Ableton Forum

Freedom, Prosperity and Peace.

Ron Paul is our only hope for 08. He's so real and unscripted. Finally a politician I can trust. Ron Paul cured my apathy.

The abortion issue first worried me, but now I understand his philosophy - if its a complex issue, handle it at the local level. America is so different and varied, we're not ready to have a consensus on the tough issues.. thats another reason why we shouldn't have a north american union, or a one world order for that matter!

as for eugenics (forced sterilization), I am shocked that people want that. It comes down to parenting and the society to teach people right from wrong. Character doesn't come from DNA. (correct me if i'm wrong)

As for Hilary, she's a liar (savings and loan, peter paul). The clintons and the bushes are part of the same group, they can't be trusted. also, has anyone heard hilary speak, its so scripted.. even the clips on her own website!

as for the general public being chimps.. it made me laugh, but I have sympathy. most people work too much and have no time for politics, and most of the information they get is from corrupt sources (tv, newspapers, radio).

Lucky for us we now have the internet on our side and we have already been duped for 8 years, lets not let them fool us again!

Ron Paul 2008!

If he doesn't win anything, I hope at least his message can spread. Americans need to think outside the box. if the system isn't working, find out why.. don't sit there and keep letting it happen. Even if people say he doesn't have a chance, or he won't win.. don't underestimate the power of the people. if we want change we can create it!

links:
this video (1min) really gets his point across quicky http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_gKOCb4QBA

good website to introduce people (video clips)- http://www.ronpaulintro.com

There's a big push for 10million donated in one day for him (next week, november 5th), check out http://www.thisnovember5th.com

Am I the only one who gets the feeling that Ron Paul "just watched the daily show"?

I've noticed that the talking points he uses (as does Mike Gravel), oddly sound like what a viewer of Stewart/Colbert would say.
Therefore playing to a crowd that none of the other candidates are really playing to.
Maybe he means it, but it just sounds like a way of marketing himself to "the youthful crowd". And from what I gather in this thread, it seems to be working.

As kindof a sidenote - I just don't understand why environmental issues are so often detached from Republican campaigns. Of course, they are discussed now, but it just doesn't ever seem like they will be a real, primary focus. It almost feels like a burden when candidates discuss the environment because "green issues" have generally not been a big part of that party system, from what I've read. Any clarification would be very appreciated.

hoffman2k wrote: Maybe he means it, but it just sounds like a way of marketing himself to "the youthful crowd". And from what I gather in this thread, it seems to be working.

I think he's honest, he's been around a long time and has run for president before.

If he's banking on the youth, he'll do even worse than he hopes. Nader can tell him all about that! If there's one demographic in America who doesn't show at the polls, it's the 18 - 30 crowd. They'll come out to rallys and speeches, they'll march in protest...but they'll sleep in on election day.

There's a reason the fatcat politicians don't bother selling themselves to the youth...it'll be interesting to see how Obama fares. Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance to begin with, so it's of no concern either way.

99reese wrote:As kindof a sidenote - I just don't understand why environmental issues are so often detached from Republican campaigns. Of course, they are discussed now, but it just doesn't ever seem like they will be a real, primary focus. It almost feels like a burden when candidates discuss the environment because "green issues" have generally not been a big part of that party system, from what I've read. Any clarification would be very appreciated.

Profits are the reason. There's good money in oil, and many in our administration are making it (especially Cheney). It makes more sense to them to reap the rewards now, rather than invest in potential rewards (or failures) in the future with new technologies.

jamester wrote:

hoffman2k wrote: Maybe he means it, but it just sounds like a way of marketing himself to "the youthful crowd". And from what I gather in this thread, it seems to be working.

I think he's honest, he's been around a long time and has run for president before.

If he's banking on the youth, he'll do even worse than he hopes. Nader can tell him all about that! If there's one demographic in America who doesn't show at the polls, it's the 18 - 30 crowd. They'll come out to rallys and speeches, they'll march in protest...but they'll sleep in on election day.

There's a reason the fatcat politicians don't bother selling themselves to the youth...it'll be interesting to see how Obama fares. Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance to begin with, so it's of no concern either way.

Funny stuff...

If I don't show up to vote, I get a fine. And if I don't pay the fine, it'll probably be a weekend of jail on top of it. (Or at least thats what we're being taught from 1st grade on.)

And voting is always done on a sunday! Not on a day where everybody is working...

I'm 29 years old and have voted in every Presidential election since I became eligible at age 18.

How about Obama with Ron Paul as VP? haha..

I caught the end of a CNN interview with Ron Paul. The interviewer said that a search for Ron Paul yields many reslts labelling him as 'flaky', and asked what he thought about peole calling him 'flaky'. He replied that he though an unconstitutional war ludicrous fiscal policy, interventionist foreign policy, money printing policy, and $9 trillion in debt is flaky. Haha...he is the man!!

ethios4 wrote:I caught the end of a CNN interview with Ron Paul. The interviewer said that a search for Ron Paul yields many reslts labelling him as 'flaky', and asked what he thought about peole calling him 'flaky'. He replied that he though an unconstitutional war ludicrous fiscal policy, interventionist foreign policy, money printing policy, and $9 trillion in debt is flaky. Haha...he is the man!!

