John Stossel interviews Ron Paul

[sinewave]

except that I gave you evidence and you gave me nothing.


That index is created by a conservative group, so you would think if there was any bias in their findings, it would a pro-Republican bias. However, if you actually looked at those links I gave you'd see that not only do most politicians end up being "middle of the road" whether they're democrat or republican, but the democrat-majority congress actually turns out to be more conservative than the republican-majority congress.
Barely half of the current members of the House of Representatives scored above 50.
Both parties are statist in that they put their faith in government to solve every problem. More government is the answer for both sides.

re-read my post in response to those links. you didn't address my points at all. all you're talking about is their supposed voting records. my initial point was that the level of conduct between the two parties is quite disparate. why is one considered acceptable and not the other, despite the proven faults of the one in power?

 

[justinlancaster]

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

I tend to agree that taking away natural born citizenship might be an extreme that doesn’t necessarily need to happen. I think punishing businesses that hire illegal aliens is the ultimate answer along with easing the citizenship process. Nobody in this country should have to be paid a lesser wage because they are not documented. I think that businesses that hire illegals are taking advantage of these people.

Since you live in Mexico, I would like to hear your opinion on what you think the US should do regarding the stream of illegal aliens entering the country and what they could do to stop that flow and relax the citizenship process?

 

[justinlancaster]

In all honesty, I haven't done the appropriate leg work to give an opinion one way or another on Ron Paul. I haven't because he pretty much cannot win. Therefore why even bother? (I know, being a Richardson supporter I must stink of hypocrisy).

I know it is an uphill battle but he is changing a lot of peoples minds and has grassroot support like I have never seen before. In my opinion it doesn't matter if he wins or not as long as he is changing the attitude of American politics and ideas. If we would just listen to some of these candidates that aren't having their ***** sucked off by cable news stations, then we would be in a lot better state then we are now.

www.ronpaul2008.com

At this website he has all the issues and even a list of youtube videos that you can watch regarding his positions. The guy raised 4.3 million in one day, he has a blimp that will be flying all over the east coast and another money bomb on Dec. 16th that is supposed to make the 4.3 million look like chump change. Maybe its time to check him out.

 

[Argyle of Sock]

Watching this inspired me to retake the political compass test. Dang I'm farther left even than I thought.

 

[Superman4ever]

More with Paul: http://www.fliggo.com/video/uprOMHI4

 

[Superman4ever]

Cool, I didn't know he was an M.D.

A humane one as well!

 

[Memphis Slim]

Mexican immigration laws are much more tougher than ours..... Do you know what they do to people cayught sneaking into their southern borders?

 

[Sandman138]

I'd be more inclined to accept Paul's immigration reforms if he would also pledge to end US support of the World Bank.

 

[SuBe]

I'd be more inclined to accept Paul's immigration reforms if he would also pledge to end US support of the World Bank.

Oh, I kind of like that Idea.

 

[justinlancaster]

I'd be more inclined to accept Paul's immigration reforms if he would also pledge to end US support of the World Bank.

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002

ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article by Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which explains the benefits of abolishing the Fed and restoring the gold standard, into the record.

Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.

From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial "boom" followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.

With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America's exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation.

Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.

In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans' standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.

 

[justinlancaster]

More with Paul: http://www.fliggo.com/video/uprOMHI4

This is a really great interview if you don't know too much about Ron Paul or if you want to know more about his stances on the various issues. The interviewer just asks questions and he answers them directly. Gotta love it.

 

[zenile]

I tend to agree that taking away natural born citizenship might be an extreme that doesn’t necessarily need to happen. I think punishing businesses that hire illegal aliens is the ultimate answer along with easing the citizenship process. Nobody in this country should have to be paid a lesser wage because they are not documented. I think that businesses that hire illegals are taking advantage of these people.

Since you live in Mexico, I would like to hear your opinion on what you think the US should do regarding the stream of illegal aliens entering the country and what they could do to stop that flow and relax the citizenship process?

Totally agree

 

[ShadowBoxing]

This guys pretty whacked out. His philosophy on things is flimsey to say the least. I don't think he does a good job, at all, of defending why the Government shouldn't protect certain people from "harming themselves", especially since some of these actions just don't harm the person involved.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

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?

He's fifth in fundraising within his own party, and doesn't even touch the Billary and Obama/Oprah juggernauts. Monatarily he's about as much of a threat as the fanboys who boycott TDK over Joker make-up are to the Batman franchise.

 

[HUMAN]

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.

What if...

Your mom or dad or sister or someone close to you was in pain and the only way to help them was a medication that they do not have. Well, you're s**t outta luck because you don't have the money. Do you break into the store and steal the medicine? Or do you wait till tomorrow when your pay check comes?

I do not know what ILLEGAL immigrant means if it doesn't mean that it's against the law. Other people want to come to this country too and are doing it the LEGAL way. The border hoppers are keeping the ones who deserve to come to our country out while they cheat the system.

 

[justinlancaster]

He's fifth in fundraising within his own party, and doesn't even touch the Billary and Obama/Oprah juggernauts. Monatarily he's about as much of a threat as the fanboys who boycott TDK over Joker make-up are to the Batman franchise.

