Article about Ron on CBS

But libertarians are a fractious bunch, and some hardcore activists have mixed feelings about the man now carrying their banner. For instance, libertarian purists generally support a laissez-faire government attitude toward abortion and gay marriage, as well as "open border" immigration policies and unfettered free trade. Yet Paul opposes gay marriage, believes states should outlaw abortion, decries high immigration rates, and criticizes free trade agreements

Ron Paul is not against gay marriage & abortion, he believes that it is STATE issues, non-federal. He is trying to increase state rights'. Open border may be possible when we eliminate the incentives to why they come here in the first place, but a guarded border is still very good because America is not liked in the world these days. Ron Paul isn't against free trade, he is against things like NAFTA which do nothing but cater to corporations and hurt the poor.
 
Sounds like more negative press to me. A lot of inaccuracies as far as his stance on the issues.
 
Yes, people just don't get it. Why do you either have to be for something or against it? The man wants to let states make the call, he wants a balance of power that we're losing with Bush!
 
The title.

Titled, "Ron Paul, Rising Political Star"

I certainly would agree with THAT statment! :)
 

Attachments

  • Rand4th - Copy.jpg
    Rand4th - Copy.jpg
    66.2 KB · Views: 0
I think it is good for him because his name is in the title and the title presents him as something good. If the American people are as shallow as I think they are, they won't even notice the negative, they'll just notice the headlines.
 
There is a lot of positive but still a lot of negative too. My belief is that if the negative leads to a positive outcome...so be it.
 
The article said he seemed to suggest the 911 attacks were "justified". WRONG. He said we need to understand their motives. He never justified their actions. Are there any real reporters out there? :mad:
 
I think it is good for him because his name is in the title and the title presents him as something good. If the American people are as shallow as I think they are, they won't even notice the negative, they'll just notice the headlines.

I think it's less about being shallow

And more about reading the headline for what it is... and cutting the commentary bullcrap (aka the rest of the article that I actually didn't read)

There's a far bigger message needed to be spread right now.

I think the headline is an example of that 'bigger message'
 
Back
Top