[nky]

Don't get caught up in his "new" age appeal. If you're serious about Ron Paul look into who the man is. What does he stand for? Do you like his foreign policy? Read some of his newsletters from the 1980's early 1990's

[nky]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics...e-1.995876

[Hoot Gibson]

I don't believe that Ron Paul has any chance of either getting the GOP nomination or of becoming president. But I also do not believe that he is a racist or a homophobe. The NY Daiy News article alleges that Paul stormed out of a CNN interview but video footage of that interview indicates that was not the case. By advocating a much smaller government with a much smaller safety net/hammock, liberals have begun their predictable attempts to portray Dr. Paul as a racist. Libertarian policies are not racist and it will take more than a few quotes from old newsletters to convince me that Ron Paul is a racist.

[RunItUpTheGut]

His personal views are not my business.
I could care less if hes wants to be a member of the KKK and loves seeing hate crimes against gays.(Even though all of the things said about him are views exxagerated by liberal media and not true)

I just want someone who can run the country right and get us out of this hole.

[Hoot Gibson]

His personal views are not my business.
I could care less if hes wants to be a member of the KKK and loves seeing hate crimes against gays.(Even though all of the things said about him are views exxagerated by liberal media and not true)

I just want someone who can run the country right and get us out of this hole.

Ron Paul's foreign policy would be a disaster and if he managed to win the nomination, he would lose an election that should end in a Republican landslide.

The problem with Ron Paul's foreign policy positions is that he assumes that this country's current foreign policy creates the major security threats against us. Our mere existence antagonizes groups like al Qaeda. Our popular culture, our system of government, our religious traditions - everything that we take for granted fuels Muslim religious fanatics' hatred of our nation. Dr. Paul believes that if we just mind our own business, the threat of radical Islam will just disappear. Even the Muslim-friendly Barack Hussein Obama has come to realize that the extreme Pollyanna approach is not an effective national security strategy.

I like most of Dr. Paul's positions but I just do not believe that he is electable. His supporters are very enthusiastic but there are many, many Republicans who would just stay home rather than vote for a libertarian isolationist in 2012 and the poor turn out would kill his election chances. That being said, I will enthusiastically support Ron Paul if he wins the nomination but I don't see it happening and I hope that it doesn't.

[nky]

His personal views are not my business.
I could care less if hes wants to be a member of the KKK and loves seeing hate crimes against gays.(Even though all of the things said about him are views exaggerated by liberal media and not true)

I just want someone who can run the country right and get us out of this hole.

Those "newsletters" he put out we done either by him or approved by him. It's not the liberal media making a mountain out of a mole hill. IN fact the liberal media has been kind to Mr. Paul.

#!

His foreign policy is scary at best. A return to isolationism would be dangerous

[SKINNYPIG]

Ron Paul's foreign policy would be a disaster and if he managed to win the nomination, he would lose an election that should end in a Republican landslide.

The problem with Ron Paul's foreign policy positions is that he assumes that this country's current foreign policy creates the major security threats against us. Our mere existence antagonizes groups like al Qaeda. Our popular culture, our system of government, our religious traditions - everything that we take for granted fuels Muslim religious fanatics' hatred of our nation. Dr. Paul believes that if we just mind our own business, the threat of radical Islam will just disappear. Even the Muslim-friendly Barack Hussein Obama has come to realize that the extreme Pollyanna approach is not an effective national security strategy.

I like most of Dr. Paul's positions but I just do not believe that he is electable. His supporters are very enthusiastic but there are many, many Republicans who would just stay home rather than vote for a libertarian isolationist in 2012 and the poor turn out would kill his election chances. That being said, I will enthusiastically support Ron Paul if he wins the nomination but I don't see it happening and I hope that it doesn't.

