." if I remember correctly. You're completely dismissing the realities of elections and ignoring why candidates like RP get pigeon holed into categories and labels people like you create for them, which in turn effect the amount of reach these politicians have to generate national election numbers and campaign funds that other selected corporate front-runners enjoy. Surprisingly RP has overcome most of these obstacles and today is in the mainstream limelight of GOP contenders because they are forced to pay attention to someone who has generated his amount of support,. Many people listen to him and agree with him, but you call this a small fringe minority. You accuse anyone who supports RP of being a "RP disciple", or sucking RP's cock, but let's be realistic here... if you had to debate someone who advocated for RP's presidency you would fall flat on your face when it came time to discuss his policies and ideals. Instead, you resort to childish insults, a condescending attitude, and you tell people to shut up when you don't like what they're saying.

 

I think I've already made a pretty strong case against your claim that RP is fringe, and that his supporters are fringe, so I'll let others decide here on their own what they think. I never try to force RP down anyone's throats, and I actually have respect for whomever it is people individually decide to support for president. In fact, unless someone is openly engaging in conversation and debate about it, I see it as none of my business. You on the other hand have something against RP and those who advocate on his behalf when you clearly don't understand what he stands for or what he represents, and you attempt to mitigate the amount of support he has by labeling him and foreshadowing possibilities you realistically can't know the outcome of. In the end you've succumb to the fact that RP's 2011 campaign has already generated more support and you've predicted he will get more votes, so you are in fact admitting that his following has grown since his previous campaigns. In my original response to you, this was something I happened to mention immediately and was part of my original point. I'll stress again that I've never disagreed with you that RP will have an enormous struggle ahead of him to acquire the nomination, and I am naturally a skeptic so I'll admit that I don't think it will happen but I'll leave it off with saying that I continue to disagree with your point that RP is fringe and that his supporters represent a small fringe minority of Americans.

[CILONE/SK]

I didn't use a RP forum I used the FEC official website. The RonPaul forum is where the number crunching originated, which is worthy of posting here since it is indeed the original source. The FEC is the source I linked you to so that you could prove the numbers you called "bullshit" to yourself.

 

Of course your point about the military being non-political is something I've already agreed with, and obviously the military overall can not officially endorse a candidate. This is common sense, the point is that Ron Paul has received in 2008 and in 2011 the most military active duty individual donations to his campaign.which are a very small part of the military, so that is considered a fringe element, what do you not get about that??? My question to you, which you're still ignoring, was whether or not these supporters are considered the fringe of America today.I have addressed it, but I guess your comprehension problem is preventing you from reading it My point is not to say that the United States military endorses Ron Paul, so there can't be any conclusions drawn on that issue by myself. Where you're gettlng that from? I don't know.because that is what you implied, are you sure you do not need mental help? Seems like you are the one who can't comprehend, and I think your responses thus far consistently show thatfor sure you are dumb. but I'll leave it up to others to decide.

 

My point's so far have been,

Ron Paul can raise as much money as other candidates and in some cases more, Never said he couldn't, but it still will not matter, because unless he can transfer those to votes, it will not make a difference

RP can generate substantial political support,What the fuck does that mean? If you are talking about getting other politicians to go along with him, you might want to rethink that and look at his voting record. If you are talking about his cult, they are vocal and dumb like you, but they are still not as numerous as mainstream candidates

RP has a large grassroots following that consists of a diverse populace including retired and active military who are not considered the fringe of this country, Large???? Then why did they all not vote for him? Or did they and they are not as large as you think they are, because they did not even make a dent. Here you are implying the military supports him and yet you say you are not saying that. You are wrong about it either way.

