Log in

No account? Create an account
I Like Ron Paul - There, I Said It Again. 
6th-Sep-2007 08:07 pm
Is it just me or is Ron Paul
The ONLY Republican that "gets it"?

Perhaps more remarkable than watching Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee trot out the “if you break it, you buy it” analogy in relation to the Iraq war during Wednesday’s debate is taking in Ron Paul’s exasperated speech about how a handful of neocons in Washington “hijacked our foreign policy.”

Ron Paul aims and shoots correctly every time he speaks on foreign policy.
7th-Sep-2007 12:28 am (UTC)
Ron Paul aims and shoots correctly every time he speaks on foreign policy.

damn right. and why is that? because he's actually a libertarian, that's why. :P
7th-Sep-2007 12:39 am (UTC)
He is the only one.
7th-Sep-2007 12:47 am (UTC)
Too bad he's a Forced Pregnancy Nazi and would like to see a woman's choice removed.
7th-Sep-2007 01:56 am (UTC)
Yes, among other things, but still he's the only one on the other side who makes sense of foreign policy. I'm in no way defending what otherwise is indefensible.

Now send me naked pictures, forthwith.
7th-Sep-2007 01:08 am (UTC)
I've actually considered voting for Paul (I ultimately don't care which Dem gets the nod, but Paul is the ONLY GOP candidate I'd support [as it's been noted, because he's really a Libertarian]). Unfortunately, his pro life views and stances leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth... so to speak. However, if that's his worst quality, I think his other realistic and on the level thought processes tend to outweigh that. Tough call...
7th-Sep-2007 01:57 am (UTC)
If I were a Republican voting a straight party ticket, he would be the only reasonable choice.
7th-Sep-2007 01:46 am (UTC)
Like other people said, he's really a Libertarian which is why he's infinitely better than any of the other candidates. He'd certainly be a vast improvement over Bush, but there's still a few pretty big issues for me that would stop him from getting my vote over any of the likely Democratic candidates. The biggest 2 being health care, and the environment; I'm fairly sure he's directly opposed to health care for all, and I have no idea where he stands on the environment which to me indicates he probably has no plans of doing anything to improve it.

I'm not a fan on his stance on abortion or gun control, but they're not dealbreakers to me.

That said, he does get major credit for his stance on Iraq, having opposed the federal marriage ammendment, fighting to get rid of the Patriot Act, and wanting to end the war on drugs.
7th-Sep-2007 02:02 am (UTC)
He's been pretty mum on environmental issues (he repeatedly refused to take the National Political Awareness Test), but on health care this is what I dug up:
* Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)
* Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)
* Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
* Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)
* Voted YES on small business associations for buying health insurance. (Jun 2003)
* Voted NO on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits. (Mar 2003)
* Voted NO on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
* Voted YES on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
* Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 56% by APHA, indicating a mixed record on public health issues. (Dec 2003)
Will keep updates going to vote_smart.
7th-Sep-2007 02:31 am (UTC)
I'm sure that Mike Huckabee's mom took him out of the store if he kept breaking things.

It is too bad Mr. Paul appeared so weak in the debate. It is no help being right if you can't persuade people.
7th-Sep-2007 04:13 am (UTC)
Thanks for the info! Right now I don't see anyone I'd give my vote to. I'm sick of this entire farce. We have no equal representation as it stands. These candidates will say anything depending on the group they are talking to, and vote depending on whose lining their pockets.

Personally I'd like to see the chance to run for president open to ANY American, not just those with money. I'm tired of only those who can raise $200 million or more getting into office. Right off the bat they are beholding to those that gave them money and money corrupts.

I think anyone should get a chance. The air waves, and newspapers should be open to all.FREE during the election year. I'd give time and news space to anyone who wants to run an open platform to have their say on all the issues, and no one would have to take campaign money.

I'd have 3 months for anyone interested in running. Check out their backgrounds. Get all to give their real opinions on all the issues, publish those, then have open debates and then let people decide.

If people who ran for office didn't owe anyone for getting them there I feel there would be more of a chance they would vote according to their real feelings on the issues.

Then people could vote on the issues they feel are important and everyone would get a chance to be represented.

As it stands only those who already have money and power have a chance to be president. They tend to only represent big business, big churches, and people with lots of money. Where does that leave most Americans? Out of luck for equal representation.

This page was loaded Nov 12th 2019, 5:18 pm GMT.