just doing my part to raise some awareness
Ron Paul 2008 - Hope for America
i don't care for politics, but i kinda like this guy.

neither do i agree with roughly 75% of his views, but i also kinda feel a sort of soft spot for him. mostly because he says what no one else has the balls to. and shit, he won the republican debates, or most of them at least, despite being boo'ed on a couple occasions.

if anything, and i think this is something difficult for politicians to do, he at least provokes THOUGHT. y'know?

you don't really have to agree with his views, many of the major issues he believes should be left to the state to decide. i won't pretend to know all the ins and outs, but i have been impressed by most everything i read about him. also, i am really disturbed by the major media attempting to shut him out and refusing coverage.

tynan and his friends are all about him, raising money and awareness hardcore, so i hear about him frequently. he wrote an article on his blog earlier this month so i thought i'd quote it and share it.

Tynan is… Better Than Your Boyfriend » Blog Archive » Why I Donated to Ron Paul Today… and Why You MUST Too!

He's anti abortion, against gun control, and against environmental protection.

I'm not thrill with his healthcare scheme either.

With the exception of being anti abortion he's standard issue Libertarian.

Sorry Brooke, I'll pass on this guy.

but he also believes these things should be decided at the state level rather than at the federal level.... which means you don't have to agree with him.

no need to be sorry... like i said, i'm not really into politics. i think he is refreshingly honest, even if i don't agree with his views on certain issues.

which is very libertarian. most libertarians believe that.

__________________
When I awoke, the Dire Wolf
Six hundred pounds of sin
Was grinning at my window
All I said was "Come on in".
Grateful Dead

The problem, for me at any rate, is that the states rights issue is often used by libertarians and conservative republicans, to defeat environmental laws. Environmental regulations at the state level is basically like having no environmental protection. I've been reading a book called "The Republican War On Science." its shocking at what lengths conservative republicans, and libertarians as well, will go to distort science to fit their agenda. Libertarians tend to be global warming deniers, and like conservative republicans, are not above cherry picking science reports to find flaws, contradictions, and uncertainty when in fact the flaws are minor, the contradictions are imaginary, and the uncertainty is practically nonexistent.

thanks for explaining.... i really do not know much about politics. it is too aggravating for me. what i would like to know is how bush compares to this when it comes to environmental laws? i guess i feel like ron paul is the bush antithesis... even if i'm totally wrong.

so who are you for? who's pro environmental law? hilary?

i wish gore would run.

as for the real dem candidates, i think its up in the air. near as i can tell. obama seems to be the only one i trust. his reasoning skills and ability to explain himself are for superior to edwards or clinton./

ron paul is a VAST improvement when compared to bush. he is a reasonable person, and if you like his viewpoints then i dont think you could go wrong voting for him. he's interested in unrestrained capitalism, and although letting states decide things is ideal in many instances, it can be abused, like vegyrex has pointed out.

i tend to think of libertarians as idealists, much more so than even the greens. at least greens can see that people need to be regulated.

__________________
When I awoke, the Dire Wolf
Six hundred pounds of sin
Was grinning at my window
All I said was "Come on in".
Grateful Dead

Bush is considered the most anti science and most anti environment president we've ever had. Its amazing that someone like Richard Nixon was more environmentally friendly than Bush. Under Nixon the EPA was formed, he signed into law the clean water act, and the endangered species act. Bush on the other hand has tried or actually has weaken the EPA, the clean water act, and the endangered species act.


I'm a Hillary supporter. Whatever her flaws she will be a blast of fresh air compared to Bush. I don't mind Edwards or Obama. If either of them take the nomination from her I'd be disappointed but not upset.

ok, that's what i thought but i wasn't sure. honestly, i get way too frustrated when i pay attention to this stuff. i am getting anxious about it just reading this thread. i know this makes me ignorant, but in this arena, i sort of prefer to stay that way.

i wouldn't mind if hilary won. or obama. i think it would be cool to have a female president. or a black president. i don't have much faith in the government to do the right thing or the good thing, but i'd at least like them not to make a mockery out of our country like bush has.