RP has substantial name recognition among Americans, including successful mediums such as books and notoriety on televisionBeing a celebrity, does not mean shit, what do you not understand about that? He has had name recognition for a long time and it has not helped him before. In fact, his name is associated with being fringe. hahaha

RP has credibility in the Congress from serving 30+ years, So, the longer you serve, the better chance you have of being mainstream?? His district voted for him, as soon as his district is going to be re-districted to include more minorities, he bailed. He can not get past the local level when it comes to elections

 

You claim RP's following is small, insignificant, and fringe pointing to the nomination result statistics in his previous campaigns as proof of your claim. what do you not understand about the election process that makes you think that it does not matter??? In what other ways do people get elected to president??? So, if you think it is unfair because your guy does not get a chance, that is because he is fringe and does not go along with the mainstream process. If he were mainstream, he would get more supportI've already addressed the biased and corrupt nature of our election system in America, and you've chosen to disregard that probably out of disagreement.Because you want to use this as a reason he does not get support and unless we have another system, he has to deal with it Actually you just said "live with it, this is all we've got." if I remember correctly. You're completely dismissing the realities of elections and ignoring why candidates like RP get pigeon holed into categories and labels people like you create for them, which in turn effect the amount of reach these politicians have to generate national election numbers and campaign funds that other selected corporate front-runners enjoy. actually you are the one dismissing this, because it is what the process is. Right or wrong, he has to deal with it or not get elected. What don't you understand about that?Surprisingly RP has overcome most of these obstacles and today is in the mainstream limelight of GOP contenders because they are forced to pay attention to someone who has generated his amount of support,. Many people listen to him and agree with him, but you call this a small fringe minority. Being a celebrity and on TV does not mean you are not fringe. He has not overcome anything, he is reliving the previous elections with the same exact talking points he had thenYou accuse anyone who supports RP of being a "RP disciple", or sucking RP's cock, but let's be realistic here... if you had to debate someone who advocated for RP's presidency you would fall flat on your face when it came time to discuss his policies and ideals. Instead, you resort to childish insults, a condescending attitude, and you tell people to shut up when you don't like what they're saying. You are the one who is failing to make your point, you keep saying the same things and reaching the same false conclusions, because you are a RP knob slobber who is blinded from the truth. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I think I've already made a pretty strong case against your claim that RP is fringe, not reallyand that his supporters are fringe, they areso I'll let others decide here on their own what they think. I never try to force RP down anyone's throats,actually you do, by linking bullshit to crossfire to support your cult and I actually have respect for whomever it is people individually decide to support for president. In fact, unless someone is openly engaging in conversation and debate about it, I see it as none of my business. You on the other hand have something against RP and those who advocate on his behalf when you clearly don't understand what he stands for or what he represents, and you attempt to mitigate the amount of support he has by labeling him and foreshadowing possibilities you realistically can't know the outcome of. In the end you've succumb to the fact that RP's 2011 campaign has already generated more support and you've predicted he will get more votes, so you are in fact admitting that his following has grown since his previous campaigns. wrong, RP is doing exactly what I thought he would, I have stated that he will get more votes then last time, but it will not be anywhere near the amount to make a difference.In my original response to you, this was something I happened to mention immediately and was part of my original point. I'll stress again that I've never disagreed with you that RP will have an enormous struggle ahead of him to acquire the nomination, and I am naturally a skeptic so I'll admit that I don't think it will happen but I'll leave it off with saying that I continue to disagree with your point that RP is fringe and that his supporters represent a small fringe minority of Americans.because there are not that many of them, if there were, that would have reflected at the voting booth last time., it was only two years ago

 

Do you have anything else or are you just going to ignore reality some more? Show me proof that he is mainstream, with mainstream ideas that are supported by a majority of Republicans, at least enough that he has a chance in hell of getting the primary.

 

you can disagree all you want, but that does not make you right. Ron Paul is a fringe candidate. Like I said before, type "fringe candidate" into google and tell me who is covering the whole first page. I have answered your questions and provided valid points against them. What else are you going to ignore and say I am not answering?

[Zig]

anyway...

 

Great interview of RP

Ron Paul: 'Freedom Is a Young Idea and We're Throwing It Away'

 

Transcript

JEFFREY BROWN: And finally tonight an interview with Republican presidential candidate, Ron Paul.

 

It's the first in our series of conversations with the contenders seeking to take on Barack Obama in next year's election.

 

Judy Woodruff sat down with the congressman from Texas on Capitol Hill earlier today.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: Congressman Ron Paul, thank you for talking with us.

 

REP. RON PAUL, R-Texas: Good to be with you today.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: You're running against a long list of Republicans seeking the presidential - the Republican presidential nomination, many of them very conservative - one in particular, Michele Bachmann, appealing to the tea party. Why are you more qualified than any of them?

