Am I the only one not impressed with Ventura and Kokesh?

[Bman]

we have to get abortion *out* of federal politics.

It hamstrings everything else. And besides, the repubs don't even mean it.

+1,000,000

 

[luaPnoR]

You're not the only one. He's a good speaker and knows how to get everyone fired up. I did like many of the things he had to say. I especially liked the, "Ta hell with the Patriot Act!" line.

I'm not a truther but I do wonder why Osama hasn't been charged. I mean, if that's true why has that not been talked about? Fishy.

I didn't really like that part about, "If you guys work hard and get out there and be active then I'll be your man in 2012"... like if we do all the work then he'll run for president. Nice.

I'm WAY pro-life (but it should not be a Fed Gov issue) so he gets a check mark for that. and I'm against illegals so he gets another check mark.

And he needs a haircut.

 

[JoshLowry]

I'm against illegals so he gets another check mark.

Are you against illegal immigration or is it all the free handouts we give them?

 

[georgiapeach]

I got to listen to him a little at the campfire the night before. He seems like a nice kid. I get the impression that maybe several people here are unfamiliar with 1)Marines 2)guys who were in Fallujah. They may just be a little shocked. I'm from an AF family, but hey, we know some Marines. And the kids from the Guard Unit here in town were in Fallujah. It was a bad place. A really bad place. My heart aches for them. But it was real. It happened. And they did what they had to do. I'm sorry it upsets some people here. They're more upset. Really.

Exactly!

If you have spent a lot of time around military people, particularly the ones that have had troops under them, you will find that they do occasionally come on a bit strong. That goes for even the ones that haven't been in bad spots like he was. For some of us that tend to be more behind-the-scenes kind of people,like myself, it takes some getting used to.
Personally, I enjoyed his speech a lot. I even made my Dad watch it when he came over the next day.

 

[Dsylexic]

The day our movement becomes some crazy violent coup whose rally cries are proving 9/11 was an inside job, making it legal to abort, and opening the borders to every Mexican and Arab...

.

You sound like a racist bigot -especially with your reference to Mexicans and Arabs.
First of all, hardly any arab wants to come into america unlike many poor and desperate Mexicans. The Arabs, on the other hand, want Americans to get out of their countries. You might realise that if you paid more attention to Dr Paul.

Also, abortion is not an issue that needs to be debated at the national level.It doesnt matter what you and I think, it should be decided at the local level.

Finally,Ron Paul is for "true immigration reform". Which means, people from ALL countries will be able to migrate to the US without stupid green cards or waiting times :The only thing that will make this possible is the elimination of the welfare state which will remove the perverse incentives for illegal immigration.The end goal however remains free immigration.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The thing is that we're never going to win if everyone thinks we're a bunch of tinfoil hate wearing 9/11 truth loons.

Ron Paul had the good sense in the debates to bring up Reagan's condemnation of irrational middle eastern politics, Taft's opposition to joining nato, Bush's promises in 2000 of a humble foreign policy, no nation building, no policing the world, Reagan's sympathy to a gold standard, the Republican platform's edict to abolish the department of education, etc.

He knew how to get Republicans to vote for him. A Ventura candidacy would just be a massive circle jerk that wouldn't attract any new voters.

If he knew how to get republicans to vote for him, why didn't they?

The republican party no longer stands for the things you mentioned.

What Ventura said is a valid warning, this heavily armed wall that everyone seems keen on building could just as easily turn into a wall to keep all of us, in.

9/11, yeah, I know, you and your fellow travelers have made it very clear, "nuts, loons, idiots, assholes, shut up, get out". Too bad, I'm not going anywhere, eff you very much.

And Kokesh being "too harsh"? Jesus weeping christ on the cross, is this the Ron Paul "Care Bear Warm Happy Snuggle" movement or the Ron Paul Revolution?

