gogogadgetearl

comments

• I agree, this video has patriotism written all over it.  I wonder, though, of what becomes of our country if Ron Paul wins.  He is promoting the immediate withdrawal of almost all of our stationed troops in some of the most volatile and obstinate forces the US is trying to contain.  While I agree that there are places we simply shouldn't be, we cannot just pull out and "say good luck, this wasn't our fight".  What would stop him from pulling out of the UN as well since it constitutes a world order to police the globe?  Granted, the UN system is broken in some ways, I can't help but think it is necessary as some type of global communication and authority figure to keep the nations around the world from just aiming at each other with everything they have and pulling the trigger.
  
  Then of course there are the conspiracy theorists who believe someone as massively appealing as Ron Paul could constitute the anti-christ with his "anything is permissible" policies.  And am I the only one who thinks to himself "gee, this looks just like the last post I read about Ron Paul, but that isn't right, it's from a different person..?  These disciples of Ron Paul are seriously as blind and dumb as Apple fanboys when it comes to spitting the same garbage about a person, it's like nothing can go wrong that involves Ron freakin Paul.  Everyone one of them starts the same:  "Ron Paul was the only Republican candidate to oppose the war in Iraq.  Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air and displays genuine integrity."  Hello, he's a politician, he's gonna say things to get votes.  Right now, the majority of America hates Bush for the war in Iraq and apparently for the entire globe's pollution problem.  60% of those people, (rough estimate) believe that medical marijuana and all other habitual pharmaceuticals should be legalized and over the counter.  As much as I hate to say it, at least Billary came out and said what is really on her mind, and she's just as big a Bush hater as Ron Paul.
  
  Call me skeptical, but I don't think he can pull it off, and should he be elected, I think it won't take long for the country to fall into larger ruin than it is now.  There is still time for me to find a candidate who can stand out as something more than talk,a the fact he is a 10-term (R)Rep from Texas isn't gong to do it for me either.
  • posted by: claryam
  • [ 2007.12.17 | 1:13:58am ]
• Not to mention the fact that he has had the same voting record (consistency) for the entire time he's been a politician.  Yeah, nothing like fanboys who haven't actually done research to know that their candidate has been consistent.  Sorry andrew, but perhaps you should ignore the fanboys and do research on the candidate before you speak...
  • posted by: nemo7467
  • [ 2007.12.17 | 9:51:16am ]
• Dennis Kucinich '08!
  • posted by: lookatthemducks
  • [ 2007.12.17 | 11:14:36am ]
• wow, a republican can consistently get a representative vote in Texas...never heard of that before.  And so what, all I am saying is the we live in a mob mentality-based society today.  Someone screams the sky is melting and suddenly everyone who owns a car you don't plug-in is considered a monster who is single-handedly destroying our children's future, or the guy who thinks that marriage is between a man and a woman is archaic and a fundamental crusader who think all gays are gonna burn in hell.  It's easy to make a single person out to be the bad guy these days, and just as easily, can make one guy out to be the savior of the world because he can bad-mouth a guy about his policies.  It's easy to disagree with the war, say the government is too big, etc, etc, but what the hell is he going to do about it?  I still don't know how he expects to pull off these huge changes in 4 years, if at all.  Everyone is all about change, bring the soldiers home, dismantle the military, place strict regulations on law enforcement, till it happens to you...He's just trying to appeal to as many voters as he can.  I honestly don't think he can pull it off during his term.  How dare you come at me and insult my intelligence by saying I haven't done research.  I didn't mention anything about research, nor did I say I wasn't gonna vote for him.  I said I'm still looking.  I expressed my opinion, you are the one who took offense and basically fit the fanboy profile.
  • posted by: claryam
  • [ 2007.12.17 | 4:11:02pm ]
• i vote for no career politicians....what happen to it being the second job...the side job...
  • posted by: monkey
  • [ 2007.12.18 | 12:29:08am ]
• "wow, a republican can consistently get a representative vote in Texas"  - Once again, you didn't do your research.  I didn't say he was consistently getting the vote, I'm saying, for his entire tenure in politics, HE has voted for the same things since he's been politics (the 70s).  He voted pro-life since day one.  HE has been consistent.  Not the voters.  Seriously, do research.  I'm not saying that you don't do research (at all), but be sure to check all the facts out before you say someone goes out and 'says things to get votes'... he's been saying the same thing for longer than you or I have been alive.
  • posted by: nemo7467
  • [ 2007.12.18 | 9:20:05am ]
• ok guys, let's take a step back and discuss the facts on the topic instead of calling each other fanboys and wording our retorts in a way intended to evoke a reaction.  i get caught up in these debate tactics, too, so i'm not any better than you guys -- but we, as a whole, can do better than this.
  
  so it seems that drew believes that ron paul is pandering to the vote, and his supporters suffer from mob-mentality and a rough case of fanboyism.  parker, on the other hand is making the case that RP has actually been consistent in his voting style - showing that his values and merits haven't changed since the 70s - and, therefore, he's not just trying to appeal to the voters.
  
  i have in the past believed that RP was truly consistent in his voting style, but after a 15-20 minute research venture, i can't seem to find any reliable proof of this on the internets.  i say "reliable" in the sense that the proof doesn't come from sites such as "ronpaul2008.com" or "finallyalibertarianhassupporters.org".  :-/   unfortunately, i wouldn't trust wikipedia on this one, either.
  
  parker, can you offer any reliable proof?
  • posted by: earl, THE earl
  • [ 2007.12.18 | 10:13:29am ]
• I'll provide a few links below, which you can deem reliable or not :P  (though, as the official site for Ron Paul, I would deem ronpaul2008 reliable... but then again, who is to say that not all the records for everything that I or anyone links to isn't modified by the gov't ala 1984?)...
  
  Anyway, these records don't go back to the 70s, but it's a good starting place to actually see what *any* candidate/politician has been voting on (over the last several years).  I've used these resources a few times in the last couple of months.  Once you get there though, be sure to have an hour or two free to search/etc... Additionally, some of the online databases don't go back more than the late 80s / early 90s (lame)...
  
  -reliable (as long as you trust the government)  :-/
  house.gov
  THOMAS library of congress
  washington post - congress votes database  (powered by django!)
  
  -non reliables:
  and I wouldn't use wikipedia as a source either, but many of the references are valid, so I'd check those out anyway:
  wikidepedia - read it, but check the source.  always.
  ronpaul2008
  
  and earl, you gotta remember that Google can't solve all of our problems (though that would be pretty sweet).
  • posted by: nemo7467
  • [ 2007.12.18 | 1:26:17pm ]

post a comment