Ron Paul announces
 

HOUSTON - Ron Paul, the iconoclastic nine-term congressman from southeast Texas, took the first step Thursday toward launching a second presidential bid in 2008, this time as a Republican.


A guy might consider registering Republican for an actual anti-war candidate who voted against the war.

The vote against the defense appropriations bill, he said, was because of his opposition to the war in Iraq, which he said was "not necessary for our actual security."

Hell, Griff. For a real anti-war candidate I might even consider dropping my born and bred democratic party.
I need a candidate I can get excited about. Is he it? Or will he come with some of that right wing, moral majority baggage?

Jeez, he looks pretty good , from UT's link. :whofart:

He's the kind of guy I'd like to see wield a line item veto. He doesn't stand a chance though, since he has often said what he meant.

Yeah really a guy who says what he thinks (is honest) has no chance - that sucks!

If he could energize the libertarians in the GOP and get the national party would throw them a bone it will have been worth the run. The neo-cons are killing the grassroots of the party so it might be possible to jettison them.

The only chance he got is to go total Bullworth style.

This is my first post on this site, so I hope I'm following the rules. Ron Paul has been my only hero in both houses of Congress for years. His example prompted me to move back to the Republican Party after a decade in the Libertarian Party. He said to me that it is easier to move the Republican Party to the right than to make the Libertarian Party viable (i.e., a winner). I agreed, so here I am. Ironically, I'm more angry with the Republican leadership and Bush than ever before. Seems they were trying to beat the Democrats at their own game, increasing both spending and the burden of government. They deserved to lose this past election. I don't think Ron Paul has a chance of winning, but I'll vote for him given the chance--and with the enthusiasm I had way back in 1964.

When I was a hardass Libertarian, it was a remarkable education about politics to look at ten of Mr Paul's votes and find that I disagreed with four of them.

Undertoad,

Will you describe those 4? I might agree with you on some.

Can't remember, it was some years ago. I know one of the questions was abortion related, probably on partial-birth abortion. (Paul's against abortion in all forms)

I guess if you're gonna run you have to crank out a book. Lew Rockwell wrote the foreward.

Ron Paul has always believed that foreign and domestic policy should be conducted according to the same principles. Government should be restrained from intervening at home or abroad because its actions fail to achieve their stated aims, create more harm than good, shrink the liberty of the people, and violate rights.

Dr. Paul got some nice play on Bill Mahr(sp?) the other night. Bill was being a smart ass but never chinked his armor. Do they always wait for the guy to leave before they ask the DNC talking point questions?

Ron Paul is probably my favorite guy for the Republican party followed by Hagel.

He is awesome, but he challenges so many assumtions that no interviewer takes him seriously.

Dr. Paul is not a man of the Constitution, and not a man of Principle.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html

Nobody's perfect. This wouldn't be my one issue to throw him under the bus over, but I know there are folks who vote this almost exclusively and get a lot of other nonsense in the bargain.

Ah. Thought I had you pegged as a Constitutionalist!

Smart ass!:)

How about a pragmatic anarchist? Working toward that goal in a peaceful law abiding manner? Or maybe I'm a goobermint minimalist... or a nut jobberist. I forget lately. Constitutionalist to the extent that it shrinks gov... so yes he is hosing me on this issue.

What's his problem? Everyone knows women and children are personal property and none of the gubmints business.














Hee Hee Hee snort guffaw

Nice interview of Paul on Tucker's show. Good interaction on the national id at the end.

Orcinus damns Paul as racist, for not being politically correct and making everyone responsible for their actions.

http://www.chron.com/content/chronic...5/23/paul.html

How is this not racism?

Except for the obvious exageration in the second quote, what's racist about the truth?

In the fourth quote, race is completely unrelated to the point he (Ron Paul) is trying to make. You could substitute "white" and it would be just as true.

The first poll says blacks are stupid. First, he is basing this on the "if you don't agree with me you are stupid" argument, which is a horrible argument, and then says that 95% of blacks are stupid, which is completely untrue. So 95% of black people don’t agree with him, how does that make them stupid?

In the third quote he is saying that we should be afraid of all black men because of something that the minority of black men do. That is stupid and untrue. You can’t stereotype a whole population for something that 10-20% of a population does.

He is saying that only 13 year old black children should be labeled as adults, not anyone from any other race. If that isn't discrimination, I don't know what is.

