The Post a Bad Ass Ron Paul Video Thread

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaxdUPNYj2s&-BADASS movie about our economy. Ron Paul is the only candidate running actually talking intelligently about our currency. Without a stable strong currency, our country is FUBAR!!

PLEASE support this man, I have a good feeling he is going to do well in New Hampshire and Iowa, two of the key states.

Honestly, I dont see how you guys can argue this. The Majority of Military Troops support Ron Paul because they are sick of the war. No matter what you think, If you support war, call 1-800-Go Army and get your ass to Iraq if you havent already. Its bullshit to say you think war against "terrorism" is necessary, but you wont go fight it yourself.

Watch this video, its inspiring.
 
who cares about he feels about the withdrawal?? everyone. please, let's stay on this topic for a moment. what makes you think our troops will be out of iraq by the end of bush's term? and plus, his stance on this issue can be applied to predict how he will act in the future, that's why voting records are so important in choosing a candidate to support. so if he is showing a tendency to act this way in this situation, he may very well act in the same manner in future, similar scenarios.
 
and that why I bring the point up. We are WAY to concerned about the withdrawal. If our troops are not out by the end of Bush's term (think how long we still have) then they should be pulled immediately by then.

You are right when you say it will predict how he will act in the future, namely he won't get us into this type of mess. If you ask me, that is a great thing to have on your record.

 
iraq is a biiiiig fucking mess that is going to take a lot longer to resolve than any of us hope it will, i wouldn't be surprised if we still have a large presence there a year an a half down the road. if they still are, that is still no reason to withdraw immediately. we caused the mess, and we need to clean it up; that's a toddler's mentality. our reputation would decrease even further if we just just leave because we'll be seen as disrupting a country, doing a half-assed job to fix it, and then giving up and leaving it in pieces.

and it is indeed a great voting record to not get into a mess like this. but the thing is, no one planned on this being a mess. the point here is that anything can turn into a mess. so it's meaningless to say that he has a great voting record showing that he won't cause any messes because that's unpredictable. it is a good characteristic to be responsible for the mistakes you have made and to follow through with fixing the problem. and withdrawing immediately even if the job's not finished is doing the exact opposite.
 
I see where you are coming from. But really, if in a year we are still in Iraq then that is ridiculous. We need to get out. I'll admit the surge has actually helped, there is no getting around it and I am glad that it did. But I really think we will be out and if we are not, then you will be forced to vote for another Republican candidate (all the Democrats will want them out).

I honestly think that staying there is just making the problem worse and the best thing to do (in a couple months with this surge out of the way) is to come home. But yes, this is a subjective opinion and I respect anyone who differs with me. There are some other issues where I just can't believe people don't agree with Dr. Paul, this is one that could go both ways.
 
one thing i really respect about obama is that he understands that while we all want to withdraw from iraq asap, we still have a responsibility to the iraqi people, so he has a phased withdrawal sequence that involves a number of checkpoints that must be met by both the US and the Iraqi government. i agree, it would be very upsetting to see that we're in iraq in another year, but the point is we have no idea how long it will take.
 
then maybe we should reserve judgment until the deadline is nearer. Bush has said that they would all be out though.
 
I would have thought that affter 7 years of being lied to, you all would have figured out that just because something is said by the Bush administration can not be taken as truth.

Ron Pauls actions would make America a country for a handful of the urber rich, while the rest falls into poverty, while worsening the worlds view on America.
 
sure say it a couple more times. If he does what he has been saying our dollar will be worth significantly more and the lower class would be directly helped. We get rid of big government spending and the poor don't get taxed. I'm not sure why you keep repeating yourself, but your reasons don't stand up to anything.
 
we all know bush has been wrong, but he knows that everyone wants now and he doesn't want to go out looking terrible. I could definitely see him pulling everyone out before his term is up.
 
although from what i hear Ron Paul is a pretty good choice, I just dont know if he will have the steam or the money to make it very far in this one. Better luck another time.
 
do some research. he has the 3rd or 4th most money of any Republican. He got more money in one day then any other presidential candidate this year with 4.3 million. So no, money is not an issue.
 
it all depends how far along the situation has come over there. if he thinks just withdrawing before his term is up no matter what, that's going to piss a lot of people off. it shouldn't be up to just one person how long we're in iraq, it should depend on the cooperation of all of us together working to make iraq stable again.
 
well it sure has so far. trust me i agree with you, but thats just how it works being president of the united states
 
haha o man i didn't even see that he wrote that.

Do you think that protecting our border costs much? Compared to the war it costs nothing at all. Compared to many things that we are spending rediculous amounts of money on? No it costs nothing. You think because he has one idea that would sot money that his whole plan fails? I think not.
 
