Ron Paul Answers Your Questions

[Yvonne]

From the NYT Blog -- here are Ron's answers to the questions you submitted:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/024011.html
Enjoy,,,,

[RonPaulVolunteer]

So the rumors were true...


Q: Even before the primaries, you said you would not run in the general election. Why specifically did you not run?

A: I was running for the Republican nomination, and I would have run in the general if I had won. I had little interest in running third party due to the inherent biases against such efforts. I also signed legally binding agreements not run third party in 2008 if I failed to win the G.O.P. primary. That was the cost for ballot access in several states, 11 total I believe. So even I had wanted to, it would not have been possible to run in the general after I lost the primary.

Oh, and so Bob Barr, got two words for ya.... FUCK YOU!!

[tonesforjonesbones]

where are the rest of the questions / answers? that link sent me to comments not from ron paul but others...tones

[Kotin]

where are the rest of the questions / answers? that link sent me to comments not from ron paul but others...tones

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/ron-paul-answers-your-questions-part-one/

[tonesforjonesbones]

Is there a Part 2? I find THIS interesting. I mentioned here many times ACTIONs SPEAK LOUDER THan woRdS! Ron Paul sez:

Q: Do you think the efforts of the libertarian-minded are better spent forming a third party or joining the actual Libertarian Party?

A: I never try to tell people exactly what to do, so that’s up to them. However, I think the fact that I have remained in the Republican Party shows where I stand.

[heavenlyboy34]

Is there a Part 2? I find THIS interesting. I mentioned here many times ACTIONs SPEAK LOUDER THan woRdS! Ron Paul sez:

Q: Do you think the efforts of the libertarian-minded are better spent forming a third party or joining the actual Libertarian Party?

A: I never try to tell people exactly what to do, so that’s up to them. However, I think the fact that I have remained in the Republican Party shows where I stand.

As usual, he advocates decentralization and freedom from the tyrannical 2 party system. Gotta luv this guy! :D

[tonesforjonesbones]

Are you reading the truth of the statement or what you WANT to read? Clearly, Ron Paul says WORK within the GOP. tones

[WRellim]

And thus (once again) Ron illustrates why he is probably NOT really the best person to answer these types of questions (he's just the "best" that is anywhere on the media's radar).

Why do I say that? Because even in this format (where he has plenty of time to construct carefully worded answers), even still he "fumbles the ball" and -- IMHO because he always OVERESTIMATES the intelligence of his audience -- he ends up leaves HUGE openings for people to misconstrue his remarks.

I've said this many times before -- for example HERE:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=74524&page=2

What I mean by that is the following:
For example, when he says he would get rid of the "Department of Education" -- what the stoopid peoples ALWAYS hear is "OMG, he wants to elimeniminabate Public Edumacashion!"

[And just go LOOK at the comments on the Freakanomics site and see if what I said above isn't true! It happens EVERY single time, because he does NOT clarify his answer, they misconstrue it, and NEVER even contemplate his REAL point!] Almost laughably, the ONLY commenter who seems to understand what Ron was TRYING (and failing) to say... was a CANADIAN (scroll down to the comment by one Jacques René Giguère )

If/when he tries to clarify it, he takes 5 minutes (or 5 paragraphs) to do it, which is unfortunately 4 minutes and 30 seconds (or 4 1/2 paragraphs) TOO MUCH for most people to comprehend. Their brains have been trained over years and years to turn into mush after the first 30 seconds (or the first 10 words).
Instead, he needs to be precise and be 100% CLEAR on these things in "30 second sound bite form" -- to wit, he needs to say:

"I want to end the FEDERAL Department of Education -- You know like Bush's "No Child Left Behind" interefering garbage, SO THAT the State and Local PUBLIC EDUCATION people; the Parents, Teachers and Principals can be 100% in charge of their local schools."
Because THAT is what he really means -- he is focused on ending FEDERAL interference, not on whether states and communities have public schools.

But he NEVER clearly articulates that -- and so the people listening/reading never "get it" -- and instead they go OFF on him as a "child & public school hater."

And IMHO the REASON why Ron NEVER LEARNS how to do this -- is that he is (perenially) surrounded by "disciples" rather than equals -- NO ONE has the GUTS to tell him he screwed it up!

And so thus he is (and ever will be) consigned to the "wacko" category, and his (and OUR) viewpoints utterly ignored even by people who MIGHT agree with them IF they were not given so many opportunities to dismiss them outright.