 

 

Ron Paul: 'Freedom Is a Young Idea'

REP. RON PAUL: I see them as defending the status quo much more so than I do because, you know, if you look at my foreign policy, nobody's coming close, although they're getting more sympathetic. I want to bring all the troops home. When it comes to personal liberties and what's going on at our airports, I don't like the Patriot Act, and they tend to support the Patriot Act. When it comes to monetary policy, they try to avoid it , yet money is one-half of all our transactions. We're in a mess; so I concentrate a whole lot on the Federal Reserve and monetary policy. And of course, the spending is big issue with me, but it's been that way for a long time.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, speaking of spending, Washington is in the grips right now of this huge divide - split over what to do about the debt limit, what to do about the deficit. You have said you've never voted to raise the debt limit, which pits you against not only the president and the Democrats, but the Republican leadership, both houses of Congress, most of the business community. Are they wrong when they say this would lead to an economic calamity? Are they just not telling the truth?

 

REP. RON PAUL: I think they're misled. I think they believe what they're saying, but I think they don't understand economic policy because they're afraid of a default, and they've been frightened. But this is the way so often government works. They try to frighten the people, such as frighten people about being attacked by nuclear weapons that don't exist so we go to war needlessly. But the bailout - frighten the people so you bail out everybody, and forget about the people who are losing their houses. So, yes, there's a lot of that.

 

But my point is, is it's serious; the debt is too big. You can't solve the problem of debt by raising the debt limit, and that's what they were trying to do.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: But you've been - you've had this position for years and years. But the decades you've served in the Congress, you haven't been able to win folks over to your point of view. What makes you think you can win a majority over if you were president?

 

REP. RON PAUL: I think there's a big shift because I can compare what's happening now to four years ago, and it's dramatically different. But, even last year we noticed a big difference, say, on the monetary issue.

 

So maybe I don't have as much influence in direct legislation here, but the people - I believe I am closer to the people, because the people are scared and are sick and tired of it and they want smaller government.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, on this question of spending and cutting, you've said you would bring the government's budget into balance the first year in office you were president. We're talking, what, over a trillion-dollar deficit. What would you cut?

 

REP. RON PAUL: OK. I would start with military operations overseas. They hurt us and they hurt our national defense. And we can save hundreds of billions of dollars when you add up all the militarism and all the foreign aid and all the mischief we create, why do we have troops in Korea and Japan - all these things. So you could save a lot. That wouldn't be enough.

 

Then you'd have to start cutting spending on the programs that aren't essential like the Department of Education. We spend a lot of money; it doesn't improve education. The Department of Energy - we don't need Department of Energy. All those subsidies in Department of Agriculture - we don't need that. We don't need the intervention of the Department of Commerce. You can go on and on.

 

But you don't have to go and cut health care or medical - or Social Security in order to start getting our house in order.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: But you have talked about dramatically scaling down or reforming Medicare and Social Security. And so what would those programs look like if you could wave a magic wand and make it the way you'd like it?

 

REP. RON PAUL: Well, I haven't talked a whole lot about that. Most of the time, I talk about is, if we'd have acted responsibly, we wouldn't be facing this crisis.

 

I would like to offer young people going into the workforce the chance to opt out, opt out of Social Security. But that won't work unless you do these cuts I'm talking about, the militarism as well as all these departments that make no sense at all. You could do that, but politically, it's difficult because the other day, when we were voting on this resolution for the budget - the debt increase, I said, there's two groups: One group wants to - won't cut a nickel out of the military and the other won't cut a nickel out of entitlement system. And that's why we're at this point.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: You've also spoken of big changes in Medicare, structural changes. How would you change Medicare?

 

REP. RON PAUL: Well, once again, I haven't emphasized that at all. But I would want people to opt out of the system. I would want people to have medical-savings accounts. Young people should be able to opt out and build up a medical savings account and take care of their own programs.

 

But that won't work unless you're willing to cut spending. And I think the most popular place to cut is all this spending overseas and the corporate welfare in this country, because most of the money that we spend here that's supposed to poor really helps the large corporations, say, the housing bubble. Who got help?

