Ron Paul Explains Fundraising Boom: Americans ‘Don’t Like The War’
Ron Paul Explains Fundraising Boom: Americans ‘Don’t Like The War’
Yesterday, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX), who has “a libertarian tilt and an out-of-Iraq pitch,” set a single day fundraising record for the Republican field by hauling “in more than $4.2 million in nearly 24 hours.” Asked by MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell this morning about what he “attribute[d]” the “success” of the effort to, Paul said it was his anti-war “message” because Americans “don’t like the war.”
O’Donnell followed up by asking Paul about his reaction to the news that 2007 is now the deadliest year of the war yet. “It proves the surge didn’t work,” replied Paul. “The surge actually made things worse for us.” O’Donnell responded by noting that violence was down in October, to which Paul rebutted, “one month doesn’t make a year.” Watch it:
Paul’s attribution of his fundraising success to the continuing desire of Americans to end the war in Iraq is supported by a new ABC News/Washington Post poll out today that finds that “a record six in 10 want the level of U.S. forces reduced.” According to ABC’s analysis, the “results…seem to reflect a continued hardening of attitudes on Iraq”:
Views on progress are unchanged from early September, and they haven’t been positive since December 2005, shortly after the Iraqi elections. […]
All told, 63 percent say the war was not worth fighting, almost exactly its average this year, and a majority, steadily since December 2004. Intensity against the war continues to run high, with 51 percent saying they feel “strongly” that it was not worth fighting, more than double its strong supporters.
While the majority of Americans want redeployment out of Iraq in some form or another, the current debate around the war is drifting away from the core principle that a timetable for redeployment best serves America’s national security interests. The Center for American Progress has a strategy for how progressives can get the debate back on track.
Transcript:
O’DONNELL: For more on this one-day fund-raising bonanza by him, Ron Paul, the candidate himself, is on the phone.Congressman, thanks so much for joining us. PAUL: Thank you for having me.
O’DONNELL: So let me ask you, what’s the latest and final tally of how much you raised yesterday?
PAUL: Well, I’m told by my staff it was $4.3 million within a 24-hour period.
O’DONNELL: And to what do you attribute that success?
PAUL: The message. The message is powerful and the level of frustration in this country that people are sick and tired of what they’re getting. And they’re angry and they’re upset. They don’t like the war and they don’t like the economy. And they like the answers that I’ve been giving.
O’DONNELL: But were they contributing to your campaign or was this all about Guy Fawkes Day, September 5th — November 5th, I should say?
PAUL: I think that was — I think it was a gimmick.
I don’t even know the individual. I’ve never talked to the individual that set this up. But he was interviewed and said it has nothing to do with violence. As a matter of fact, we emphasize a non- violent approach but a revolutionary approach nonetheless.
And I guess the movie had something to do with it, too, that V for Vendetta, which I have not seen, which is not same type of violence as the history of 1605 or whenever the original day occurred.
O’DONNELL: Congressman, you heard our political director, Chuck Todd, just raise some very important questions. Will many of your supporters be able to vote in the Republican primaries, or are these independents contributing to your campaign? In other words, you’ve had great success on the Internet with fund-raising but is this going to translate at the polls?
PAUL: Well, I would think so. But you don’t know until that happens.
But if somebody’s willing to send you money and invest all of this time and energy, you would think they would invest the energy necessary to register and come and vote. He was right: Some states it’s going to be a lot easier. There are some states that actually try to keep the party from growing. Others are quite willing to be open to allowing independents come in.
So, I think it does depend on the states, it depends on how we spend the money, now that we have it in the bank, and how we advertise and how we motivate the people to come out.
O’DONNELL: You have largely based your campaign on withdrawing from Iraq. The Pentagon letting us know today that the deaths of five more soldiers making 2007 the deadliest year of the war for U.S. troops. Your reaction. PAUL: It proves the surge didn’t work. The surge actually made things worse for us. And yet…
O’DONNELL: Except that the military has said that in the last month actually violence is down.
PAUL: Yes, I know. But one month doesn’t make a year.
And it’s a trend. Nobody expects that the killing is going to stop.
So, I would say it’s bad news for us that this is our worst year after all these years of fighting and undeclared, unnecessary war. So it’s very sad.
O’DONNELL: Ron Paul, congratulations on your fund-raising success: $4 million in one day. That’s more than the record by Mitt Romney. Good luck to you and thanks for joining us.
PAUL: Thank you very much.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
94 Responses to “Ron Paul Explains Fundraising Boom: Americans ‘Don’t Like The War’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
Archives
how to get back on track?
impeach a few for starters.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:30 am#2: Obama, war monger? You best exit that hyperbolic chamber you’re in.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:36 amNO SHIT.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:39 amRon Paul’s Voting Record:
http://www.vote-smart.org/ voting_category.php?can_id=296
November 6th, 2007 at 11:46 am.
Good for Ron.
Raise the most $$$ and people pay attention to you.
Who-da thunk it?
p.s.
Why is Paul a Republican, still?
Does he support Republicanism?
Does the Party’s doctrine of hate and intolerance, mixed with corrupt lawlessness, support him?
