one of the comments of the guy that made the video
LOLRW41991 (18 hours ago) Show Hide Marked as spam
(Reply) (Spam)
Its Ron Paul whos a Socialist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-Tt_8KyzYo he thinks Ron Paul is a Democrat
This guy does not know what he talks about.
Very sad. He agrees with Ron Paul but appears to be unwilling to support him because he is on "the wrong side".
Sad how many people think of politics like it is college football - "ya gots to support your team", go through all kinds of figuring out what to do to make sure "the other side" doesn't win. Damn party politics
A LOT of people think this way. A LOT.Originally Posted by Original_Intent
"Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights." -Murray Rothbard
ha. He's funny, too. Wow...And I thought I was no political genius, that guy makes me look like the Einstein of politics lol You could make the argument that Ron Paul would make a better Libertarian, but a Democrat? lol they would tackle him on economic issues, the labor unions would probably try to kill him, however, I think he would do very well on the social issues.
*leave the abortion issue to the states
*decriminalize drugs
*doesn't mind if gays marry
*doesn't object to homosexuals in the military, only objects to disruptive behavior, weather it be homosexual or heterosexual
he would wipe the dems clean on the social issues, but he would have a tough time defending his free market views.
He's running for the GOP, so he needs to lean right, atleast until he gets the nomination, then he can go more "moderate" and say that states should decide abortion etc
Last edited by JosephTheLibertarian; 08-26-2007 at 10:39 PM.
The poor guy seems to have all of his terms mixed up. He's saying that socialism = more states' rights, and that the Democrats want a smaller government. He also keeps saying, "Look at what the Democrats said in the debates!" I'm gonna try to help the guy out as nicely as I can, as he's being somewhat civil, suggesting he might have an open mind. He just needs to put a bit more thought into his actual arguments.
yup. He thinks he knows what he's talking about, but he really doesn't. The other Democratic candidates would attack Dr. Paul's economic policies, it would be the same result as it is now. He would be attacked on economic issues, instead of his views on leaving Iraq. He's the black sheep in either party, so party affiliation doesn't really matter. He could always say "I'm more socially permissive than the other Democrats" just like how he says he's more fiscally conservative than the other GOP.
sad that there are so many clueless people out there.
==============================
Freespeechwisconsin.com
Yeah. Hear the part when he said uhh something like "Libertarians are Democrat allies" LOL that cracked me up.. he said "they're the same things"
Well, there's no Anarchist party, so no real allies for Libertarians, sorry. It's 50% with both parties, Libertarians agree with GOP mostly on the economic front, while Libertarians and Democrats tend to agree more on the social policies. But allies? The Libertarian Party does not interact with either, so he doesn't know what he's talking about. Libertarian principles is in its own sphere, it should be the third major party, yet it's considered a minor party because the LP isn't really getting its act together from what I hear.
Last edited by JosephTheLibertarian; 08-26-2007 at 11:06 PM.
Well, as I said on the youtube page (Cometgreen), Paul has a strategic advantage as part of the GOP. He has a monopoly on the antiwar vote, whereas in the Democratic party he'd have to make sure people understand why he's more antiwar than the rest. That might require more than the 2.7 seconds they'd give him in the debates.He's the black sheep in either party, so party affiliation doesn't really matter.
And, yeah, unions would despise him, a lot of gays and pro-choicers probably wouldn't be exposed enough to understand his positions, etc. etc.
Yup, he would also have to compete with Kucinich and Gravel on social issues, so he would stand out less. He would appeal to independents, Libertarians, and many independents still, but he would have a harder time imo. he should stick with the GOP, his anti war stance is a stance that no one but him can claim!
After he got Libertarian confused with Liberal, I turned it off.
We need a video that shows, Ron Paul is the only candidate that can beat Hillery. With the backing of the Republican party, The Libertarian party, and all the fringe misfits backing Ron Paul, This is the only way the Republicans can win in 2008.
LOL, this guy thinks the only qualification to be a Republican is to be gung ho for Wars.
hm, I think this guy was faking in all his videos. His arguments sound like something a guy with a very low IQ would say, but it all sounded a tad contrived but I decided it was probably real. Later I saw his profile, said Occupation: actor. I think we been had.
Last edited by V-rod; 08-27-2007 at 01:35 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us