 

See, the rich got bailed out. They got bailed out both by the Congress and the Federal Reserve. And they were making all the profits. So it was - it's corporatism that is so bad, whether it's medicine or even in education or the military-industrial complex. It's corporatism. That is the welfare that is huge compared to the welfare of food stamps.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: But without some government regulation, which I know you are against, what's to keep corporations from running - doing whatever they want?

 

REP. RON PAUL: Well, because I talk about a lot less regulation - I don't like the regulatory agencies, but that doesn't mean the free market doesn't have regulation. The regulations in the free market are much stricter because if a company gets into trouble and goes bankrupt, the law - the economic law, which should be enforced by government, that company goes bankrupt. So instead of bailing them out, these companies should have gone bankrupt.

 

But you have sound money and free markets; you can't counterfeit money, like the Federal Reserve does.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: And just to be clear, what would the Federal Reserve look like under a Ron Paul presidency?

 

REP. RON PAUL: Well, there's two different things. My goal would be, there's no need for the Federal Reserve. Under a presidency you don't get rid of the Federal Reserve overnight. In my - even in my book, "End the Fed," I don't say we should close the door and walk away. I ask for competition.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: Let's go to some of the international issues you touched on very quickly. You want to bring troops home. What should the U.S. footprint be internationally? What is the U.S. role in the world?

 

REP. RON PAUL: Well, it should be a footprint of trade and friendship, as we were advised and as the Constitution permits. The footprint shouldn't be a military footprint. It shouldn't be -

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: So bring -

 

REP. RON PAUL: The footprint we're leaving now - our drone missiles dropping bombs and killing innocent civilians, launched from the United States with computers. That's not the kind of footprint I want.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: Afghanistan. How quickly would you bring the troops home?

 

REP. RON PAUL: As quick as the ships could get there. It's insane on what we're doing. And I'll tell you one thing about this business about the military: We just had a quarterly report, and they listed all the money that all the candidates got from the military. I got twice as much as all the other candidates put together on the Republican side, and even more than Obama got, which tells me that these troops want to come home as well because they know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: Two other quick things internationally. You said you opposed the U.S. raid into Pakistan that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden. You also are - would do away with, in essence, the CIA. Why do - why did you oppose the raid, and what would you put in the place of the CIA?

 

REP. RON PAUL: Well the question to me was, could it have been done differently? I was just saying it could be done differently. I mean, all this does was raise questions. And I predicted that this would lead to a lot of resentment. And just think of the chaos in Pakistan and the mess that we have; we both bomb them, and we give them money, and then the people hate their own government because their own government's a puppet of ours.

 

My frustration with bin Laden was, it took so long.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: And the CIA, you would -

 

REP. RON PAUL: I would - I don't think the CIA should be a military arm of the government dropping bombs secretly. You can't even - you can't even separate the two. You don't even know who is controlling the bombing of this country now.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: Couple of questions about your campaign. You have a son who was elected to the United States Senate, a Rand Paul from the state of Kentucky. This is your third try for president. There was some talk that he was looking at running for president. How did you discuss that between the two of you, that it was going to be you and not him who was running?

 

REP. RON PAUL: We never talked about it. It never came up.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: Never had a discussion?

 

REP. RON PAUL: It just never came up.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally, Congressman, you look healthy. You certainly keep up a vigorous schedule. You would be 77 years old if you were elected president upon taking office, which is quite a bit older than the oldest president upon taking office, Ronald Reagan. Is age at all a factor for you in this campaign?

 

REP. RON PAUL: I think it is. I think age is very important, and sometimes I meet people when they're 45, and they're very old. And I think it's the age of the ideas a person's presenting, and is that person able to present these ideas? Freedom is a young idea. It's only been tested for a couple hundred years. And we had a taste of it, and we're throwing it away.

 

But what I see others are doing, the others, especially - and many of the other candidates, they have old ideas. It's totalitarian, it's the control of government, governments policing the world, militarism, telling people how to run their lives, running the economy, telling people what they can put in their mouths and whether or not they can even drink raw milk. It's just - it's just absolutely out of control.