I mean, what a good gimic to get people to register Republican… NO?
.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:47 amDEMOCRATS take note.
On everything else he is a psycho, but everyone likes the way he stands up to the warmongers. Hello, That is what 2/3ds or this country wants. NO MORE WAR!
1+1=2; Why is the Dem. Party sooo slow on the uptake.
Man those are potential dem. voters contributing to him.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:47 am…”I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection“…
Ron Paul
March 28, 2005
http://www.vote-smart.org/ speech_detail.php?sc_id=151892&keyword=abortion&phrase=&contain=
November 6th, 2007 at 11:52 amI suspect most of Paul’s contributions are coming from Republicans who are opposed to the Iraq war and find no other Republican candidate who does. These people share (or are at least willing to tolerate) his Libertarian stand on other issues.
Democrats who oppose the war have no such problem. There’s no shortage of candidates who oppose the war on their side of the fence. Only the most conservative of Dems would support Paul, since Paul opposes any kind of gun control, wants Roe v. Wade overturned, and wants to expand the health care free market.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:53 amohhhh gawd…
“criticalthinker”? … uh… NOT.
vote republican? … uh… … what to say… … just stupid…
…
November 6th, 2007 at 11:56 amobigfoot?
wayne?
November 6th, 2007 at 11:58 amHe’s going to be excluded from future Republican debates. They cant have this guy succeeding. War is all they know–they wont allow him to ruin their fearmongering.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:59 amthe fact that Ron Paul is a Republican says enough. He’s another wingnut fool whose stance on the ar has more to do with big government than the idea of right or wrong. He is a one-issue candidate, and would be another repig disaster if elected.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:00 pmThe only thing Ron Paul’s got going for him for ANY progressive is his stance on the Iraq war.
Like someone else here said, on EVERYTHING else, he’s just another Republican WHACKJOB.
Fuggeddaboudit.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:00 pmR. Paul is a bit less insane than his other race mates. Just a bit.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:04 pmI would be willing to vote for a Republican provided that they:
1. Balance the budget
2. End the war
3. End warrantless spying programs
4. Denounce torture and rendition of all kinds
Of course I guess under those criteria, they necessarily can’t be a Republican.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:07 pmAnyone who flatly equates “Republican=conservative&Pro Life, Democrat= liberal&Pro Choice,” is a simpleton pawn in the Hegelian dialectic of politics, deserving of their lot. Politicians vote party lines, not in favor of the constituents who gave them their jobs. They are all part of the same club and we are not allowed to join because we can’t afford to run for office. I used to look at Think Progress’ Comments as a place for alternative news and views to the corporate controlled media, but the second an article is posted that is Republican-neutral, the Left wingers, who are equally ideologue, begin frothing.
Continue to wait for a savior. I’m sure she or he will give you everything you want once in office.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:09 pmContrary to some of the earlier posts on this thread, Ron Paul, besides opposing our imperial aggression in Iraq, Ron Paul actually believes in and supports our Bill of Rights and our Constitution. How many other GOP Presidential candidates support our Bill of Rights and our Constitution? Zero. How many of the great liberal Democratic Presidential candidates will come out publicly and support said Bill of Rights and Constitution? Very few. It’s like pulling teeth to get Hilliary and Obama to oppose the fascist Bush regime’s trampling of our Bill of Rights and our Constitution.
I may have to register Republican just so that I can vote for Ron Paul in the California Presidential Primary Election…
November 6th, 2007 at 12:14 pmThe only thing Ron Paul’s got going for him for ANY progressive is his stance on the Iraq war.
Like someone else here said, on EVERYTHING else, he’s just another Republican WHACKJOB.
Fuggeddaboudit.
Comment by Leftside Annie — November 6, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
So true! So true!
Very much looking forward to the end of the cheney/bush regime, but i’m not enamored by the future prospects. certainly not the current front runners. unfortunately, gravel or kucinich don’t have a snowballs’ chance in hell.
Also, as evil and despicable as bush, cheney and accomplices are, i just have a hard time imagining this country putting a woman or an african american in office. sad to say, but I just don’t see it happening.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:17 pm17 - and IMO, anyone who believes so strongly that they are far more intelligent than anyone else is living in a delusional world that is equivalent to that of ANY Kool-aid swilling Republican….
Just sayin’.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:20 pm#17. Comment by Rhymeskeema — November 6, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
I posted a link to his entire voting record @ # 5. I suggest you stop foaming at the mouth and take a look at it.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:21 pmwoo hoo!! at last, someone to Naderize the GOP!!!!!
runronrun!!!!!!
November 6th, 2007 at 12:25 pmRon Paul is right about Iraq BUT it reflects his consistent approach that government should not be doing anything. He’s one of the proponents of government being small enough to drown in a bathtub approach to politics.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:52 pmNothing but a RINO without a chance.
Comment by TCDon — November 6, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
Nothing but a troll, without a brain.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:53 pmwayne?
Comment by joe cantwell — November 6, 2007 @ 11:58 am
What?
Like someone else here said, on EVERYTHING else, he’s just another Republican WHACKJOB.