The nation is tottering on the edge of financial insolvency, non sanctioned war has killed a million people, the Bill of Rights is on fire, and a high tech, fully militarized police state is waiting in the wings to bash skulls and get us all in line when the wheels finally fall off this mess, and some people still want to pussy foot around and get the vapors when somebody like Kokesh or Ventura comes out and forcefully calls all this shit out???

 

[Danke]

Adam could go far: good looks, can speak, and sneaky!

 

[Indy4Chng]

Say no to Ventura!

I think Ventura would single handling cripple this movement. I would not only not vote for him but I would actively campaign against him.

We are so close to becoming mainstream and you want to pick the one guy that will drive us to the fringe FOREVER!! I guess if we want a liberty debate club for the next 100 year he is your candidate. We have four years... if it is not Gary Johnson, someone else will step up.

 

[reduen]

Ventura and Franklin

Ok, does Ventura remind anyone else of like Benjamin Franklin on steriods?

I think of that every time I see him...

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I agree with you, Im just disappointed that they're the 2 who basically stole the show at the rally. To ever actually win anything, the CFL has to court "Republitarians". Ventura and Kokesh could never in a million years build a diverse enough coalition to win the Presidency.

If we can get regular people involved in the process again, I disagree.

Most people I run into have still never heard of Paul. They're people who no longer believe they can have an impact. They're people who know they're getting screwed whether republicans or democrat win, and so they've stopped wasting their time worrying about it.

Those are the people we need.

 

[ClayTrainor]

I think Ventura would single handling cripple this movement. I would not only not vote for him but I would actively campaign against him.

We are so close to becoming mainstream and you want to pick the one guy that will drive us to the fringe FOREVER!! I guess if we want a liberty debate club for the next 100 year he is your candidate. We have four years... if it is not Gary Johnson, someone else will step up.

I imagine you're probably an "anti-truther" and believe Jesse would drive us to the fringe due to 911 truth?

Correct me if im wrong.

I believe you are correct to an extent but, if Jesse ran with someone like ron paul or Gary Johnson at his side, (VP or P) Jesse would be toned down.

There's nothing wrong with questioning 911, and we should be encouraged to do so but, making baseless claims is what we must not do.

I believe Jesse understands this and if he had Ron Paul at his side, RP would keep him in line and they would discuss exactly how far to go into the topic.

I.e. The question jesse asked about Bin laden at the R4R was completely legit and something we should all think about, no matter which side of the spectrum you sit on.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=154162

What else is it about Ventura that makes you think we'll be painted as fringe?

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

At least with Ventura, he will not take our guns/arms away, and will not engage in big spending and forget about the debt...

Jesse does indeed engage in big spending. He brought us the light rail boondogle, increased spending for government schools, and anything he liked. Jesse is about Jesse. He cut taxes on luxury sports cars. Jesse owns luxury sports cars.

We're taking a real hit here in MN for having Jesse in. Our more conservative talk hosts declined to attend because Jesse was there. One news org credited the Rally turnout to Ventura. After all that work and money, they'd damn well credit the honorable Dr Paul.

 

[SeanEdwards]

The end goal however remains free immigration.

No it doesn't.

There's plenty of good reasons besides the expense of a welfare state to manage and limit immigration. Every country on the planet, except for the U.S., places limits on immigration and scrutinizes every potential immigrant before allowing them entry.

Motherfuckers with incurable TB and AIDS and other nasty communicable diseases don't have a right to immigrate to my country. I don't give a fuck about their suffering. What a tragedy, now GTFO.

Same goes for people with violent criminal records. They can stay the fuck out too.

And all the open border cosmo-libertarian dipshits can join them.

 

[Defining Obscene]

No it doesn't.

There's plenty of good reasons besides the expense of a welfare state to manage and limit immigration. Every country on the planet, except for the U.S., places limits on immigration and scrutinizes every potential immigrant before allowing them entry.

Motherfuckers with incurable TB and AIDS and other nasty communicable diseases don't have a right to immigrate to my country. I don't give a fuck about their suffering. What a tragedy, now GTFO.