Kick ass!
He definitely stands firm on his ground to all the idiots he has to associate with in the news and debates. He does strike me as the most knowledgeable and sane candidate, and I would vote for him over anyone else right now. He is totally against the war, real ID ACT, etc, but I don't think he knows what the end product of his privatized state would mean. I totally agree with him on many issues, and there are some I don't. For instance, I think building walls are 'flaky.' But on a larger picture, I still feel uneasy about having no national accountability, or international accountability for bad business practices. There are several human rights, environmental protection issues that arise without a larger body of accountability. And like I said before, he is interested in shifting the concentration of power to the states, but he makes no mention of getting it out of the hands of the elites. I don't trust someone just because they want to transfer power, not saying that about any of you RP supporters- I also really haven't heard him discuss the problems with the election process, such as this polarized party process.

ethios4 wrote:He is 'pro-life' but he's not trying to push it down anyone's throat with legislation. That's one of the thngs I like about him... he is personally 'pro-life' but his stance on it is that the Federal government has no business making laws about it. That should be decided on a state or local level. In his view, which I tend to agree with, the more controversial and difficult a subject is, the more locally it should be handled.

This just isn't true.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xp ... ab=summary

Ron Paul is the primary sponsor of the bill.

Yes, this still leaves the final decision at the state / local level, but creating a Federal definition of life beginning at conception is pretty damn ominous if you ask me. As far as I'm concerned, it's inconsistent with the rest of his views about what the Federal government should be allowed to legislate.

So much of what he says is soooooooo good. His stance on abortion is -bad- if you are pro-choice. Just read the wording on his website.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

bigbadotis wrote:

ethios4 wrote:He is 'pro-life' but he's not trying to push it down anyone's throat with legislation. That's one of the thngs I like about him... he is personally 'pro-life' but his stance on it is that the Federal government has no business making laws about it. That should be decided on a state or local level. In his view, which I tend to agree with, the more controversial and difficult a subject is, the more locally it should be handled.

This just isn't true.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xp ... ab=summary

Ron Paul is the primary sponsor of the bill.

Yes, this still leaves the final decision at the state / local level, but creating a Federal definition of life beginning at conception is pretty damn ominous if you ask me. As far as I'm concerned, it's inconsistent with the rest of his views about what the Federal government should be allowed to legislate.

So much of what he says is soooooooo good. His stance on abortion is -bad- if you are pro-choice. Just read the wording on his website.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

This NEEDS to be quoted here.

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected.

Now again, tell me that a guy bellieving that is going to "allow" any state level "choice" in this matter?

You people are being duped, and I don't know why you're falling for it? People think republicans are somehow more manly I guess? There are plenty of democratic nominees that are about pulling out of Iraq so that can't be it?

Machinesworking wrote:Now again, tell me that a guy bellieving that is going to "allow" any state level "choice" in this matter?

You people are being duped, and I don't know why you're falling for it? People think republicans are somehow more manly I guess? There are plenty of democratic nominees that are about pulling out of Iraq so that can't be it?

Hmmm... I tend to believe that he would actually leave it up to the states, despite his strong views on the issue. I mean, that was one of the two points of the bill, to give states the power to legislate this. Call me naive if you will.

And it's not just about pulling out of Iraq for me. We need to pull out of everywhere. He has the strongest opinion about this of any candidate this election.

Out of curiosity, has any other candidate come out and said the Patriot Act needs to be completely abolished?

My interest in him aside, my vote still goes to Obama at this point. If you put Paul up against any of the other candidates (except Kucinich, of course), I think I'd probably vote Republican for the first time in my life.

Machinesworking wrote: There are plenty of democratic nominees that are about pulling out of Iraq so that can't be it?

Like who? Let's-bomb-Pakistan-Obama? I like Kucinich, but I can't in good conscience vote for anyone who will not deal with our fiscal and constitutional insanity. Everyone but Ron Paul seems content with the larger picture of what's going on in the US, as far as I can tell...if not, please let me know. That, to me, far outweighs issues like abortion or free-trade. This election is about far more than that. The right to live in peace, the right to live in a country that is not bankrupt, the right to privacy and property rights - those issues are far more important to me than abortion.

Zstowasser...you are the sanest person in this thread.

Isn't abortion a big issue because you allow it to be a big issue?

If you only need 1 reason to allow people to not have children, look at the awesome parenting skills of britney spears.
In some cases, the only counterside to not being aborted is the off chance it/him/her might be adopted by Angelina Jolie.

How an issue like this can divide a country is beyond me.
We're nearing 10 billion people on this planet. We'll get their quick if every drunk chick HAS to keep the child when knocked up.

Whats next? Masturbation is genocide?
Menstruation is murder?