John Stossel interviews Ron Paul

[Darthphere]

12 year old kids know how to mow lawns and I can pay them well below minimum as well

I just reported you to the labor department.

 

[Matt]

Thanks for your contribution to this thread.

At least is it an honest contribution as opposed to sitting in here talking about how Paul will change America when he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Ontop of that, even if he were president, the president can't exactly make laws. How do you people really think he would get all of these laws through Congress? His presidency would be one of total dead lock until a more attractive candidate beats him 4 years down the road. Sounds like a great guy to vote for.

I swear, Paul supporters are more naive than Nader supporters.

 

[Matt]

I just reported you to the labor department.

I just reported you to immigration. I saw through your little act Paco. Go back to Mexico

 

[YsoSerious]

If Ron Paul was a serious contender he would have someone other than John Stossel interviewing him.

 

[Outsiderzedge]

At least is it an honest contribution as opposed to sitting in here talking about how Paul will change America when he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Ontop of that, even if he were president, the president can't exactly make laws. How do you people really think he would get all of these laws through Congress? His presidency would be one of total dead lock until a more attractive candidate beats him 4 years down the road. Sounds like a great guy to vote for.

I swear, Paul supporters are more naive than Nader supporters.

If he's elected and the first two years are dead lock, then those citizens who got him elected will make sure the last two years are not.

 

[Matt]

If he's elected and the first two years are dead lock, then those citizens who got him elected will make sure the last two years are not.

Do you really dillute yourself into believing this? Even if he got elected by a fluke in the presidential election, electing a president is one thing. Completely changing Congress is a whole different game.

 

[Outsiderzedge]

He would abolish the federal Department of Education.

This made me

I would go into the specifics of his stance but judging by your confusion, I'd wager you don't even know what the Department of Education does. You just see the word 'education' in the title and think, 'Yep, that must be good.'

Ever wondered why the U.S. trails all other first world nations in education?

Well... probably not, since you were confused about it in the first place, but the huge beauracracy in place of what should be our education system is a good culprit.

 

[Outsiderzedge]

Do you really dillute yourself into believing this? Even if he got elected by a fluke in the presidential election, electing a president is one thing. Completely changing Congress is a whole different game.

You'll start seeing many more traditional conservative candidates for Congress if Paul is elected.

 

[Darthphere]

You'll start seeing many more traditional conservative candidates for Congress if Paul is elected.

He's not going to be elected. There is no if about it.

 

[Matt]

You'll start seeing many more traditional conservative candidates for Congress if Paul is elected.

And you'll see them get shot down in primaries by neo-con groups. It is easy to win the presidential primary election. You win two of either Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina and your campaign skyrockets over night and suddenly every sheep in America is voting for you (See: John Kerry). A small grass roots campaign like Paul's can do it. To win enough elections in various states to completely over throw the political system as we know it is just being naive.

Not to mention, even if Paul does win. And many Paul-esque Republicans crawl out of the wood work and win Republican primaries for Congress, don't you imagine that the Democrat party would put up a hell of a fight? Especially with the rallying call of Paul deadlocking Congress for 2 years. There wouldn't be enough support for Paul to do anything even if a few old school conservatives win senate seats. He'd never get enough to break the filibuster. Paul's presidency would go down as one of the most impotent in American history.

 

[Outsiderzedge]

And you'll see them get shot down in primaries by neo-con groups. It is easy to win the presidential primary election. You win two of either Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina and your campaign skyrockets over night and suddenly every sheep in America is voting for you (See: John Kerry). A small grass roots campaign like Paul's can do it. To win enough elections in various states to completely over throw the political system as we know it is just being naive.

Not to mention, even if Paul does win. And many Paul-esque Republicans crawl out of the wood work and win Republican primaries for Congress, don't you imagine that the Democrat party would put up a hell of a fight? Especially with the rallying call of Paul deadlocking Congress for 2 years. There wouldn't be enough support for Paul to do anything even if a few old school conservatives win senate seats. He'd never get enough to break the filibuster. Paul's presidency would go down as one of the most impotent in American history.

If 36,000 donations, over $4,000,000 in one day, winning 54% of all straw polls across the nation and a plan by supporters to donate over $10,000,000 on the 16th is "small" grass roots, then maybe you're right, but I have a feeling you're not...

I bet you pinko-commie liberal bastards are just squirming in your dirty, grimey little holes.

 

[Matt]

If 36,000 donations, over $4,000,000 in one day, winning 54% of all straw polls across the nation and a plan by supporters to donate over $10,000,000 on the 16th is "small" grass roots, then maybe you're right, but I have a feeling you're not...