I have researched Paul's foreign policy, not in depth, but what he has said lately. To me his view seems to be that we should expect our allies to defend themselves as much as possible. We fund Isreal with billions of dollars a year (that's fine with me) but at the same time we stand over them telling them what they can and cannot do. Isreal could solve their problems with Iran on their own without our nose stuck in it. I firmly believe that if Isreal needed our help, Dr. Paul would give it. As he would with any viable ally. He just doesn't believe we need to stand over top of every one of them while pointing fingers.

I have no idea where every single skirmish we are in around the world is. I don't know where every foreign base is. My own intuition tells me that many of them are not warranted. I also know that at this time, we can't afford them all.

As Commander in Chief, do I think Paul brings ALL the troops home? No. I think he has enough sense to strategically place them to where they protect our own interests and not stuck in places that are nothing more than money pits.

I believe it doesn't matter what we do when it comes to radical Muslims around the world, they will always hate us and want to attack us in some way. If Paul thinks otherwise, he's not thinking.

The big question is, do we have to be postured all over the world in every bodies back yard to protect Americans and our allies? With today's technology and our superior fighting force, maybe not.

The idea of spreading our military thick at home and more thin around the world, while building our economy back, at a time when we are borrowing money for every gallon of fuel and every bullet fired, is beginning to make a little more sense to me. Sometimes you've got to regroup, beef up and get stronger. This may be the time.

This doesn't mean I support Ron Paul and think that his policies are what we need. It simply means he's got me thinking.

[Hoot Gibson]

I have researched Paul's foreign policy, not in depth, but what he has said lately. To me his view seems to be that we should expect our allies to defend themselves as much as possible. We fund Isreal with billions of dollars a year (that's fine with me) but at the same time we stand over them telling them what they can and cannot do. Isreal could solve their problems with Iran on their own without our nose stuck in it. I firmly believe that if Isreal needed our help, Dr. Paul would give it. As he would with any viable ally. He just doesn't believe we need to stand over top of every one of them while pointing fingers.

I have no idea where every single skirmish we are in around the world is. I don't know where every foreign base is. My own intuition tells me that many of them are not warranted. I also know that at this time, we can't afford them all.

As Commander in Chief, do I think Paul brings ALL the troops home? No. I think he has enough sense to strategically place them to where they protect our own interests and not stuck in places that are nothing more than money pits.

I believe it doesn't matter what we do when it comes to radical Muslims around the world, they will always hate us and want to attack us in some way. If Paul thinks otherwise, he's not thinking.

The big question is, do we have to be postured all over the world in every bodies back yard to protect Americans and our allies? With today's technology and our superior fighting force, maybe not.

The idea of spreading our military thick at home and more thin around the world, while building our economy back, at a time when we are borrowing money for every gallon of fuel and every bullet fired, is beginning to make a little more sense to me. Sometimes you've got to regroup, beef up and get stronger. This may be the time.

This doesn't mean I support Ron Paul and think that his policies are what we need. It simply means he's got me thinking.

Dr. Paul has put forward many good ideas and I do not fault anybody for considering him as a serious candidate. In fact, the failure of John McCain to treat Paul with any respect during the 2008 GOP debates made it much more difficult for me to hold my nose and vote for him. I have zero respect for McCain and his sneering and laughing at Ron Paul during the debates is one of the main reasons.

[SKINNYPIG]

Dr. Paul has put forward many good ideas and I do not fault anybody for considering him as a serious candidate. In fact, the failure of John McCain to treat Paul with any respect during the 2008 GOP debates made it much more difficult for me to hold my nose and vote for him. I have zero respect for McCain and his sneering and laughing at Ron Paul during the debates is one of the main reasons.

With all due respect to McCain, he has been a big disappointment?

[Hoot Gibson]

With all due respect to McCain, he has been a big disappointment?

Disappointment is probably the wrong word to describe my opinion of John McCain. My expectations were so low, McCain could not have disappointed me. McCain is a RINO who graduated near the bottom of his class at Annapolis, got away with some stuff because his father was a high ranking admiral, and never missed an opportunity to slam some fellow Republican on national TV.

