here is a topic for boo.

why does Ron Paul dislike the current administration. are you pro Paul or anti-Paul?

debate

ok...that one worked

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.


this is of course from his web page

Third time is the charm

I am not sure what the hidden agenda of this topic is.

However, I can say that I mostly agree with the libertarian philosophy, and regarding Ron Paul, I only have a few disagreements with him on issues.

you assume there is a hidden agenda??? wow...ummm ok. i posted this because of a request to debate Ron Paul in another thread

I am pro-Paul.

Funny thing about him is the fact that he was just as against McCain, and the Bush administration as he is the Obama administration. It's Not the name he single's out, put the political philosophies and shadey legislation practices that he picks on.

To put it simply, Dr. Paul is a constitutionalist, who believes small government, fiscal responsibility, he wants the states to have more responsibility, and he believes firmly in civil liberties.

The current administration is almost axactly like the old one on every matter. They believe the constitution can and should be overridden at times (overriding civil liberties), they believe in big government with lots of controls and regulations,and they believe in lessening the state's powers and lots of rediculous spending.

Thats this administration, not necessarily Obama himself.

from what I have read about him...i don't see anything bad

That is because you're honest.

I actually asked for this debate in another topic where it was a bit off topic and hoped that it would be made into a seperate topic.

Probably didn't need the question as to pro Ron Paul or not, now this thread will fill up with for and against instead of debate..

I would prefer to people with some actual knowledge of both Paul's stance and Obama's to debate why Paul would have done better, and what is particular beef is with the Obama admin. Is there anything that Paul accepts with this admin...

I am way to tired tonight to keep up so I hope to wake up to some interesting discussion. And hopefull few one liners. Thanks Rose..

Well, he's probably the least corrupt politician i've heard of. He's supposedly known as "Dr. No" in congress because he doesn't accept payments from corporations.

^*&^&*$^%(&$)(*^_*)%^#*&%^*#@^

K, as i said before, he doesn't have a particular beef with Obama.

When McCain and Obama were running he refused to endorse McCain, saying he doesn't support his wanting to be the "World Police" and continue these wars.

He mentioned he liked Obama's original plan to pull out of Iraq.

Unfortunately he doesn't like the idea of leaving 50,000 troops there.

I like Paul, but he doesn't articulate his positions very well.

If he was a better speaker, he would have garnered many more votes than he did.

We can not discuss what would happen if things get done the way Ron Paul proposes things to be done, without first, making an effort of understanding the subject of money.

What people do when discussing Ron Paul, is they argue for or against a diagnosis and proposed treatment of a serious condition, without knowing anything about it, and taking a doctor (Ron Paul) to be a priori equal to a snake oil salesman (Obama). (No pun intended here, I know Ron Paul is actually a doctor, as well).

Another thing you have to tak into consideration is that Ron Paul is against the whole system.

Meaning. He thinks it's stupid that all money, in order to be put into circulation (that's every printed dollar), must be borrowed. Which Basically means that we can only make payments on our national debt, with more debt. This causes our bubbles that later burst, and our inflation which makes gas, food, energy, healthcare, etc. prices skyrocket.

If you bypass the Federal Reserve Bank, you can actually pay off our national debt. This would eventually make it so noone has to pay income tax, and we could live as we do now.

But, if we stopped acting as the world police, and focused on defense rather than offense, we could cut taxes in half again.

Hes the only one that brings up monetary theory, fractional reserve banking, and inflation. I think he's worth listening to.

As i mentioned before, he doesn't attack people. He attacks a screwed up system.

He also doesn't give speeches. He wants to give lessons. That's what makes him different. If he were a better speaker he may have gotten more votes, but it would change the nature of what he says.

Actually I agree with you on that, I listened to a couple of his speeches and almost feel asleep. No offense to those that like him, but too bad he didn't have Obama's flare for speeches. I did like what I heard before I dropped out. LOL

Actually I wanted to hear what Fanta and Drivin where engaged in in the other topic but here instead of Fanta and Drivin are up to it.

I will check back in the morning to see what was said.