I would like to encourage you eligible voters to look into the Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign. I am not usually one to spam my political views everywhere...but his message is one that I am really passionate about: Preserving personal liberty, and returning to the original glory of the Constitution.

This man is saying all the things that people have been waiting a long, long time for a politician to say. And he sincerely believes what he says...his voting record and political history is impeccable. His followers are increasing rapidly because his message is so refreshing and popular!

I would recommend doing a quick google search...
or view some of his youtube videos (his channel has received almost 2.5 million views...exceedingly more than any other candidate!)

He's probably my favorite Republican candidate (not saying much but still). I like how he made Giuliani look like an idiot in one of the debates.

However, he has absolutely zero chance of getting nominated so contributing ot his campaign would be like throwing money down a sewer.

Obama's my choice right now for '08. Christ I hope he beats Hilary. Her getting nominated would be a travesty.

and so begins the "anyone but Hillary" campaign, lol

Unless Ross Perot runs I won't be voting. Anyone that small and crazy needs to be leading the free world.

Ron Paul getting into office would almost be like a dream come true for me as he is literally the only candidate as of now that I would feel good about voting for. I think he's one of the best Libertarian candidates to come along in a while. Badnarik was great to me but didn't make much of a splash in the mainstream. Paul seems to have a pretty substantial following from the younger generation on the internet and what not. Unfortunately, I don't see him coming close to getting a nomination. I understand why he chose not to run on the Libertarian ticket, but while he's getting a bit more recognition on the Pub ticket than he would otherwise, it still doesn't seem to be helping him too much. Fox has already tried their hardest to paint him as a traitorous anarchist and these idiotic neo-cons seem to have fallen for it.

quote:

Originally posted by DrMagnificent:
However, he has absolutely zero chance of getting nominated so contributing ot his campaign would be like throwing money down a sewer.

Well he has 2.4 million dollars on hand from donations in his relatively short campaign so far. (that is more money than former frontrunner John McCain currently has on hand) I think once his message gets wider distribution in the mainstream media his support base will skyrocket. Just look at what hes done in only a month or so over the internet. I think it would be safe to say that no other candidate has such a loyal and excited fan base.

quote:

Originally posted by braininabox:
I think once his message gets wider distribution in the mainstream media his support base will skyrocket.

Him getting any mainstream media attention is a pretty optimistic assumption, and internet popularity does not translate into the real world at all. He ranked first on some MSNBC.com poll I believe, but I'd say at least 90% or the general populace has never heard of him.

It's going to be Giuliani or Romney since it looks like McCain is falling behind in funds. I really hope Giuliani gets it because Obama will destroy him.

edit: Oh, and he's also into that whole War on Christmas thing that Bill O' Reilly is always wailing about...and he wants to bring back the gold standard.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DrMagnificent,

Well he has an entire year to get his message out.
And unlike any other candidate, once people hear Ron Paul's message they become energized and zealous to spread the message as fast as possible.
He has already completely dominated the internet...now he just has to figure out how to reach all the traditional non-internet/you-tube users.
I wouldn't underestimate the power of his message of freedom.

Just in, Ron Paul supports genocide!

Ron Paul was the only representative to vote against the recent Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act, a law which would essentially prohibit the US government from doing business with companies involved and profiting from the Darfur genocide.

The bill can be read here http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.180:

Good for you Dr. Paul. The government really needs to get off their backs.

And did I mention he is against stem cell research...and separation of church and state...and wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. Seriously I don't understand how anyone with any respect for themselves can still support this guy.

quote:

Originally posted by DrMagnificent:
Just in, Ron Paul supports genocide!

Ron Paul was the only representative to vote against the recent Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act, a law which would essentially prohibit the US government from doing business with companies involved and profiting from the Darfur genocide.
needs to get off their backs.

Well you are misunderstanding him...to say he supports genocide (even in hyperbole) is foolish Dr. Paul is a defender of life and liberty (you mentioned yourself that he wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade)

He in no way supports the tragic events that are happening in Sudan, however he believes his primary responsibility is to the American people...and America cannot be prosperous if we are spending trillions of dollars policing the world and trying to force everyone to do things our way.
For some reason people have gotten it into their head that Ron Paul is radical and controversial. However, he is the most traditional candidate I have ever seen! People have just forgotten what a Constitutionalist looks like.

As far as the seperation of church and states goes, he is not advocating to impose a national religion that people must comply to, he just believes that it was never the intent of our federal government to police and legislate prayer in schools or locations of nativity scenes. These petty decisions were not ever supposed to be managed by the government, and could be much more efficiently handled at a local level rather than by mandates from Washington.