Fuggeddaboudit.
Comment by Leftside Annie — November 6, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
He is a racist asshole too, thats why he is still republican.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:00 pmI may have to register Republican just so that I can vote for Ron Paul in the California Presidential Primary Election…
Comment by Oval12345678 aka James K. Sayre — November 6, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
If you are voting for Paul, you are a Republican anyway…..
November 6th, 2007 at 1:01 pmJebus, 25 PLC - God knows that there’s a whole lot of Bushevik government that could USE being drowned in a bathtub - the whole Dept of Homeland Security and most of the NSA and the TSA…
Let’s get busy! Drown ‘em all - and start with Chimpy.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:15 pmAnother explanation: there are a lot of stupid people out there.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:55 pmRon Paul is definitely more consistent in his views and more rational than any of the other Republican candidates. This does not, however, mean that he would be a good President. Paul has no objection to using government power to curtail women’s rights to make decisions about their own bodies. And he would abdicate any responsibility to fix the health care situation–instead turning it completely over to corporations to make decisions on health care. At least, though, Paul makes his arguments on constitutional grounds–and for that I have grudging respect for him.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:03 pm@16 are you serious? go look at what he stands for http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
November 6th, 2007 at 2:05 pmI am a 26 year UCSB alumn (Poli Sci- International Relations). I have always registered ind. and voted Dem. But I’ve been supporting Ron Paul since the second GOP debate. He is the only one with a real foreign policy based on a historical foundation. We are indeed an overstretched empire in decline. He understands our dollar is shot and we’re borrowing like there’s no tomorrow. I might not agree with all of his domestic and social issues, but it’s all states’ rights to him (California, we must secede!). Even then, that’s where a Democratic Congress will slow him down. But I’ve registered Republican and I’ve donated my time, money, and support all in hopes of changing the status quo.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:07 pmAmazing in this day and age that reasonable people would consider voting for a candidate who favors no regulations on capitalism. Ron Paul is the best thing that could happen to large corporations and, thus, is one of the worst things that could happen to our country.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:33 pmMy biggest problems with Ron Paul are Health care, Social Security, and his stance on Global Warming. He is following the standard republican line with these issues.
Here is some interesting info on Ron Paul:
http://gastronamus.proboards27.com/ index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&thread=1185994167
November 6th, 2007 at 2:41 pmAmazing in this day and age that reasonable people would consider voting for a candidate who favors no regulations on capitalism. Ron Paul is the best thing that could happen to large corporations and, thus, is one of the worst things that could happen to our country.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — November 6, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
I have been saying this myself for awhile now. The Libertarians think they have a lockdown on what The Constitution stands for. Ron Paul, if you strip away the antiwar talk, is another Right Wing Nutcase, that wants everybody walking around with weapons. And don’t get me started on privatization of Social Security.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:45 pmBut Jack…
You can see that corporations are beginning to see that philanthropy and social good equal profits in the long term. Why are so some of these large corporations beginning to go Green and taking responsibility (outside of government)? My take on it is that Paul wants to eliminate the millions of subsidies and other forms of government support for corporations that shouldn’t otherwise be able to compete in the market. Don’t get me wrong… Corporations need to be taken down, but like I stated before I think that a Democratic Congress will slow down a lot of his steam. What matters most is that we fix our foreign policy, parlay that into fixing our economy, and then we’ll be able to address our national issues.
BTW, I appreciate your comments here on ThinkProgress.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:47 pmSocial Sound System: “What matters most is that we fix our foreign policy, parlay that into fixing our economy, and then we’ll be able to address our national issues.”
Thanks for the kind words, but I think our biggest national problem is the political power of large corporations. No other industrialized society gives corporations the kind of political power they have here and, in my opinion, this goes to the heart of almost every problem we have as a nation.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:52 pmChildren !!!
Your Party Before Country Stance Is Abhorrent !!!
Those who would say that “other than the war issue his positions are wack” obviously have a narrow view of the World and Current Events.
There are indicators of Grave Economic Catastrophe and Nuclear Conflict that are but whispers in the media. Your lovely bubble will not be so lovely in a short time.
This country will not fall from armies abroad. It will be sold by dishonest politicians. Although Fire From The Sky May Be Just As Close To The Moment As The Money Mayhem. Russia Still Has Nukes And When Desperation Ensues, Will Use Them.
Core Character Counts.
One man can not wave the magic wand and make it all go away. There is logic and reason to his positions if only you would get passed your predisposed dispositions.
Educate yourself on current events and filter the emotional spin. Things are more dire than most would assume.
Ron Paul represents a return to our founding principals. The Message Is More Important Than The Man !!!
November 6th, 2007 at 2:53 pmFurthermore, every period of unbridled, unregulated capitalism in our history has led to economic disaster.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:55 pmPainful: “Ron Paul represents a return to our founding principals.”