So I'm not impressed, and this interview actually saddens me; because while it was an opportunity to get a "foot" in the door (Freakanomics readers ARE "open" to looking at things in unique new ways -- provided they are presented with something to "bite into"); instead he just sounds like a tired old record, and the piece achieved virtually nothing positive.
:(


(Flame Away!)

[MelissaCato]

Is there a Part 2? I find THIS interesting. I mentioned here many times ACTIONs SPEAK LOUDER THan woRdS! Ron Paul sez:

Q: Do you think the efforts of the libertarian-minded are better spent forming a third party or joining the actual Libertarian Party?

A: I never try to tell people exactly what to do, so that’s up to them. However, I think the fact that I have remained in the Republican Party shows where I stand.

Brilliant !!

[angelatc]

The comments are discouraging. Especially early on. This gem came from page 5, I believe:


"The Libertarian attitude is unrealistic, individuals do not have the ability to control their existences in society by themselves."

Sigh.

[awake]

This is a great format they created... Ron hit on alot of good stuff.

[gls]

snip


I agree that Ron often doesn't make his arguments as comprehensive as they should be, but I really doubt no one has ever pointed that out to him.

The fact is that he’s not your typical politician. Appealing to the lowest-common denominator just isn't his style. He always speaks to his audience as if they were intelligent, informed, rational adults. Unfortunately the vast majority of the public doesn’t come close to fitting this description.

[Gin]

And thus (once again) Ron illustrates why he is probably NOT really the best person to answer these types of questions (he's just the "best" that is anywhere on the media's radar).

Why do I say that? Because even in this format (where he has plenty of time to construct carefully worded answers), even still he "fumbles the ball" and -- IMHO because he always OVERESTIMATES the intelligence of his audience -- he ends up leaves HUGE openings for people to misconstrue his remarks.


What I mean by that is the following: For example, when he says he would get rid of the "Department of Education" -- what the [I]stoopid peoples ALWAYS hear is "OMG, he wants to elimeniminabate Public Edumacashion!"


But he NEVER clearly articulates that -- and so the people listening/reading never "get it" -- and instead they go OFF on him as a "child & public school hater."

And IMHO the REASON why Ron NEVER LEARNS how to do this -- is that he is (perenially) surrounded by "disciples" rather than equals -- NO ONE has the GUTS to tell him he screwed it up!

And so thus he is (and ever will be) consigned to the "wacko" category, and his (and OUR) viewpoints utterly ignored even by people who MIGHT agree with them IF they were not given so many opportunities to dismiss them outright.




(Flame Away!)

I not going to flame, but I do have a comment to make.

Ron Paul reminds me so much of my own father as he also had a hard time articulating what he means into layman's terms so we are left to ponder the meaning..

Ron Paul is such a Humble Man. He doesn't want to tell us what to do, he wants folks to use their own judgment... That's what makes him so great imo.

I do agree with you that for the sleepers he needs to bring it down to their level, but I don't think it is something he realizes. This is where a speech writer would be good, but then you lose his off the cuff canter that inspires us...

Unfortunately we can't have it both ways.... but folks are getting used to the way he speaks and if he is asked to clarify what he means, he is quick to respond.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Q: Do you think the efforts of the libertarian-minded are better spent forming a third party or joining the actual Libertarian Party?

A: I never try to tell people exactly what to do, so that’s up to them. However, I think the fact that I have remained in the Republican Party shows where I stand.

Pretty clear to me. tones

[haaaylee]

Uh Oh, he didn't mention Sanford as a close peer in fiscal voting ............

Take Note.

[ClayTrainor]

Q: Do you think the efforts of the libertarian-minded are better spent forming a third party or joining the actual Libertarian Party?

A: I never try to tell people exactly what to do, so that’s up to them. However, I think the fact that I have remained in the Republican Party shows where I stand.

Pretty clear to me. tones

haha, i figured you'd like that one :cool:

[Knightskye]

Uh Oh, he didn't mention Sanford as a close peer in fiscal voting ............

Take Note.

Sanford's a governor.


Q: Do you think the efforts of the libertarian-minded are better spent forming a third party or joining the actual Libertarian Party?

A: I never try to tell people exactly what to do, so that’s up to them. However, I think the fact that I have remained in the Republican Party shows where I stand.

Pretty clear to me. tones

Well, he did endorse Chuck Baldwin.