Stopping business with companies involved in the Darfur genocide is hardly policing the world. This is not a political issue. It's simple ethics. The government should not be giving money to companies profiting from genocide. His position is indefensible.

And he's also anti gay marriage, anti gay adoption, anti gays serving in the military if that does anything for you.

Of course libertarians are willing to dismiss all of his insane positions for the sake of the free market that will save us all. I can't wait til I can back out of my driveway onto toll roads.

quote:

Originally posted by DrMagnificent:
Stopping business with companies involved in the Darfur genocide is hardly policing the world. This is not a political issue. It's simple ethics. The government should not be giving money to companies profiting from genocide. His position is indefensible.

Can you give an example where an economic trade blockade worked? I bet you will have a hard time coming up with evidence that supports restrictive sanctions do anything more than give the restricted people someone to blame all of their problems on.

You can find Paul's personal response here:
Response To Weak Accusations

quote:

Originally posted by DrMagnificent:
And he's also anti gay marriage, anti gay adoption, anti gays serving in the military if that does anything for you.

Haha that is quite inaccurate. Beyond inaccurate actually. He explicitly states in several interviews that gays serving in the military are not a problem any more than heterosexuals in the military. If someone is practicing disruptive behavior, either homo or heterosexual, we should deal with it. But there’s no reason to treat the two differently.
He may be personally find gay marriage immoral, but he believes the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to regulate and define that issue.
Im not sure where you are finding your info about Ron Pauls beliefs...

What does any of this have to do with film making?

God, Dr. Magnificent, those are some of the most ridiculously slanted statements I've seen about Ron Paul. Are you a Fox News correspondent by any chance?

Kat333, this is the off topic discussions board.

i'll throw my thoughts into the mix:

What we REALLY need is a president who will push alternative fuel. This would stop a lot of our problems. We need a president that isn't bought and paid for by major companies.

If we were to cut back on fuel here are some of the benefits we would have:

1) We would stop purchasing oil from countries that are ass-backwards and oppress their people (mainly, the middle east). This would, in a round about way, help combat terrorism. Those countries which financially support terrorism would suffer a hard blow if one of their biggest customers stopped purchasing oil from them.

2) A cleaner environment. I don't know about where you all live, but I live in Phoenix, AZ. As you approach the main city there is a big, brown cloud. It is disgusting. Sure a lot of it may be desert dirt, but, I know a lot of it is gasoline. The valley is home to approximately 3 million people (and rising). That's a lot of cars emitting a lot of nasty stuff.

3) The American pocket book. Cars are expensive. REALLY expensive. If we had a President who pushed the car companies for an alternative fuel car the American public would save MILLIONS filling on the tank.

We also need a President who will fight wars for the right reasons. Not because they have a bomb. Not because they have oil. But because what they are doing is wrong. The Iraq war was the right war with the wrong reasons. We should have gone in there because the people were oppressed. The government was murdering its people in obscene ways. THAT'S why we should have been there.
"The People should not fear their government, the government should fear its People."

Now we must all look at our current government, President, Senators, Representatives, all! And remember the words upon our Declaration of Independence

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

EDIT: fixed some typos.

Forsaken,

I don't know if I believe the Iraq war would've necessarily been the right war even if we had gone in for those reasons you mentioned, but other than that, I think you're dead on with you post. Alternative fuel sources, particularly sources available in the United States, would help to solve a whole lot of problems I think.

edit: and by the way, Americans should all be reminded of the words of the DoP more often.

quote:

Originally posted by politicsofecstacy:
Forsaken,

I don't know if I believe the Iraq war would've necessarily been the right war even if we had gone in for those reasons you mentioned,

Well, I have what my best friend calls a little bit of the King Arthur Syndrome. (Read The Once and Future King by T.H. White.)

And yes . . . American's need to be reminded why and how they are here and what principles this country was founded upon.

This is not comparable to the Cuba embargo or other economic sanctions. It is not inteventionist. If you'd actually read the thing the bill authorized state and local governments to divest from contracts and investments that would send money to the Janjaweed militia in Darfur which is currently conducting ethnic cleansing, and would prohibit Congress from awarding contracts to businesses which are funding the genocide in Darfur, which would result in US tax dollars going to fund genocide.

So just for the record, you guys are ok with your tax dollars funding genocide?

why don't you cite the exact portion of the bill that says that?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:2:./temp/~c110TcbsJE:e0:

It's not that long. Just read the damn thing. What I gave was a summary.