I don’t agree with that at all. Modern libertarian philosophy misinterprets many of the Founders’ statements and philosophies to sell the idea that government should not regulate capitalism in any way. The Founders believed in civil government, the “commons,” and that taxes were the only way to finance a society. Moreover, almost every Founder had a healthy disregard and suspicion about corporations. Jefferson believed they were a sneaky way to establish another landed aristocracy. The Boston Teaparty was an act of civil disobedience in response to a special targeted tax break for a large corporation with ties to political power.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:59 pmOne more thing, Mr. Libertarian. Referring to posters with different opinions as “children” simply reinforces my opinion that libertarians tend to be arrogant sociopaths.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:01 pmJack - “Thanks for the kind words, but I think our biggest national problem is the political power of large corporations. No other industrialized society gives corporations the kind of political power they have here and, in my opinion, this goes to the heart of almost every problem we have as a nation.”
Agreed. If we remove the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about from our foreign policy, I feel that would be a significant step towards removing corporations from the poltical game. I’m on the same boat as most people here when it comes to the issues. I’m just looking for a candidate willing to diverge most from the current power structure. Ron Paul’s campaign is doing more for politics and democracy as a whole in this country than anything else, so I throw my support his way.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:14 pmMy views on Ron Paul is that he’d make an excellent president alongside a majority Democratic congress. Make the Senate a filibuster-proof majority, the house just shy of a veto-proof majority, and put Ron Paul in the #1 slot.
But then again, I’m not a Democratic ideolog, so that’s why I advocate putting Paul into the top position in the Executive.
What this country needs is the following:
1) A serious step back from the brink of Executive Dictatorship.
2) An end to the war in Iraq.
3) Increased taxes to pay for the war.
4) Decreased spending to also pay for the war.
5) More government oversight and regulation over businesses to ensure that they cover their own asses.
The last 7 years of Bush have seriously damaged our country’s economy and way of life. This country should have a major dose of humble pie after our borrow and spend ways (from the top down!) and our ‘let’s impose Freedom and Democracy across the world’ schtick while destroying that same Freedom and Democracy at home. It won’t be easy, and I hate to tell you folks, but it won’t magically get better with even Kucinich at the helm in 09.
I don’t think this country can pull itself up, thanks to the lily-livered Democrats that cave on Republican fear-mongering. That’s why I’m looking heavily at taking my expertise and tax dollars to Canada after I graduate. Mind you, I’d rather stay where I am. Colorado is beautiful, and Denver is a nice place to live, but I’m not above heading to Vancouver if the need presents itself.
And so far, the need has DEFINITELY presented itself. Nominate Hillary, and Paul is the option for the other side, and I will vote for him. The only way I’ll vote for Hillary is if Paul is not the other candidate. Otherwise, it’s pretty much choosing the lesser of two evils.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:33 pmRon Paul represents a return to our founding principals. The Message Is More Important Than The Man !!!
Comment by PainfullyAware — November 6, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
What message, racism? Racism is a founding principle?
“If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.” - Ron Paul
“I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city ( Washington, DC ) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” — Ron Paul
November 6th, 2007 at 3:45 pmWayne, I’ll grant you racism. I’ll also agree it’s an ugly side of things. But let me ask you if you have anything else against him. Does racism counter his desire to bring the troops back as soon as he might take office? What about the nice things about Libertarianism — Not letting some religious nutcase tell you what you can do in your own bedroom or your own body. Many bonus points for supporting evidence including links to quotes of his saying he’s anti-Roe vs. Wade…that seems anti-libertarian there.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:55 pmWayne, I’ll grant you racism. I’ll also agree it’s an ugly side of things.
Comment by Jeremy in Denver — November 6, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
Bit too ugly to get my vote. Plus the issue of the R next to his name.
Thanks but I will vote for whichever Dem gets through the primaries, no matter who they are. Republicans have done enough in the last 7 years to insure they never get my vote.
November 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pmJeremy: “Otherwise, it’s pretty much choosing the lesser of two evils.”
Let’s see, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, I remember, it was in the runup to the 2000 election. It’s part of the reason why we have had 7 years of the Bush nightmare. Your Green Party and their nominee told young Americans that there were no differences between Al Gore and George Bush. How does that reasoned analysis look today?
November 6th, 2007 at 4:49 pmTo Ron Paul supporters:
Orcinus has been covering R.P for a while.
Here are links to some of the best posts.
Meet Ron Paul
If you agree with Ron Paul on more than his antiwar stance, be upfront about it- like David Duke- and StormFront.
Just don’t try to pass yourself off as some sort of pseudo-progressive/libertarian/neo-left creation.
November 6th, 2007 at 4:49 pmOK, not asking you to change your vote. Just be aware that not everyone is so partisan that they’ll vote with you just because you say ‘Republicans are bad’.
I’m looking for good reasons not to vote for Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton. In fact, I’m looking for good reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton. If you’d like to influence us fence sitters, please explain what’s good about Clinton and what’s bad about Paul. Believe me, I’d love to hear more.
November 6th, 2007 at 4:51 pmcritical thinker: “But I am open to suggestions by posters on this thread that prove we are WORSE off with him than any of the other first tier candidates in either party on the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES, of money and war.”
By not regulating corporate capitalism, you insure that monopolies will flourish, economic wars will continue and the economy will be a disaster. Eliminating the EPA insures that some states will despoil the environment and other states next to them will feel the unwanted effects.