I'm pissed off, I have a credit card, but I'm under 18 and I wanted to donate but can't. thats fucking gay. Why isn't my money legit?
 
Found out it is. It's because if minors could donate, then parents could exceed donation limits by donating in their childrens names.

I don't understand why we have a donation limit though, except I guess it can prevent big business from ruling the country too much.
 
It's illegal for candidates to accept money from companies, though within companies people can round up support and donate personally.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTj3STZqviY-Ron Paul on Wolf Blitzer's "Late Edition" from last night. Pretty exciting video. I cannot believe this, I truly think Ron Paul is going to raise at least 16 Million this quarter!! Ron Paul will have more money than all the other "top tier" candidates raise on the gop side, just watch. YIPPEEEEE!
 


From the point of view of a Canadian, Ron Paul certainly is interesting.  Although there are a few things that are horribly wrong about him, I would probably still vote for him just because every other single candidate is a fucking moron.  This man is an individual who firmly believes in the Constitution, i.e checks and balance (not sure if that's the exact translation).  Which means he couldn't (although he would have some exclusive powers) go marching off and doing anything he wants...  You should know Congress as well as the judiciary power would have substantive control over him.  

Let's just take foreign policy, because if not I would ramble on for hours.  As far his ideas on it go, it's half and half.  He obviously doesn't have much knowledge on international politics; he truly believes that the UN is some form of world government, whereas it is completely the opposite.  It's mainly been inefficient due to precisely the U.S's unwilligness to cooperate; if he looked it up, his non interventionist beliefs fit perfectly in a efficient UN that would coordonate multilateral solutions to worldwide problems. 

On the other hand, there, is one thing that puts him apart.  He truly is the ONLY FUCKING CANDIDATE who doesn't believe that 9/11 happened because of the U.S's freedom, wealth and christianity.  How fucking dumb do you have to be to believe that?  This isn't a matter of opinion, have they read the 9/11 report commission?? 

Last annoying thing is his views on international trade.  NAFTA, regardless of what any of you might say, has been extremely beneficial to the U.S, Mexico and Canada.  Pulling out would be a fatal mistake.  He apparently hasn't studied the most fundamental aspect of economics, i.e. the gains from exchange... how he can even think to remove it is beyond me.  It would be bad for us.  He referred to a "Canadian president" in one interview, which worries me. 

Well It's not like he'll win, anyways. Oh, last annoyance, not foreign policy-related: I find it highly hypocritical to be a libertarian that believes in a limited government that shouldn't tell people what to do with their lives..... but be pro-life.  

(Pardon the poor syntax, I haven't written in English in a long time).  

 
oh, and most of this thread is irrelevant, because Ron Paul is too stubern, honest and libertarian to get anywhere with congress. so none of his ideas will become anything. Just like Jimmy Carter, except worse.
 
Oh, and those that say big government is bad for poor people do not understand economics or politics. Look at the governments that have been big, (communists) oh yeah, those are all for the poor people. and evening out the gap between rich and poor. And the more you reduce the power of the government the bigger the gap between the rich and the poor becomes. taken to it's extreme it becomes feudalism, the world decide that it did not like that idea in the 1400-1600's and again (on a much less extreme level of small government) at the start of the 20th century. As the amount of power the central government has goes down, the ability of big companies to take out competitors increases. monopoly tactics become legal, busseness start to have more recources then the federal government and can then raise their own armies and start to use force to get there way. yes this is possible and is what a reduction in government ultimately leads to.
 
oh god. sure thats what communism is trying to accomplish, but it never has. Tell me one time when the poor actually benefited from communism. I'll give you an answer, never. terrible argument. People need freedom, not a government controlling their lives.
 
Group hopes blimp lifts Paul's bid





Airship to promote GOP hopeful’s presidential campaign





newsworthy

endtext

http://www.dailyadvance.com/local/content/news/stories/2007/12/03/1204ronpauljh.html#

begintext

http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/cnishared...nce_news_stories_2007_12_03_1204ronpauljh.mp3









Monday, December 03, 2007

























































Backers to outfit blimp with Paul logo

By JOHN HENDERSON

endtextendclickprintinclude



(ENLARGE)

Staff

photo by justin fallsA grass-roots organization backing Republican

Congressman Ron Paul\u2019s bid for president says this airship, shown

here Monday tethered outside Airship Management Services\u2019 hangar

in Weeksville, will be used to promote Paul\u2019s campaign. The blimp

will be flown over New Hampshire and other early primary states,

ronpaulblimp.com says.

startclickprintincludebegintext

Staff Writer

One of the largest blimps in the world will be launched in

Weeksville on Monday promoting Republican Ron Paul’s presidential bid.