Same goes for people with violent criminal records. They can stay the fuck out too.

And all the open border cosmo-libertarian dipshits can join them.

I agree with the criminal records, but barring the sick from entering? I don't see how the constitution would support such a thing unless they show the intent to hurt others with it. Telling someone to go die in a corner is not the American way, especially if they took the path to legal citizenship; they're at least responsible. Unless these people are huffing airborne diseases, I see no reason to reject them. They way you phrase that, it sounds like you would support a pseudo-scientific gestapo to rubber stamp those who are fit to live - leave that to Planned Parenthood.

 

[SeanEdwards]

I agree with the criminal records, but barring the sick from entering? I don't see how the constitution would support such a thing unless they show the intent to hurt others with it. Telling someone to go die in a corner is not the American way, especially if they took the path to legal citizenship; they're at least responsible. Unless these people are huffing airborne diseases, I see no reason to reject them. They way you phrase that, it sounds like you would support a pseudo-scientific gestapo to rubber stamp those who are fit to live - leave that to Planned Parenthood.

I don't give a shit if it's fair or legal. Letting plague carriers enter your country is stupid. Shall we all die in order to protect our image? WTF is that?

 

[Defining Obscene]

I don't give a shit if it's fair or legal. Letting plague carriers enter your country is stupid. Shall we all die in order to protect our image? WTF is that?

If you don't give a shit if its fair or legal, then why should they? You can't deny the fact there is already diseases in this country, do you think we should deport the sick? How about if we abort the children who are sick so they can't spread it? Perhaps forced sterilization for public safety? Or we could just skip all that nonsense and move right to enclosed camps. Just some suggestions, freund.


Not sure how AIDS and TB has gotten your feathers in such a ruffle, I doubt you know anyone who actually has these diseases. But I assure you, they didn't choose to get them, and if they were ignorant of them, they will suffer and die in the perfect world. Unless, however, they are responsible people who will work hard to pay for medication and a 2nd chance at life, rather than expect a government handout which has been happening is sure to come in greater force when pseudo-universal healthcare arrives. Believe it or not, the free market doesn't yield it very profitable to catch diseases. We are not all going to die because of a natural plague, maybe an engineered one, in which those SHOULD be held accountable, but remember that the constitution is there to protect the minority from the majority, not to perpetuate a phobia of sick people.

Just some thought.

 

[SeanEdwards]

If you don't give a shit if its fair or legal, then why should they? You can't deny the fact there is already diseases in this country, do you think we should deport the sick? How about if we abort the children who are sick so they can't spread it? Perhaps forced sterilization for public safety? Or we could just skip all that nonsense and move right to enclosed camps. Just some suggestions, freund.


Not sure how AIDS and TB has gotten your feathers in such a ruffle, I doubt you know anyone who actually has these diseases. But I assure you, they didn't choose to get them, and if they were ignorant of them, they will suffer and die in the perfect world. Unless, however, they are responsible people who will work hard to pay for medication and a 2nd chance at life, rather than expect a government handout which has been happening is sure to come in greater force when pseudo-universal healthcare arrives. Believe it or not, the free market doesn't yield it very profitable to catch diseases.
Just some thought.

It doesn't matter if these people are responsible for their disease, or perfectly innocent victims. This is not a value judgement on people, it's a matter of public health policy. Communicable diseases are a real threat to everyone. And I'm not just talking about the diseases we know about today. I'm saying that as a general policy matter, the state should try to prevent deadly plagues from crossing our borders. That is a gigantic DUH! Bubonic plague doesn't care about your morals. Ebola isn't concerned with how nice and good of a person you are. It's tragic that people get sick and die, but that's no excuse to put a bunch of healthy people at risk.