November 6th, 2007 at 4:54 pmThe democrats are just as big a pack of liars as are the neocons… you have to be a real spineless sheeple to STILL be swallowing what the dems have been dishing out…
Ron Paul may disagree with you, but as you have said on this site over the years “dissent is not treason”…
Ron Paul is (obviously to those that value such things) a truth teller that comes to his conclusions based on a list of facts which he happily lists for you to explain his case…
This means that #1 Hillary will lie to you… so what will you get? More war? Obama (a player also) will lie to you… so what will you get? More war? Edwards? He seems to have seen the light lately, but can that be trusted? Ron Paul has been like this for 20 years + …
I like tech people. Why? They cant lie to computers because the computer will just crash… so they MUST think logically… provide a list of facts… this is why I like Ron Paul and have donated several hundred to him this year.
We can work with a truth teller and a logic based person. We cant deal with liars… they have proven it to us for decades… they will say ANYTHING to get your vote… then you look like a fool for four years…
November 6th, 2007 at 5:21 pmsnow-moon: “Just don’t try to pass yourself off as some sort of pseudo-progressive/libertarian/neo-left creation.”
My opinion is that people who understand exactly what modern libertarian philosophy is about are almost never honest about it because it’s clear that the vast majority of Americans would never support the agenda.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:21 pmEliminating the EPA insures that some states will despoil the environment and other states next to them will feel the unwanted effects.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
And as Ron Paul says… then you take them to court and make them pay…
November 6th, 2007 at 5:22 pmgibson, is Ron Paul honest with the American people about his libertarian philosophy? Why is he running as a republican?
November 6th, 2007 at 5:23 pmgibson, is Ron Paul honest with the American people about his libertarian philosophy? Why is he running as a republican?
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
He ran as a republican for years before he left shortly to run as a libertarian for president…
His views side both with conservatives and liberals… just like ALL HUMANS he is not black and white.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:25 pmgibson: “And as Ron Paul says… then you take them to court and make them pay…”
Right. And if an unregulated pharmeceutical company sells you something that kills you, you don’t do business with them anymore. If another state ruins the water in your river, you simply take them to court - and that magically cleans up your river.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:25 pmgibson, he refers to himself as a libertarian, but refuses to explain his doctrinaire libertarian views other than those which relate to the war. Does that sound like “honesty” to you?
November 6th, 2007 at 5:26 pmcriticalthinker @ 2:19 pm - perhaps i should appologize…
i did not mean my comment to be a PERSONAL insult…
to VOTE republican, in my opinion, would be stupid…
sorry if it hurts… i stand by that opinion…
November 6th, 2007 at 5:27 pm.
Right. And if an unregulated pharmeceutical company sells you something that kills you, you don’t do business with them anymore. If another state ruins the water in your river, you simply take them to court - and that magically cleans up your river.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
How many companies have to be crushed in court cases before the others use “risk avoidance” to make sure they dont go under also?
Will their share holders LET them do these things if they see company after company being put out of business?
The only reason it doesnt happen today is because of all the liars and backroom deals and “Cheney Energy Task Force” Type BS…
It is time to turn the equation around… it MUST start with TRUTH telling…
November 6th, 2007 at 5:27 pmgibson: “His views side both with conservatives and liberals… just like ALL HUMANS he is not black and white.”
You could make the same observation about Hillary Clinton, but you hate her guts. What’s up with that?
November 6th, 2007 at 5:28 pmgibson, he refers to himself as a libertarian, but refuses to explain his doctrinaire libertarian views other than those which relate to the war. Does that sound like “honesty†to you?
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
Ever hear of YouTube? I must have watched him talk about ALL his views on a hundred different videos stretching back 20 years…
November 6th, 2007 at 5:28 pmYou could make the same observation about Hillary Clinton, but you hate her guts. What’s up with that?
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
She is a NeoCon enabler … that is what is up with that…
November 6th, 2007 at 5:28 pmWhen… is Hillary going to use her position of power to do something like this…?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aewpvcxAwTk
November 6th, 2007 at 5:31 pmgibson: “How many companies have to be crushed in court cases before the others use “risk avoidance†to make sure they dont go under also?”
1. The point of regulation is to try to ensure that people aren’t hurt in the first place. Expecting corporations to do what’s right for society is a fools game. Their only responsibility these days is profit.