I respect the fact that he served in Viet Nam and endured some very harsh treatment at the hands of the North Vietnamese, but since McCain entered politics, he has always behaved like a military brat who never reached adulthood, IMO. McCain is neither a smart nor an honest man. This country would have been better off if McCain's political career had ended with his involvement in the Keating 5 scandal. Yet, he was the lesser of two evils in 2008.

[TheRealVille]

I've just got one question. Did Paul write the paper, or not? He says yes one day(95), and no a later day (11).

FTR, I don't think Paul is a racist. The words were taken out of context.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Is there any person left in this country tht could actually run this country right and dig us out of this hole without us finding out someones a racist, texting pics of there wieners, or haassing secretaries?
It seems like this society that we live in today will alwayss find something wrong wth anybody because unless you live in a hole, you have a past.

[vundy33]

Ron Paul is radical, WAY to radical to lead our country. I really can't believe the people behind him can't see through his ridiculous claims and promises. He believes we should go back to isolationism, especially militarily, but the United States can't do that in this day and age, we just can't. I would love it, but we can't.

Other things, like wanting to share everything with the American people, is just stupid and implausible. There's a reason American's don't get told state secrets.

I get the feeling he wants to kind of close the gap between the real 1%, the U.S. military, and the rest of the country. The disconnect is the biggest it's EVER been because these wars have only touched a small percentage of Americans. I feel more out of place here at home than I do in Afghanistan, and it kills me, but that's just how it is and the majority of us feel that way. The gap won't get any closer unless we're involved in a huge war that touches all of us, and that's not going to happen anytime soon.

In my opinion, and alot of others, he's way to radical for us. He will not win the Republican nomination, and if he did, Pres Obama would destroy him.

[nky]

I've just got one question. Did Paul write the paper, or not? He says yes one day(95), and no a later day (11).

FTR, I don't think Paul is a racist. The words were taken out of context.

Those "newsletters" he put out we done either by him or approved by him. It's not the liberal media making a mountain out of a mole hill. IN fact the liberal media has been kind to Mr. Paul.

#!

His foreign policy is scary at best. A return to isolationism would be dangerous

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...?hpt=hp_t1
In early book, Rep. Ron Paul criticized AIDS patients, minority rights and sexual harassment victims

But one of Paul's own books, published solely under his name, contains several passages that could be problematic as he attempts to push his libertarian message into the political mainstream.
In his 1987 manifesto "Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years," Paul wrote that AIDS patients were victims of their own lifestyle, questioned the rights of minorities and argued that people who are sexually harassed at work should quit their jobs.
The slim, 157-page volume was published ahead of Paul's 1988 Libertarian Party presidential bid and touches on many of the themes he continues to hammer on the stump.

[nky]

The deeper it goes I don't think his words were taken out of context nor written by someone else

[TheRealVille]

The deeper it goes I don't think his words were taken out of context nor written by someone else

In one video I watched, he says he wrote the paper. In another video I watched, he says he didn't.

[RunItUpTheGut]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...?hpt=hp_t1
In early book, Rep. Ron Paul criticized AIDS patients, minority rights and sexual harassment victims

But one of Paul's own books, published solely under his name, contains several passages that could be problematic as he attempts to push his libertarian message into the political mainstream.
In his 1987 manifesto "Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years," Paul wrote that AIDS patients were victims of their own lifestyle, questioned the rights of minorities and argued that people who are sexually harassed at work should quit their jobs.
The slim, 157-page volume was published ahead of Paul's 1988 Libertarian Party presidential bid and touches on many of the themes he continues to hammer on the stump.

