The Vifl

13 Responses to “ron paul is the man”

1. 1 drew vedenhaupt Oct 22nd, 2007 at 8:33 am

   I don’t know anything about politics except that Rudy Giuliani doesn’t look like a president and Mitt Romney does.

   And all those #@%$^* Liberals scare the #@$%^ out of me…

2. 2 Ryan Gelinas Oct 22nd, 2007 at 9:09 am

   He looks good. I also like fred thompson alot. I do have to say that this election may be one of the most depressing I’ve seen in a while, but I don’t expect much from any candidate. If they were to be hardened in values then they don’t make the nomination. I think I’d just like to have a really intelligent guy in office not just a conservative or a liberal.

3. 3 jon shell Oct 22nd, 2007 at 11:42 am

   I’m impressed, I’ll defintely make it a point to look more into him.

4. 4 leo kempf Oct 22nd, 2007 at 12:13 pm

   most of you probably have never heard of him because the national media hasn’t been covering him much - even though he has lots of support and has been raising as much money as the “real candidates”.

   I’m mostly impressed by the fact that this guy actually has something to say….when i watch every other candidate on both sides - it’s all rhetoric…part of the “political game” to get votes…say what you’re supposed to and don’t step on any toes..

   i’ve actually donated to this guy’s campaign fund…which is definitely a first for me…this guy stands for real change - smaller government, much lower taxes, personal freedom, no policing the world…he’s a CLASSIC conservative republican. there are TONS of videos of him on youtube: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/video-network/

   seriously check this dude out…

5. 5 James Wright Oct 23rd, 2007 at 6:34 am

   I’ve been planning on voting for him the entire time.
   That said…he is a little bit crazy.
   Also, he’s not really a Republican. He’s a Libertarian that knows he won’t get a real chance if he doesn’t run as a Republican.

   here is some info about him worth reading though:
   http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/ron-paul-is-not-a-great-candidate-were-just-so-in-love-with-him-that-were-not-paying-attention

   also, for reference sake, pretty much every opinion he has is all about getting the government out of our daily lives more. If he has the choice between the government controlling something, or the private sector doing it, he’ll go with the private sector. One simple example is that he believes that the Internet should not be regulated by the government (which I believe as well)…however the downside to this is that he also believes that if your internet provider wants to charge you extra for using Google over Yahoo…they can do it.

   He’s also probably the WORST candidate for foreign relations…which is quite a bad thing considering where America is in the eyes of the rest of the word…

   I still plan on voting for him though as I believe his good views outweigh his bad views.

   Or maybe he’ll just bring about the apocalypse faster.

6. 6 James Wright Oct 23rd, 2007 at 6:36 am

   Another negative example of his views on government vs. private sector is with things like the FDA. He doesn’t believe it is the governments responsibility to make sure that food companies follow rules like “don’t use rat meat” and that they tell us the truth about the healthiness of their foods.

   so like I said, it’s good that he wants the government out of our lives…but it also has its downsides.

7. 7 leo kempf Oct 23rd, 2007 at 2:06 pm

   jimmah, you say that he’s probably the WORST candidate on foreign policy - while his non-interventionalist/traditional stance is what most of his supporters like about him.

   also, as he says, he’s running on the same foreign policy that the current bush won on - humble foreign policy, no nation building, no policing the world…

   i agree that most of his stuff is really radical, and like he says - to get back to where we should be would take a change in thinking about the role of government - so, what better platform to express the need for this change than the whitehouse. It’s gotta start somewhere.

   basically, he believes that the constitution gives the federal government certain/few duties and that it shouldn’t grow into the force that controls people from afar…so, shrink it back to its constitutional role and the states will govern at a more local level as they were meant to.

8. 8 Ryan Gelinas Oct 24th, 2007 at 2:04 pm

   In all honesty letting more of the private sector controll some of the gov’t’s current duties is retarded. If you look at the federal reserve system you’ll understand why I say this. The federal reserve has sunk this country into more and more debt. Our dollar in turn becomes more inflated to I’ve got to work harder to buy something with a part in it from japan europe or china because there money is not governed by private banks that loan money to the gov’t. It’s economic suicide. If you remember why we have more gov’t now, civil war much. We all had state gov’t taking care of it’s citizens then there was state’s rights then there was a war. our gov’t is an attempt to unify the states so we can all use the same money and driver’s licence etc. Now I’m not saying that maybe it has gone a bit overboard, but like I said the staples of any society: money health military etc. could not be handled effectively by the private sector.