Straw polls are incredilby easy to taint. Raising that kind of money in one day is easy when you rally all of your base for weeks and tell them to donate on that one day. How much has he raised outside of that in comparrison to other candidates, btw?

I bet you pinko-commie liberal bastards are just squirming in your dirty, grimey little holes.

I should probably give you a couple days off for that one, but I'll be nice and just infract you. No name calling.

 

[Outsiderzedge]

Sorry, my contempt for what your political party has come to represent came out in that last sentence.

Anyway, you first have to know that Paul's fundraising hasn't kicked into gear until recently because of the lack of media exposure he's had. Fortunately, americans have discovered him themselves and have been slowly building word-of-mouth; word-of-mouth that has recently exploded thanks to the many videos and blogs supporting Paul all around the internet.

So far, this quarter, he looks to be the top fundraiser and his donations are growing while all other GOP candidates are losing donations each quarter.

 

[Matt]

I'd argue that it is too little too late, regardless of this quarter. The first primary is nearly a month away and if any GOP candidate appears to be sneaking up as a dark horse it would be Mike Huckabee. That being said, if Paul some how did pull out a miraculous win, I would definitely give voting for him in the general some serious consideration if his campaign indicates to me that he is willing to compromise and will not simply dead lock our country for 4 years.

 

[SuBe]

the whole "illegal immigrant children born in the US are NOT citizens"
bothers me.
other than that? he is pretty ok.

Well, you are kind of biased though.

this is definitely a tough one. the problem is when the parents are coming here specifically to give birth so that they have leverage to stay in the country. and the added burden this puts on the American taxpayer is unfair because those illegal parents aren't paying taxes. but their kids are receiving the benefits of America on my dime? on the dime of hard working middle and lower class Americans? that's certainly not fair.

I don't see it as a tough one, these people are using our resourses and they should even be here in the first place. If we had a Fairtax, I wouldn't mind as much, because then they would be paying the full taxes that they currently are not paying. But, they here here illegally, using our resources, and we give them benifets to boot. They are criminals, that broke the law. They shouldn't be gaurenteed Taxpayer benifets.

 

[SuBe]

I got to wonder, why is it that people like yourself, always think in the way of "They came here to cheat the normal naturalizaton process" and other negative connotations. Why is it that people fail to see that some folks just want to give their kids a better life? I mean, I totally see what you're saying, and for the most part agree. But there is more to see than the "they broke the law!" angle.

There is a process, a way to come here legally. They should wait in line like everyone else. Just like my mother did.

 

[SuBe]

I would go into the specifics of his stance but judging by your confusion, I'd wager you don't even know what the Department of Education does. You just see the word 'education' in the title and think, 'Yep, that must be good.'

Ever wondered why the U.S. trails all other first world nations in education?

Well... probably not, since you were confused about it in the first place, but the huge beauracracy in place of what should be our education system is a good culprit.

That is because we have removed the Competition Aspect of Education in the Name of Political Correctness. The Teachers Union are more worried about keeping there jobs and making it easier than producing more intellegent Students.

 

[SuBe]

If 36,000 donations, over $4,000,000 in one day, winning 54% of all straw polls across the nation and a plan by supporters to donate over $10,000,000 on the 16th is "small" grass roots, then maybe you're right, but I have a feeling you're not...

I bet you pinko-commie liberal bastards are just squirming in your dirty, grimey little holes.

I like you.

 

[Lackey]

I should probably give you a couple days off for that one, but I'll be nice and just infract you. No name calling.

Hahaha, Matt's just as bad as Morg. It was bound to happen.

 

[Lackey]

a blog piece from a smart Matt

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-simon/ron-paul-and-john-stossel_b_76206.html

 

[Matt]

a blog piece from a smart Matt

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-simon/ron-paul-and-john-stossel_b_76206.html

Sorry for not giving a damn about a candidate who can't win. Who are you going to vote for once Paul loses the primaries, Lackey? Gonna join the draft Nader movement?

 

[Lackey]

preview of PBS's NOW on the Ron Paul Phenomenon to air Dec. 14

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/350/preview.html

 

[Lackey]

Sorry for not giving a damn about a candidate who can't win. Who are you going to vote for once Paul loses the primaries, Lackey? Gonna join the draft Nader movement?

You not only don't give a damn, you admitted your ignorance... so what are you doing in this thread? trolling?

 

[Matt]

You not only don't give a damn, you admitted your ignorance... so what are you doing in this thread? trolling?

I admitted I do not know much about his policies, I was however having a conversation with Shadow Boxing about his likelihood of victory.

 

[Lackey]

Shadow Boxing hasn't posted in this thread. We're talking about this thread.

You entered this thread just to let everyone know that you don't give a damn about Ron Paul and don't care to know any more about him. That would be considered trolling in other parts of these boards.