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – Today, with four weeks left in the fourth quarter, Ron Paul's presidential campaign has raised over $10.6 million – more than double his impressive third quarter total of $5.28 million.

www.ronpaul2008.com-

Not only has Congressman Ron Paul doubled his fundraising total from last quarter, but he has already surpassed the July-September totals of each of his fellow Republican primary contenders.

"Ron Paul's message of freedom, prosperity and peace is resonating with Americans," said Ron Paul 2008 chairman Kent Snyder. "We look forward to exceeding our fundraising goal of $12 million, and using every dollar to spread Dr. Paul's message to primary voters."

 

[justinlancaster]

This guys pretty whacked out. His philosophy on things is flimsey to say the least. I don't think he does a good job, at all, of defending why the Government shouldn't protect certain people from "harming themselves", especially since some of these actions just don't harm the person involved.

What exactly are you referring to?

 

[ShadowBoxing]

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – Today, with four weeks left in the fourth quarter, Ron Paul's presidential campaign has raised over $10.6 million – more than double his impressive third quarter total of $5.28 million.

So what? Go to opensecrets.org, he is still fifth in his own party and seventh or eight overall when compared to what the other candidates have raised. Hillary Clinton, for example, has already raised a total of 90 million dollars. Paul doesn't even scratch the surface of that kind of fundraising power.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

What exactly are you referring to?

John Stossel interview, you can find it on Youtube.

 

[Not Jake]

taint.

pfffffftttthahahahaha

 

[justinlancaster]

John Stossel interview, you can find it on Youtube.

I understand that, what I meant was, what particular issues are you referring to when you say-

“I don't think he does a good job, at all, of defending why the Government shouldn't protect certain people from "harming themselves", especially since some of these actions just don't harm the person involved.”

When, in your opinion, should the government get involved?

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I understand that, what I meant was, what particular issues are you referring to when you say-

“I don't think he does a good job, at all, of defending why the Government shouldn't protect certain people from "harming themselves", especially since some of these actions just don't harm the person involved.”

When, in your opinion, should the government get involved?

Yes, I think it's a gross oversimplication to think the Government has no say in what people do to themselves. Government has a role in promoting the common good. Government also has a role in shaping the souls of it's citizens.

He actually eats his own logic in that interview. He says he wants the Government to protect children and make sure children don't get involved in these practices, but wants to allow the parents to engage in many of those practices. You aren't going to be able to successfully run a society that nurtures and raises good families when you allow the parents to engage in any behavior they see fit.

Also, it's incredibly naive of him to believe that men are islands and that what they do to themselves affects them and no one else. Some drugs, like pot, are illegal for purely political reasons. However, some drugs, like heroine are destructive and can bring down not just the person who uses them, but anyone close to that person.

 

[justinlancaster]

Yes, I think it's a gross oversimplication to think the Government has no say in what people do to themselves. Government has a role in promoting the common good. Government also has a role in shaping the souls of it's citizens.

-That is a gross oversimplification. And I’m curious as to how you came to that conclusion from watching the videos since he was referring to the Federal government not having any say when it comes to drug regulation. He places the responsibility of regulating drugs squarely on the shoulders of the states.

He actually eats his own logic in that interview. He says he wants the Government to protect children and make sure children don't get involved in these practices, but wants to allow the parents to engage in many of those practices. You aren't going to be able to successfully run a society that nurtures and raises good families when you allow the parents to engage in any behavior they see fit.

-I think you are confusing his personal stance with what he said he would be able to do as president. He said the Federal government should not be involved and that the states should decide if they want to legalize certain drugs.

And just because a state decides to legalize a certain drug or all of them, doesn’t mean that they are going to knock on the door and force you to shoot heroin. You imply that as soon as the Federal government gets out of drug regulation, then everybody is going to become a drug addict.

 

[justinlancaster]

Yes, I think it's a gross oversimplication to think the Government has no say in what people do to themselves. Government has a role in promoting the common good. Government also has a role in shaping the souls of it's citizens.

He actually eats his own logic in that interview. He says he wants the Government to protect children and make sure children don't get involved in these practices, but wants to allow the parents to engage in many of those practices. You aren't going to be able to successfully run a society that nurtures and raises good families when you allow the parents to engage in any behavior they see fit.

Also, it's incredibly naive of him to believe that men are islands and that what they do to themselves affects them and no one else. Some drugs, like pot, are illegal for purely political reasons. However, some drugs, like heroine are destructive and can bring down not just the person who uses them, but anyone close to that person.

-When did he say that?

 

[ShadowBoxing]

-I think you are confusing his personal stance with what he said he would be able to do as president. He said the Federal government should not be involved and that the states should decide if they want to legalize certain drugs.

And just because a state decides to legalize a certain drug or all of them, doesn’t mean that they are going to knock on the door and force you to shoot heroin. You imply that as soon as the Federal government gets out of drug regulation, then everybody is going to become a drug addict.

I know what he said, I watched it three times, and no I don't think certain things should be legal. It's the role of the Government at large to promote a common good. A while legalizing something doesn't imply they will make you do anything it sends a very distinct message that certain behaviors are "okay" and lack consequences. A parent doing heroin has very grave consequences on his or her family, and increases the risk of the child being addicted to that drug.

He subscribes to a very idealistic, libertarian view of Government. It sounds all rosey and peachy on paper, but most people who attempt to scratch it's surface realize how unrealistic it is.