2. When is the last time you saw a large corporation “crushed” by a lawsuit?
3. Do you have any idea how hard it is to fight a team of highly paid corporate lawyers in court? They have a natural advantage over citizens and you know it.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:31 pmgibson: “She is a NeoCon enabler … that is what is up with that…”
Do you seriously believe that no regulations on corporations DOESN’T enable Neocons? No regulations on corporate power is what neocons are all about.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:33 pmoh, and another thing,
just as with nader the last time, many of these “unexpected” funds
are surely coming from the republicRATS, for the express purpose of
tearing more dems away…
this 08 is gonna be the worst election fiasco ever…
i am full of dread…
.
and, norah o’ was the first to hear dubby tell the world about
how unconcerned he was with binladen…
just a side thought… a reminder…
November 6th, 2007 at 5:33 pm…
I don’t know about his Youtube videos, but I’ve seen him interviews on television quite a few times. The only times I’ve seen anyone question some of his libertarian views, he’s obfuscated and blurred his answers. That’s what I heard anyway.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:35 pmComment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
I answered all three of your points in the post you responded to (I believe)… the only reason it hasnt happened so far is because our system is corrupt on both sides… we must clean up our own house then we can follow the Constitution again and then companies will not be this corrupted conspirators with government as they are today… remember Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex only a few decades ago… we CAN roll back the gains of the military industrial complex… IF we join together…
November 6th, 2007 at 5:37 pmDo you seriously believe that no regulations on corporations DOESN’T enable Neocons? No regulations on corporate power is what neocons are all about.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
No regulations does NOT mean free reign… it means that “you are not getting ANY special treatment any more…” so they better act right because they will get punished by a federal government that is truelly using the Constitution to enforce what is right and wrong in this country.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:38 pmThat’s what I heard anyway.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
Oh my… go to You Tube… ALL of you… I have fought against neocons on this site with all you people… I have watched you do really quick research to provide links to crush neocon trolls… you can do it again to research Ron Paul… I know I know … the “R” sucks after the past 7 years… but remember the essence of the things you said against those neocon trolls…. the truth trumps “winning” …
November 6th, 2007 at 5:40 pmAnother thing… NOTHING makes you vote straight ticket…
November 6th, 2007 at 5:51 pmFor example today I voted for a Democratic mayor and a couple republicans in other areas… I do NOT plan on voting for a bunch of NeoCon Senators and Representatives just because I am voting for Ron Paul… I will vote for Democrats for Congress (sorry Lugar but I cant keep voting for you)… and a Truth teller … and example setter for the whole nation…
gibson: “remember Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex only a few decades ago… we CAN roll back the gains of the military industrial complex… IF we join together…”
What civil mechanism does libertarian philosophy provide which could possibly “roll back the gains of the military complex?” Libertarian philosophy calls for no regulations on corporations.
gibson: “No regulations does NOT mean free reign… it means that “you are not getting ANY special treatment any more…†”
You’re confusing the subverting of government agencies with the mission of government agencies. The mission of the FDA, for example, is to try to ensure that drugs are safe for people to consume. The subverting of the FDA, for example, is giving certain corporations special treatment. This subversion arises from the political power we have given large corporations.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:59 pmRon Paul believes that the “free market” should be allowed to run our healthcare system. Gibson, do you agree with that? Because only about 12% of the public shares that view.
Paul believes the FDA, EPA, FCC and the Department of Education should be abolished. When given the chance in debates or in interviews, why doesn’t he make that clear to the American people?
November 6th, 2007 at 6:06 pmComment by Rte. Col. Jack Ripper
Look I have been voting democratic for years… I get it what you are saying… what I am saying is that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
If you stopped giving corporations special back room deals and tax breaks and all kinds of other BS then we WOULD roll them back… they would lose their number power over America… their ability to bribe democrats and republicans into giving them our money. Instead military spending would be based of reason … not greed…
You want to prevent bad drugs by force… that way can work… however it violates the Constitution. Instead we should always START with freedom….
i.e. “Drug companies you can make drugs…. but if they hurt people they will sue you and we (the government) will back THEM up not you…”
So just like you and I are not thrown in jail because we MIGHT become drug dealer me th heads… nor should the government force itself on ANYONE up front. Instead it reminds people that it WILL ENFORCE the Constitution so you have your freedom… but with it comes responsibility .. and if you fail on that responsibility you will pay…
And the FDA isnt a miracle worker now is it… it seems to be VERY susceptible to bribery doesn’t it….
November 6th, 2007 at 6:13 pmRon Paul believes abortion is the “taking of a human life.” AND, he believes that the states should have the responsibility to decide whether or not it is legal, not the federal government. In other words, he thinks that states have the right to kill people but the federal govt. does not. Hillary Clinton would be absolutely trashed on these boards if she took a position like that. They’d say something like “she wants to have it both ways,” or “she can’t level with the American people.”
November 6th, 2007 at 6:16 pmGibson, do you agree with that? Because only about 12% of the public shares that view.
Paul believes the FDA, EPA, FCC and the Department of Education should be abolished. When given the chance in debates or in interviews, why doesn’t he make that clear to the American people?
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
In the debates Ron Paul has said over and over what he would get rid of… I have watched every debate on both sides… I know for a FACT that he has spoken outright about these things… Its all on YouTube so there is no use in denying it…
I believe that we MUST undo the deal that Nixon made… you know the one in Michael Moores Sicko….