 

But the idea that individuals are free, that they have a natural right to their life and the liberty, they ought to be able to keep the fruits of their labor, that is a young idea. So I would say, people ought to go with a young idea and somebody that can express them. And interestingly enough, it's the young people that fully endorse my campaign.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: We are watching that. Spoken very passionately. Congressman Ron Paul, we thank you for talking with us.

 

REP. RON PAUL: Thank you.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I don't understand how you can hear any of that and think "what a bad idea".

 

Apparently freedom is a fringe idea though.

[Zig]

I don't understand how you can hear any of that and think "what a bad idea".

 

Apparently freedom is a fringe idea though.

 

Well, as easy as it is for you and I to listen to that and relate to it, you have to understand that there are many Americans who think we should be bombing these countries and waging war against them. There are many people who believe that these wars are just, righteous, and that there is a legitimate terrorist threat that will overwhelm the world if we don't do anything about it. There are many people who believe America does no wrong in the world and that our military is formed of pure angels who fight for the cause of God directly under his command (am I going to far? sorry...).

 

I think you can sense my sarcasm, but realistically even though I disagree with CILONE that RP is fringe, he has a point that the mainstream of this country still supports war mongering totalitarian hand picked corporate candidates who embrace and reinforce the status quo. Unfortunately there is still a large majority of Americans who literally have lost touch with what exactly freedom is, or what our Constitution represents, or what America is supposed to represent in the world. I personally don't blame them because it's the result of consistent propaganda, bad education, corruption, misinformation, etc.

[CILONE/SK]

Unfortunately there is still a large majority of Americans who literally have lost touch with what exactly freedom is, or what our Constitution represents, or what America is supposed to represent in the world. I personally don't blame them because it's the result of consistent propaganda, bad education, corruption, misinformation, etc.

 

This is exactly what I think of you and your RP cult. Of course, except for the large majority part.

 

I think most of you have seriously lost touch with what this country represents. You ways will disenfranchise many Americans, for the benefit of a few.

 

You want to isolate America with your nonsense foreign policy.

 

You want to sell out America by letting corporations do anything they want with your "free market".

 

You want to let the most needy Americans go without help, with you insistence that private charity will be able to provide the level of help needed.

 

You want to destroy the dollar and the worlds economy by getting rid of the fed, returning to the gold standard, and not raising the debt ceiling to pay for stuff that has already been approved by congress. Although this will cause many, many Americans to lose their jobs and entering America into another depression.

 

Bottom line is that not a single thing that RP supports is based on reality and on hypotheticals that many experts disagree with. You talk about founding fathers and freedom, but you are the people that the founding fathers would despise, because you are actively looking for ways to knock down our country and you are doing it under the guise of freedom an being a patriot.

 

I oppose libertarianism because it ignores that the wealthy have a disproportionate level of influence on society and law already. The transition to a libertarian dystopia would further exacerbate this disparity of treatment. The elimination of those parts of the government most disparaged by libertarians would unduly and unfairly impact those parts of society least able to offset their loss. When this loss is coupled by the institution of a "fee for service" or voluntary tax structure (advocated by many libertarians) the net-net result is that the wealthy would have a disproportionate level of access to clean food, justice, police protecton, fire protection and other services, while the poor would be left to fend for themselves as best as they could.

 

You and your fellow RP knob slobbers would ruin this country faster then anything short of an invasion.

[CILONE/SK]

I don't understand how you can hear any of that and think "what a bad idea".

 

Apparently freedom is a fringe idea though.

 

Little comments about freedom are cute, but they do not provide substance and shows how easily swayed you are.

[Zig]

i just have to laugh at you now man, you're funny. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

i can't wait to see someone here just destroy that argument you just posted, that's fuckin perfect man. perfect.

 

You want to destroy the dollar and the worlds economy by getting rid of the fed, returning to the gold standard, and not raising the debt ceiling to pay for stuff that has already been approved by congress.

 

this is the best one right here. oh now WE'RE destroying the dollar? omfg you're hilarious.

 

You talk about founding fathers and freedom, but you are the people that the founding fathers would despise

 

ahahahahaha... oh man... oh... i'm havin a heart attack here. more shit you couldn't possibly know that you're so certain of.