He didn't say anyone was stupid. You're the only one using that word. You're blasting him for what you think he said, which is not what he actually said.
He said, "sensible political opinions" and in reality, I doubt you'd find 5% that would support elimination of welfare and affirmative action.
He's probably remarked about how other demographics feel about his position, but of course this article has only cherry picked quotes to build their case.
The Justice Department's crime stats say you're wrong. I linked to them in the discussion about no black women were raped by white men.Once again you're criticizing what he didn't say. He said, "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs". As Clodfobble pointed out that could also apply to other races and probably the Hispanics in that situation outnumber the Blacks now. Insensitive, not PC, perhaps... but that doesn't make him racist.
I'm betting you have yet to confront one of these little bastards... believe me, they are scary.

But not to worry... which knocks him out of contention.

You don't have to say something to imply it. Saying only 5% of blacks have sensible positions is implying that they have insensible positions, which is negative and leads to stupidity. Free market, end of welfare, ect, are not sensible or insensible positions, they are opinions. Many blacks will support welfare, etc because it helps them, not because it is the best for Ron Paul.

That only 10-20% has committed violent crimes as rape, murder, etc? And when did this have to do with black women and white men? Ron Paul said we should be scared of black people because they are disproportionably violent compared to whites. You still can't label the black population as a whole because of some criminals. Just like you can't say we should be scared of Muslims because some are committing terrorist attacks or think all whites are greedy because of white-collared crime.

Yes, then why just say blacks?

They seem scarier than whites or Hispanics of the same size, intentions, etc because of the stereotypes about them. And once again, you have to be careful not to label the whole black population of what a minority does or look like.


I would rather have Paul as president then any of the other Republican candidates...

If you say he 'implied' then you're saying that's what you heard. That doesn't make it what he said or intended.
More than opinion, position. A position is an opinion that you promote, work to achieve, your philosophy. He certainly believes that people who disagree aren't sensible on these issues, but that in no way construes he feels they're stupid... just wrong.
Nothing to do with black women/white men, I said that's the thread where I linked to the Justice Departments crime stats, if you want to look at them.
Disproportionate, likely because there is a disproportionate number in poverty, but it's still true. Don't bother with that seat belt, only a few cars crash.

I don't know. None of us do.

I don't think they look any scarier than others in the same position, they're all scary in those circumstances. Nothing to do, nothing to loose, resigned to going to jail eventually and sure they will live forever.

Your privilege, but I think he's shot himself in the foot with that one.

I never wanted to get into what I am going to say but it is pretty much inevitable since it is politics but Paul will never say outright that he is a racist but can only hint at it. You can not prove hints. You can only guess that he is racist by the hints he gives you, and by his pointing out blacks in particular, it is giving out pretty strong hints that he may be a racist. But this all determines on what people consider racism too.

There is a difference to be scared of all black people and avoiding situations that could get you in trouble. Being scared of all black people is irrational because it involves flawed logic. Paul either did a really bad job at explaining what he meant or he gave more hints.

Paul on the Colbert Report

Haha, the ending was funny.

Absolutely, this multicultural push has made too many PC people bristle at any mention race, jumping to conclusions, or worse, actually fanning the flames for personal gain.

You, being of the next generation of adults actually out there interacting with society, have to opportunity to make things better by your actions. But I'd caution you not to be so PC as to avoid seeing or discussing problems that exist. You can't fix problems by pretending they don't exist, or avoiding addressing them for fear of offending someone.
Batter up.

I do not try to get caught up in PC but sometimes I will if I feel it is too much or wrong. I am not trying to baby anyone or give anyone a free ride, I am personally against that, but if I see a big difference that I feel is wrong I will try to point it out and hopefully get started on fixing it.

Great record, great views, great positions... except hes an unabashed racist.

Dammit.

...according to one source with his own agenda.

Maybe there's hope for him yet, Griff.

From MSNBC: On Technorati, which offers a real-time glimpse of the blogosphere, the most frequently searched term this week was "YouTube."

Then comes "Ron Paul."

The presence of the obscure Republican congressman from Texas on a list that includes terms such as "Sopranos," "Paris Hilton" and "iPhone" is a sign of the online buzz building around the long-shot Republican presidential hopeful -- even as mainstream political pundits have written him off.

He gets the attention of all the conspiracists and they are making up most of those. But, they are spreading the word. He is the only candidate that I've seen spamming from.

Interesting...