9. 9 leo kempf Oct 24th, 2007 at 3:45 pm

   yeah, ron paul wants to abolish the federal reserve system before the economy blows up. the dollar is worth 4 cents today compared to when the federal reserve was given control in 1914. It’s neither federal, nor a reserve. it’s private and bankrupt.

   as far as what jimmah was saying about the private sector - I’ve heard paul talk about how the airlines should be responsible for their own security, just as an armored car company is responsible for its cargo. It’s privately owned, therefore the company actually cares about what happens to it…interesting concept. That’s all I’ve heard about private sector stuff.

   Certainly the role of the federal government is invaluable, but it’s got to be goverened by the constitution or we will soon be the NAU and be paying with the amero.

10. 10 James Wright Oct 25th, 2007 at 6:16 am

    the problem is that, like pretty much everything in life, we need to find a middle ground…but people who are in power or people who want power realize that the majority of those who would vote for them are not smart enough to realize that we need a middle ground, so they go for the extremes.

    that said, I really do plan on voting for Ron Paul…but I also believe he’s not going to be that good for the future “happiness” of this country. However, I think this country needs to go through some “unhappiness” right now. I really think that his plans for privatizing alot of things could crush this country…but maybe we need that.
    for example, the airlines…they are already pretty much all in horrible money situations…it is barely profitable to run an airline (which is why we are still flying around in jets that are as old as our parents) and to put the burden of having to do their own security on them would probably cause the airline industry to collapse…but I still think that’s what we should do…even though the airline industry collapsing could cause a HUGE portion of our economy to fold…

11. 11 Ryan Gelinas Oct 26th, 2007 at 9:51 am

    what’s the reasoning for having the airline industry colapse again? I didn’t get what you ment by that. You say we should go through unhappiness. Why? To what end do we gain by this unhappiness? So we can’t fly anywhere unless we are super rich and all the states stop hanging out and we turn into state’s rights again or something. clarify. why would you vote for ron paul. he says he’ll get rid of the irs. what are the potential implacations of that. he says we’ll stop policing the world. what will that do to foreign relations up down or will we be kicked out of the UN because 99% of thier “army” is american troops. Just some food for thought I”m not disagreeing with you by any means I just think that there should be some reasons behind what candidate’s say. I could come out there and say well I’m gonna lower taxes and increase gov’t spending to boost the economy and I”m gonna balance the budget, but if there’s no how and when then it’s just political rhetoric. right? Alot of ppl voted for bush expecting abortion law to drastically change. I don’t think it changed any more than if a liberal were in office at the time. Basically bill clinton is smart enough to veto or let a bill through on consent forms for 14 yr old mothers to kill thier child. So what did the conservatives gain by having a christian president in office? Not much. A war and consent forms for abortions? Well I don’t think that many ppl realize how little the president can haul off and do by himself. Why don’t we discuss who we want for senate or HOR? They can do more than the president. Technically right. President can’t veto if both houses agree over 3/4. The houses vote on the supreme court justices. So really the 2 houses check and balance the whole thing. So why do we care who is in office? The funny thing about all of it is that we do nothing in our personal lives to change politics. we leave it to the ppl we elect. We do have the power to overturn state law etc. So ppl have the power but we let the powerful use it instead. So who am I gonna vote for. I don’t know yet. I’m just gonna vote for sombody who seems intelligent and has some morals. Then I’m gonna do the same for senate and HOR. Then I’m gonna support whomever is in power in 08 because circumstance tends to give a leader merit rather than actions. (a little of this is sarcastic so take most with a grain of salt)

12. 12 leo kempf Oct 26th, 2007 at 12:52 pm

    for the sake of argument - the executive branch has been granting itself far too much power as of late - brought to you by the fear of terror. http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=11272

    supposedly only congress can declare war and they never did - the president simply ordered it…the checks and balances only work if those in power are governed by the constitutional principles that limit them.

    fact is - this country is bankrupt - we simply can’t afford to be the world’s policeman AND fund our own public programs(the millions on welfare, medicaid, etc.). Paul knows this - and he believes we need to basically regroup and do what we need to do to avert disaster from within…sensibly streamline the bureaucracy. He doesn’t want to just pull the plug on everything.

    I think it sounds like what needs to happen…though I’m only a commoner.

13. 13 Ryan Gelinas Oct 26th, 2007 at 2:19 pm

    george washington and thomas jefferson were also commoners.

Leave a Reply