THEN we should start off with trying to do things the honest way where people and doctors work this stuff out… however… and I HAVE said this over on the dailypaul.com forums …. IF we just cant get it figured out when we HONESTLY try then I would agree to have the government step in as a temporary fix until we can figure out what is wrong with the private system… because peoples health is just too important to let it get solved over the long run…
November 6th, 2007 at 6:16 pmgibson: “If you stopped giving corporations special back room deals and tax breaks and all kinds of other BS then we WOULD roll them back… they would lose their number power over America… their ability to bribe democrats and republicans into giving them our money. Instead military spending would be based of reason … not greed…”
The best way to deal with the political power of corporations would be to publically finance all federal elections. Then, no politician would have to go to a corporation for money. Ron Paul is completely opposed to that idea.
November 6th, 2007 at 6:18 pmRon Paul believes abortion is the “taking of a human life.†AND, he believes that the states should have the responsibility to decide whether or not it is legal, not the federal government. In other words, he thinks that states have the right to kill people but the federal govt. does not. Hillary Clinton would be absolutely trashed on these boards if she took a position like that. They’d say something like “she wants to have it both ways,†or “she can’t level with the American people.â€
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
Abortion IS taking of a human life… it is not like human women have dogs as children…
The issue is whether the government can go through a womans body to protect the baby… doing so violates the womans privacy… well I see this whole issue as coming to and end as being relavent… SCIENCE is providing the cure for this whole issue… soon males and females will be able to have many different ways to make sure they dont get pregnant….
However Ron Paul does make a good logical argument… we ALSO do not violate peoples homes normally (violating a womans body) … HOWEVER if we know that children are in there being abused we save them…. that is a pretty good point though not enough for me entirely…
The #1 thing about Ron Paul and abortion that I agree with is this (and so should all pro-choicers…) HE has NO right forcing his religious views on the rest of us… he does NOT support a Constitutional amendment to force their beliefs on the rest of us…
Ron Paul said the other day on an interview that if a woman uses something to make sure she does not get pregnant soon in the process then no one can prove one way or the other that anything happened at all… and so the government can have no standing…
November 6th, 2007 at 6:22 pmThe best way to deal with the political power of corporations would be to publically finance all federal elections. Then, no politician would have to go to a corporation for money. Ron Paul is completely opposed to that idea.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
That is one way… however as we have shown on Monday it is really nice when the common people come together to donate to show who they really support… however I dont have a real strong stand on this as long as people are not being bribed…
November 6th, 2007 at 6:23 pmre Comment #79
So, are you saying you agree with Ron Paul that we should get rid of the FDA, EPA, FCC and the Dept. of Education? How about public libraries? Do you agree with Paul that the government has no business providing literature to citizens who can’t afford their own libraries?
And, as far as healthcare is concerned, he has made it clear that he favors “free market solutions.” Since some aspects of healthcare are not profitable, how do you think the “free market” is going to deal with this?
November 6th, 2007 at 6:24 pmgibson: “Abortion IS taking of a human life..”
That’s your opinion. It’s not fact. I don’t agree.
November 6th, 2007 at 6:25 pmgibson: “it is really nice when the common people come together to donate to show who they really support…”
Yes, of course that’s “nice.” So what. The point is that corporations have a lot more to donate than citizens. There’s more profit in it for them. A million dollars here and there gets them hundreds of millions in return. Citizens, in my opinion, are at a profound disadvantage.
November 6th, 2007 at 6:32 pmf.y.i. - some good articles about paul here:
http://www.salon.com/index.html
glenn greenwald on rachel maddow tipped me off…
November 6th, 2007 at 7:40 pm.
Where money comes from…
http://video.google.com/ videoplay?docid=8048620586643337778&q=where+money+comes+from&total=8966&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6
November 6th, 2007 at 8:39 pmgibson: “Abortion IS taking of a human life..â€
That’s your opinion. It’s not fact. I don’t agree.
Its a matter of science. Opinion plays no part. What is in question is where is the boundary between the rights of the mother and the baby… we all know that there is cellular life and then larger and larger… until a baby pops out…it is not in question.
November 6th, 2007 at 8:41 pmSo, are you saying you agree with Ron Paul that we should get rid of the FDA, EPA, FCC and the Dept. of Education? How about public libraries? Do you agree with Paul that the government has no business providing literature to citizens who can’t afford their own libraries?
And, as far as healthcare is concerned, he has made it clear that he favors “free market solutions.†Since some aspects of healthcare are not profitable, how do you think the “free market†is going to deal with this?
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
I think that in this age of the Internet we should look at automating as much of government as possible and build up individuals working as teams at a state and local level …just like how all the Ron Paul people joined together and organized… no one offered this to us… we used the power of the Internet to do great things… just like how the W3C can be a big important part of the Internet and yet it is not government…
As far as health care goes… have you seen Sicko? The reason its sucks now is NOT because businesses are involved… it is because of ONCE AGAIN back room deals where put together for buddies so they get rich the more they deny us health care… doctors in the past would not stand for this… but once the entire system was taken over doctors had no choice but to play by the new rules…
It is profitable… it is a cheated system however so it goes beyond being profitable to being a “growth center” on wall street… like oil….
November 6th, 2007 at 8:47 pmThe Ron Paul Presidency offers some important positive aspects. Can anyone deny that we need major change in our foreign and fiscal policies? You think Hillary or Obama will really offer change? Does anyone really want one party government again?