The blimp tour supporting the Texas congressman’s presidential

campaign is slated to formally kick off next week out of Airship

Management Services’ office in Weeksville.

Ronpaulblimp.com states that the inaugural launch of the ship is slated for 8 a.m.

It will cost Paul supporters $350,000 a month to lease the blimp

from AMS, a Connecticut-based company with a satellite location in

Weeksville, where blimps are stored and maintained. Company president

George Spyrou said this is the first time a presidential campaign has

been promoted on a blimp.

Spyrou said the blimp has been used in previous advertising

campaigns including Pepsi, Fuji film and Ameriquest mortgage services.

A company sister ship was flown over the Olympic games in Athens in

2004.

Spyrou said that Paul supporters have the blimp reserved on a

month-to-month basis, and could be leased out up to a year, if

necessary.

“Ron Paul supporters seem to be from a very enthusiastic part of the world,” Spyrou said.

The blimp is 200 feet long with a volume of 240,000 cubic feet.

“The cabin part is the largest in America,” he said. “The balloon part is the same size as the Goodyear blimp.”

Paul’s supporters have been soliciting contributions to sponsor the aerial campaign. Their web page, ronpaulblimp.com, states that $51,875 has been collected as of 2:33 p.m. on Monday.

Some of the sponsorship terms include flight benefits.

For instance, for a $5,000 sponsorship, donors can travel on the

“Ron Paul Blimp Tour” for three to five days, the page states.

Organizers are asking for amounts between $25, for 2.7 minutes of

sponsorship, to $1 million for 10 weeks of sponsorships.

The Web page tells supporters that they can “buy as much blimp

(sponsorship time) as you want without having it count toward your

current campaign contributions.”

Officials from Paul’s campaign office and his congressional office

said they had nothing to do with the Ron Paul Blimp movement.

However, the blimp will promote Paul’s presidential bid in several ways.

Decals are going to be stuck on the side of the blimp. One design

is slated to read: “Who is Ron Paul? Google Ron Paul.” Supporters are

tagging the other side as the “Love revolution,” and it reads Ron Paul

R”evol”ution.

The blimp will be flying over the northeast and critical primary states. Key dates include:

— 2022(unknown) —Dec. 12, a flyover over Wall Street is planned.

— 2022(unknown) — Dec. 14, tea will be dumped from the blimp into the Boston Harbor.

— 2022(unknown) — Dec. 15, a New Hampshire and Boston flyover is planned.

“Why is the blimp spending so much time in New Hampshire during the

election season? That is where the cameras are,” the Web page reads.

(Contact John Henderson at jhenderson@coxnc.com)

 
Ron Paul on Global Warming

Source: YouTube; July

8, 2007


"Global temperatures have been warming since the Little Ice Age.

Studies within the respectable scientific community have shown that human beings

are most likely a part of this process. As a Congressman, I've done a

number of things to support environmentally friendly policies. I have been

active in the Green Scissors campaign to cut environmentally harmful spending,

I've opposed foreign wars for oil, and I've spoken out against government

programs that encourage development in environmentally sensitive areas, such as

flood insurance."

"I strongly oppose the Kyoto treaty. Providing for a clean

environment is an excellent goal, but the Kyoto treaty doesn't do that.

Instead it's placed the burden on the United States to cut emissions while not

requiring China - the world's biggest polluter - an other polluting third-world

countries to do a thing. Also, the regulations are harmful for American

workers, because it encourages corporations to move their business overseas to

countries where the regulations don't apply. It's bad science, it's bad

policy, and it's bad for America. I am more than willing to work

cooperatively with other nations to come up with policies that will safeguard

the environment, but I oppose all nonbinding resolutions that place an

unnecessary burden on the United States."

When asked by Bill Maher if he thinks the Federal Government should be

involved in stopping Global Warming, Ron Paul replied:

"Then you have to deal with the volcanoes, and you have to deal with

China... so what are you going to do, invade China so they don't

pollute? ... But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do what we can to

slow up the emissions and stop subsidizing big oil companies. I don't

like subsidizing oil companies. They've been doing that for years.

We go to war to protect oil, so that we can buy more oil, and burn more

oil. So I say our foreign policy contributes to global warming -- by

subsidizing a policy that is deeply flawed. And that's why we're in the

Middle East, to protect oil interests."

When asked if efforts to slow down Global Warming should be increased, Dr.

Paul replied: "Yes."

Because he does not support any piece of legislation not specifically

authorized by the Constitution, Paul votes against most bills that involve

government spending or expanded government initiatives; thus he does not seek

legislation to combat the global warming. Instead, he advocates reducing

emissions, halting subsidies to oil companies, and altering a war-for-oil

foreign policy that in itself contributes to global warming.

 
Back
Top