To be honest and with all due respect to Aids patients, unless you you were born with AIDS, it was YOUR decisions that led to it. Its the reason a lot of AIDS patients get out and talk to the young public about the risk and the bad choices they made that led to that. Its the same way with drug addicts. Drug addiction IMO is not a disease as Dr. Drew and other would like for us to believe. Unless someone forces a needle in your arm or forces you to snort something, you made that choice. Diseases should be something you have no control over, Cancer, Illness, ETC.
Does it mean we shouldnt help these people? NO. But it doesnt mean others should be held liable for the mistakes of someone else.

Paul does seem a bit extreme in a lot of his words, but i honestly thing its his personality of saying things the way he does. I like Paul, and a lot of what he has to say and will support him to the fullest if he wins the nomination, but i agree with Hoot that its very unlikely that he'll win the election.
But then again, Romney and Gingrich are looking more unatractive to me every time i listen to them. BUT, IMO there the only two that stand a real chance against Obama, which IMO is not saying good things for our republican party right now.

[vundy33]

^^^lol...what about the questioning the rights of minorities and arguing that people who are sexually harassed at work should quit their jobs?

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
I dont see where i mentioned either one of those things in my post.
You clearly brought them up.

[vundy33]

You seem like you're for Ron Paul, so I'm just asking you about them. I don't know that much about him really besides what I've said in my previous posts, so I really have no idea if he really looks down on minorities or if he said any of the things mentioned in the linked articles.

Do you have any idea about it? There's so many half-truths and lies out there, just gotta watch what ya believe. That's why I'm skeptical of what anyone in the lime-light supposedly says, and I try to see them say it themselves.

[Hoot Gibson]

You seem like you're for Ron Paul, so I'm just asking you about them. I don't know that much about him really besides what I've said in my previous posts, so I really have no idea if he really looks down on minorities or if he said any of the things mentioned in the linked articles.

Do you have any idea about it? There's so many half-truths and lies out there, just gotta watch what ya believe. That's why I'm skeptical of what anyone in the lime-light supposedly says, and I try to see them say it themselves.

I have been following national politics closely for quite a few years and I have never heard him say anything that I would remotely consider racist or bigoted. Call me crazy, but I believe him when he says that somebody else wrote some of the things that suddenly have become an issue in this campaign. Paul was working as a doctor during the period in question and it is easy for me to believe that at time he was too busy to properly monitor what was written in his own newsletter. He should have suspended his newsletter/video operations if he was too busy to manage them responsibly.

Ron Paul opposes what has been described as the soft bigotry of low expectations and discrimination of all kinds. That includes hate crime laws, affirmative action, and minority set aside contracts for government contracts. All libertarians do. I agree with him on those positions and every other domestic position that I can think of. The reason that I do not support Paul over any of the other Republican candidates is that his isolationist, Pollyanna view of the world and national security is absolutely nuts.

Another criticism of Ron Paul that I believe is unfair and politically motivated is Karl Rove's attack on him as being politically to the left of Barack Obama. Ron Paul and true libertarians are very conservative and Rove knows that to be the case. National defense is not a liberal/conservative issue. Some of the biggest war hawks wartime presidents in our history have been liberals (including Kennedy, Johnson, and Truman).

Since going to work for Fox, Karl Rove has shown himself to be a party hack that puts party over principle consistently. His attacks on conservatives like Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachman, and Rick Perry have proven that he is no friend of conservatives. There are valid criticisms to be made of many Republican politicians, including Paul, but describing Ron Paul as a far left wing liberal is as dishonest as it is crazy.

Rove is a big tent Republican who is far more interested in quantity than quality when it comes to getting Republicans elected. As political commentators, Dick Morris and even James Carville have more credibility than Rove, IMO. Ron Paul is not electable but that is no reason to lie about his record.

[vundy33]

^^^Karl Rove is a piece of shit.

And yeah, of course when Ron Paul starts doing better in Iowa, a magic interview where he's quoted saying "racist" remarks will come out, lol...it's ridiculous.

His views on Isolationism and foreign policy is my biggest disagreement with him. It's just not plausible.