[mekrob]

I'm not sure how many of you watch Bill Maher, but during my break I sought ways to spend some free time so I was watching some of his clips on YouTube. Anyway, I ran across one of his interviews lately with someone that has been mentioned somewhat often on this board, Ron Paul (R-TX).

Ron Paul is running for President of the US. He is PO aware and is a true Republican. In the interview, he spells out against our current foreign policy, wants to abolish much of the CIA, etc. He would take us off of our current course towards a police state that has been set for the past many years.

I just thought I'd bring this up since no one has mentioned on here that he's running for President. He's scheduled for the Republican debate May 3rd at the Reagan Library. The debate will be available live on MSNBC exclusively.

He's pretty much the only candidate that I can see myself voting for. Although I think democracy is great and everyone should vote, before this I would have had a hard time voting for anybody.
----
Edit: Just thought I'd add a poll.

[Falconoffury]

Sounds good. I would rather be in a struggle for food and water with the rights that the USA was built on than live in a police state.

[Daculling]

He'll be killed by the bankers.

[greenworm]

Where is the choice to abolish the federal govt? That would be the perfect answer, no one to steal 40% of my earnings, no one to dictate the economy-- imagine what real free trade would be like, it would be refreshing, no one to start wars, why can't that be choice on the ballot?

[Loki]

I like Ron Paul, but I do have one major problem with him: his environmental policies. You can forget about any movement whatsoever towards a rational climate change policy, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he tried to sell off federal lands. Oh, and he thinks one of the main causes of higher gasoline prices are environmental regulations. Apparently we "cannot afford to be held hostage by unrealistic environmental rules that threaten to strangle our economy." If only we could drill ANWR we'd have enough oil to last forever.

On the other hand he'd probably actually do something to cut off uncontrolled immigration and to pull us out of corporate trade agreements, plus he's unlikely to start any more wars of aggression, so his administration might very well be an overall plus for the environment....

That's assuming of course he stood an ice cube's chance in hell, which he doesn't. I think he's doing just fine right where he is. I just wish the MSM would pay a bit more attention to him (yeah right). He does have some good things to say.

[mekrob]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')h, and he thinks one of the main causes of higher gasoline prices are environmental regulations.

[TommyJefferson]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', 'H')e is PO aware and is a true Republican.

[mekrob]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TommyJefferson', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', 'H')e is PO aware and is a true Republican.

[Tyler_JC]

A "true" Republican would oppose the legalization of prostitution, drugs, and would want to criminalize abortion.

A Republican, in theory, wants less government intervention in the economy but more intervention in the private sector with regards to moral issues.

A Libertarian wants less regulation of all kinds. No CIA, no EPA, no FDA, no constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, no TVA, and so on.

A Libertarian paradise looks like the "Wild" West.

A Republican paradise looks like any suburb of the 1950s.

On the other hand, a Democratic paradise looks like France or depending on how cynical you are, the USSR in the 1950s.

[mekrob]

Tyler,

Are those definitions for a true republican based off of today's standards and ideals or what republicans used to stand for?

[lateStarter]

The best candidate is probably a poor, under educated Greyhound bus driver who lives in some place like Tupelo, Mississippi. He has common sense, is civic minded, is compassionate, can't be bought off, and has a good sense of humor.

Unfortunately, he is also 'un-electable' (poor, can't be bought off, unsophisticated, un-photogenic, etc..)

Imagine someone like Abraham Lincoln trying to run for President today?

We are doomed... We all know how it 'could' work and 'should' work, but realize it just ain't gonna happen. That chance probably disappeared in the US back in xxxx...

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', 'T')yler,

Are those definitions for a true republican based off of today's standards and ideals or what republicans used to stand for?

[TommyJefferson]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', 'W')hat's the difference between a true Republican (small government, etc) and a libertarian?

[The_Toecutter]

While I may not like Kucinich's economic policies much, I would love to see a bipartisan Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich ticket. It is very rare that you find a politician in congress who wants to end this unconstitutional oil war, end all the post 911 civil libertires infringements, and challenge the fiat money system. Such a ticket could hypothetially unite right libertarians and left liberals, if only temporarily, and would be quite a force to reckon with if it could get the funding. All options need to be considered to oust neoconservatives and authoritarians from what is supposed to be a democratic republic.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ell, he'd definitely take the EPA down a peg, probably privatize it, which would make it a fucking joke.

[Rock_solid_bacon]

Its not the votes that counts, its the people who count the votes.
Schmucks.

[TommyJefferson]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'M')any on the right think the solution is to privatize everything. However, a private corporation can often exploit a population and be even more corrupted and less representative of the will of the people than a government.

[The_Toecutter]

We need to get our definitions straight. The version of 'privatized' I used was in the same context as it is talked about by both democrats and republicans in our congress. While this definition is technically incorrect, I am referring to how this word is perceived by both the mass public today and in government. When they talk about 'privatizing' everything, they talk about allowing corporations who are open to the public and regulated by the SEC to have control over assets previously held by the government. This is the sort of 'private corporation' that I was referring to. This context will be placed in quotes, referred to as 'privatized', while the real word in its real meaning will be written out without quotes as privatized.

When the mainstream politicians talk about 'privatization', they aren't referring to those small companies that don't have to fill 10-Ks. They are referring to those transnationals that have basically merged with our government.

On a strict technical basis, these 'private' companies really aren't private enterprise, but that is what they are often referred to as.

Real private corporations aren't open to selling their securities to the general public through a stock exchange and aren't controlled by the SEC. Their stock isn't traded publically.

I've seen neocons and some self proclaimed libertarians support the 'privatization' of national assets. The majority of the people who call themselves right wing support the sort of 'privatization' referred to above, and not privatization in its strict technical sense. It is a select few libertarians and some paleoconservatives that are vehemently opposed to the sort of 'privatization' talked about above, while supporting privatization in its strict technical sense, and with very good justification.

We want to return ownership to we the people, and not have it hoarded by a few elite running our government and today's gigantic transnational corporations. We want the government and industry to stay off our property and out of our assets. We don't want Exxon Mobil, Lockheed Martin, or General Motors dictating our laws or polluting our environment.

When 'private' corporations have all the constitutional protections that individual people have(well, individual people have those protectionsin theory...) without having to take responsibility for the damage they cause to others as a result of their actions, this has essentially been supported by our own tyrannial government.

Big business and big government are the same enemy to liberty. They repeatedly prop each other up and cooperate to maximize the flow of money from 'we the people' to the pockets of shareholders and bureaucrats. They do so even at the expense of our civil liberties and economic freedom. They do so in the name of 'privatization'.

The real term for that? Fascism.

[TommyJefferson]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'T')he real term for that? Fascism.