In fact, there are already laws on the books that prohibit carriers of dangerous communicable diseases from immigrating to the US. But since millions and millions of immigrants routinely ignore our laws, we are getting steadily increasing numbers of "third world" maladies affecting American society. Do you really think you're going to guilt trip me into living with malaria, TB, Dengue fever, west nile virus, etc, because turning plague carriers away at the border would be "mean"? Good luck with that.

 

[Defining Obscene]

It doesn't matter if these people are responsible for their disease, or perfectly innocent victims. This is not a value judgement on people, it's a matter of public health policy. Communicable diseases are a real threat to everyone. And I'm not just talking about the diseases we know about today. I'm saying that as a general policy matter, the state should try to prevent deadly plagues from crossing our borders. That is a gigantic DUH! Bubonic plague doesn't care about your morals. Ebola isn't concerned with how nice and good of a person you are. It's tragic that people get sick and die, but that's no excuse to put a bunch of healthy people at risk.

In fact, there are already laws on the books that prohibit carriers of dangerous communicable diseases from immigrating to the US. But since millions and millions of immigrants routinely ignore our laws, we are getting steadily increasing numbers of "third world" maladies affecting American society. Do you really think you're going to guilt trip me into living with malaria, TB, Dengue fever, west nile virus, etc, because turning plague carriers away at the border would be "mean"? Good luck with that.

Dangerous communicable diseases being the key phrase. Easily transmittable ones should absolutely be rejected IF the infected person chooses not to get treatment. The solution would be to direct those people to a source where they can receive help, rather than reject them flat out. Instead of them trying to come here, finding out they are sick, and denying them, we should make a path in which they can get the help they need while they are here, as a condition for citizenship (in the case of easily transmitted disease). A lot of people can't get the help they need in their country, what if someone came here just to get help? Denying people help because they are sick; I think you see the terrible policy there. It would put foreign money into the medical field, people would get their treatment, and become citizens ---- or if they choose not to exhaust all their options, then its their loss and they don't get to stay. I think (hope) you can agree with that.

 

[Dsylexic]

Dangerous communicable diseases being the key phrase. Easily transmittable ones should absolutely be rejected IF the infected person chooses not to get treatment. The solution would be to direct those people to a source where they can receive help, rather than reject them flat out. Instead of them trying to come here, finding out they are sick, and denying them, we should make a path in which they can get the help they need while they are here, as a condition for citizenship (in the case of easily transmitted disease). A lot of people can't get the help they need in their country, what if someone came here just to get help? Denying people help because they are sick; I think you see the terrible policy there. It would put foreign money into the medical field, people would get their treatment, and become citizens ---- or if they choose not to exhaust all their options, then its their loss and they don't get to stay. I think (hope) you can agree with that.

Very nice. The forefathers of the founding fathers of America brought small pox and other deadly diseases to the native americans and wiped out entire generations. Now you want to play health-license-permit-bureaucrat and decide who is in and who is out. diseases have nothing to do with immigration. when droves of poor europeans immigrated in the early part of the century, they were 'quarantined' in case they suffered from diseases. thats how epidemics are controlled -communicable or otherwise. A well known and well accepted method of temporary isolation (even NASA astronauts are quarantined on return from the Moon) should be applied.Once it is determined they dont possess a threat to public health, they can be let in.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Very nice. The forefathers of the founding fathers of America brought small pox and other deadly diseases to the native americans and wiped out entire generations. Now you want to play health-license-permit-bureaucrat and decide who is in and who is out. diseases have nothing to do with immigration. when droves of poor europeans immigrated in the early part of the century, they were 'quarantined' in case they suffered from diseases. thats how epidemics are controlled -communicable or otherwise. A well known and well accepted method of temporary isolation (even NASA astronauts are quarantined on return from the Moon) should be applied.Once it is determined they dont possess a threat to public health, they can be let in.

That's darwinism though. The immune system of the indians couldn't take it, what can I say? Libertarians believe in free trade and travel, so there is no reason not to think that they wouldn't have become infected by means of trade and travel. Shit happens.