I could see Paul as being able to work with a Democratic Congress in a thoughtful non-confrontational manner, yet he will not be a corporate lapdog as will Hillary and many other Ds and Rs. Together Congress and Paul would offer checks and balances for the people.
Ron Paul won’t buy into the current absurd Fed and administration NAFTA CAFTA,etc trade policies that have destroyed the dollar. He also won’t buy the Democratic policies on amnesty for illegals that are all about getting more voters for the Democratic Party. Illegal immigration along with free trade has destroyed the middle class of our country.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:38 pmLibertarian: “I repeat - I have yet to hear one reason I should not vote for Ron Paul”
The last thing this society needs is to have even less regulation of corporate capitalism and more political power for corporations. That’s reason enough for any sane person. Unbridled capitalism always leads to economic chaos. Robber baron capitalism, the roaring twenties or the last 27 years. Take your pick. These periods have always resulted in misery for the general population. Unregulated capitalism doesn’t work. Even Adam Smith knew that. If you don’t believe me, take another look at “Wealth of Nations.”
November 6th, 2007 at 10:48 pmBush style “free trade” is better known as cronyism Jack Ripper…. business has been part of humanity for a long time… business is not the problem… corruption is the problem…
November 6th, 2007 at 10:56 pm“Why is Paul a Republican, still?
Does he support Republicanism?
Does the Party’s doctrine of hate and intolerance, mixed with corrupt lawlessness, support him?”
Because he is not a Democrat and because this is a corrupt 2-party system where 3rd parties stand no chance. If Ron Paul gets the nomination it will be the first step in killing this corrupt system. If he is elected president that will be the only thing to kill the Neo-Con movement in America. If Hillary wins it will only fuel the fire for the Neo-Cons and they will be back with more fire and stronger than ever in 2012. If you want to save America and kill the Neo-Cons you HAVE to support Ron Paul, whether you agree with his economic policies or not. Those are debatable and he can’t snap his fingers and institute them. He can change foreign policy immediately, and will, which is something none of the Democratic frontrunners will do.
And don’t you dare associate Ron Paul with the closet-Fascists he shares the stage with. “Republican” is a just a word on a piece of paper. He shares almost no beliefs with those people, listen to what he says and stop being so knee-jerk judgmental based on the party he is riding. That sounds like what NeoCons do. ;)
November 7th, 2007 at 1:09 amJust a thought, if Hillary is a “lock” for the nomination, perhaps some registered Democrats should vote for Dr. Paul in the primaries. It would be best to have 2 anti-war candidates running for President would it not? No matter what you think about current “popular opinion” there’s still about a 50% chance that a Giuliani or Romney could be elected next November. That’s not something I’m willing to risk.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:12 amwatch how the entire system works against Ron Paul. The entire malign and corrupt system will try to move against this candidate, and the best method is for the media to downplay his significance. all major candidates on both sides of the fence would like to see him disappear.
BTW he is a true republican. the current lot are not republicans. they are monarchists. he may be imperfect, but he seems a damn sight more honest that any other ticket.
he also advocates reform of the federal reserve, which is a death sentence in executive politics in the USA.
you tube “ron paul federal reserve”
November 7th, 2007 at 8:35 amThese are the TWO MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES facing the US today and Ron Paul is the only candidate on the RIGHT side of both of him no matter how much I dislike his stand on other less important issues where the Congress can prevent him from implementing.
critical thinker. i dropped my 2 cents in and then read the history of comments.
i am 100% in agreement with you. he is the only candidate who is steadfast on these major issues. the others are personal opinion and can be tackled by the other branches of government. He is anti-imperial, which is a core tenet of true republicanism. people forget a republican should be a supporter/defender of a republic not monarchistic fealty.
btw, there is another rather disturbing way to put this. independance from britian was never fully implemented or maybe in essence rolled back. the monetary system is not in the full control of the US federal government system. It is though under the control of British and European “private/state/central” banking institutions. They dont care what laws are enacted, as they control the money.
Any president who threatened this system died at the hands of “lone gunmen”. odd huh !
Check this out
November 7th, 2007 at 9:17 amI repeat - I have yet to hear one reason I should not vote for Ron Paul and vote for Hillary, Obama, or Edwards, when they are for ongoing war which is the ONE thing that the executive branch has the power to fix without needing the legislative branch!
Comment by criticalthinker — November 6, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
then vote for a real progressive - kucinich or gravel!
November 7th, 2007 at 10:30 amTry prioritizing a little bit. Do you want a free country where we can debate these issues or will you bicker endlessly over your petty issues while America slips into total despotism — where YOU and I have NO say?
Vote for a Constitutionalist. Vote for Ron Paul!
November 7th, 2007 at 1:59 pmIt doesn’t matter what my political party is,. I, as an American must make a decision based on what issues are most important to my country. If there is a candidate who is able to look beyond party barriers, than so should we. We need a Constitutionalist in office in order to clean up the mess that has been created. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist.
And a side note: It’s people like Ron Paul that enable us to discuss these issues in a free and open forum. He is against Internet regulation, an important issue in times like these when our civil liberties are heavily at stake.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:16 pm