*sighs* If only the Gore we know today, was the one who ran in 2000.

I think the Gore of today would have frightened the horses back in 2000.

__________________
Time is the distance that you can't return by miles.

I escaped somehow. Let's go

actualy [sic] I have quite a blessed life if I'm honest. I have many people to love, hate few and have few money problem's [sic].... What more does a person need? Oh yeah and I have some kind of humbleness unlike you of course ^_^ ~ CarefulCarpenter

When you think about it, who is most likely to take on corporations and who is most likely to talk the talk, and then kiss their butt? Ron Paul has the guts to take on corporations......

Besides, he's doesn't want war for oil. And he wants to stop subsidizing oil companies. *His stance is that policy contributes to global warming, by subsidizing oil companies.*

You gotta separate the lies of candidates that act like they care, from a guy that is honest and does care. The lies are gonna sound better, cuz the other politicians have learned to say what the people want to hear ... but they are still lies. How did Bush, basically a retard, get in? He told lies, and he was good at telling lies. You won't get that from Ron Paul.

.........................

Here's his own words on it:

Ron Paul on Global Warming

Source: YouTube; July 8, 2007

"Global temperatures have been warming since the Little Ice Age. Studies within the respectable scientific community have shown that human beings are most likely a part of this process. As a Congressman, I've done a number of things to support environmentally friendly policies. I have been active in the Green Scissors campaign to cut environmentally harmful spending, I've opposed foreign wars for oil, and I've spoken out against government programs that encourage development in environmentally sensitive areas, such as flood insurance."

"I strongly oppose the Kyoto treaty. Providing for a clean environment is an excellent goal, but the Kyoto treaty doesn't do that. Instead it's placed the burden on the United States to cut emissions while not requiring China - the world's biggest polluter - an other polluting third-world countries to do a thing. Also, the regulations are harmful for American workers, because it encourages corporations to move their business overseas to countries where the regulations don't apply. It's bad science, it's bad policy, and it's bad for America. I am more than willing to work cooperatively with other nations to come up with policies that will safeguard the environment, but I oppose all nonbinding resolutions that place an unnecessary burden on the United States."

When asked by Bill Maher if he thinks the Federal Government should be involved in stopping Global Warming, Ron Paul replied:

"Then you have to deal with the volcanoes, and you have to deal with China... so what are you going to do, invade China so they don't pollute? ... But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do what we can to slow up the emissions and stop subsidizing big oil companies. I don't like subsidizing oil companies. They've been doing that for years. We go to war to protect oil, so that we can buy more oil, and burn more oil. So I say our foreign policy contributes to global warming -- by subsidizing a policy that is deeply flawed. And that's why we're in the Middle East, to protect oil interests."

When asked if efforts to slow down Global Warming should be increased, Dr. Paul replied: "Yes."

Because he does not support any piece of legislation not specifically authorized by the Constitution, Paul votes against most bills that involve government spending or expanded government initiatives; thus he does not seek legislation to combat the global warming. Instead, he advocates reducing emissions, halting subsidies to oil companies, and altering a war-for-oil foreign policy that in itself contributes to global warming.

Thx.........

libertarianism is organised anarchy.

i completely disagree with this whole "let people keep their money abolush health care etc"
i do not blieve private should be running healthcare, education, etc etc. that needs to come for the common good of all.

<3

__________________
When I awoke, the Dire Wolf
Six hundred pounds of sin
Was grinning at my window
All I said was "Come on in".
Grateful Dead

Ya you rather big fat liars run it. Ok! Good ...

?? what do you think CEO's are? at least govt won't be as prone to driving it into the ground for a quarter profit increase.

__________________
When I awoke, the Dire Wolf
Six hundred pounds of sin
Was grinning at my window
All I said was "Come on in".
Grateful Dead