haaaylee
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,891
i made a myspace bulletin with the video and got the following responses. i want to be sure to be able to reply in the best way.
A:
I’ve got plenty of admiration for Ron Paul, but his assessment of Obama is unfair. I really don’t see how anything he has said or done constitutes ‘fraud.’ Obama was strongly opposed to GW’s decision to go to war preceding the invasion, and has maintained that position ever since. Voting to fund the troops once they’re already in Iraq doesn’t mean you’re “voting not to end the war.” Paul’s statement is misleading. If there’s no political means to withdraw American troops, then you have to ensure that they’re equipped, right? I mean, this isn’t to say that the war has been conducted well, or that the $12 billion it costs per month isn’t sickening, but it isn’t Obama’s fault at all. Also, Paul can’t accuse Obama of fraud when he’s not trying to deceive people--he has been open about his intentions of a timed withdraw from Iraq and to move some soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan. Being a Paul supporter, you probably don’t believe that terrorists are responsible for 9/11, but most people do, and if that’s the case then targeting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan isn’t really that morally outrageous, and there’s nothing fraudulent about it seeing that Obama spouts these intentions from a podium night after night. The dearth of ground troops in Afghanistan leads to U.S. air raids on villages and the killing civilians, and Obama has always been vocal and highly critical of that. And moreover, I don’t see the political rational of attacking Obama at this point. Without him, we’d have to choose between Clinton, who initially voted for the war, or McCain, who loves the war more than Bush. Shit, this is getting lengthy. Whatever.
B:
I was never a believer in the Ron Paul "revolution." I understood why he appealed to people - his anti-war stance, his integrity and his straight-talking honesty were all commendable. But I think too many of his rabid fans were so enamored by someone actually telling the truth for a change, that they latched on to his integrity without taking a serious look at his libertarian policies. I personally think laissez-faire economics are more dangerous than ever with the increasing power of multi-national corporations, and Paul's dramatic plans to eliminate the Federal government were an invitation for bigger companies to own more and more of what we see, think, use, and eat. I'm not championing government regulation, either - I think government and the free market need to keep each other in check - checks and balances just like the branches of our government. This ultimately goes back to my belief that the only way we'll EVER have an honest government with the interests of the people in mind is to eliminate campaign financing entirely - but that's a discussion for another time.
But anyway, on the internet the Ron Paul fanfare was loud enough that from an outside perspective you'd think he was a much bigger contender than he actually was. But just like Kucinich, and Mike Gravel, Paul was too radical to get any attention from the mainstream media, which sadly still controls the opinions of most of our country. It's a shame - I may not personally support Ron Paul's politics, but having people like him, Kucinich, and Gravel able to participate more in the mainstream election process would bring a lot of intelligence and some much-needed edge to our homogenized infomercial of a political system"
This pretty much sums up how I feel about dr paul. You didn't ask but everyday there is a new bulletin about ron paul with your name attached to it. I don't think anyone who supports Obama ruined it for you guys. I think there is no way in hell ron paul could have beat hillary clinton in the general election. Sorry. Would you really want the state of texas to have more control than the government? I mean really, you live in austin but the rest of the state is populated with fetus loving simpletons they out number all of us. But I did enjoy the naomi wolf book thanks for the you tube post of her.
A:
I’ve got plenty of admiration for Ron Paul, but his assessment of Obama is unfair. I really don’t see how anything he has said or done constitutes ‘fraud.’ Obama was strongly opposed to GW’s decision to go to war preceding the invasion, and has maintained that position ever since. Voting to fund the troops once they’re already in Iraq doesn’t mean you’re “voting not to end the war.” Paul’s statement is misleading. If there’s no political means to withdraw American troops, then you have to ensure that they’re equipped, right? I mean, this isn’t to say that the war has been conducted well, or that the $12 billion it costs per month isn’t sickening, but it isn’t Obama’s fault at all. Also, Paul can’t accuse Obama of fraud when he’s not trying to deceive people--he has been open about his intentions of a timed withdraw from Iraq and to move some soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan. Being a Paul supporter, you probably don’t believe that terrorists are responsible for 9/11, but most people do, and if that’s the case then targeting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan isn’t really that morally outrageous, and there’s nothing fraudulent about it seeing that Obama spouts these intentions from a podium night after night. The dearth of ground troops in Afghanistan leads to U.S. air raids on villages and the killing civilians, and Obama has always been vocal and highly critical of that. And moreover, I don’t see the political rational of attacking Obama at this point. Without him, we’d have to choose between Clinton, who initially voted for the war, or McCain, who loves the war more than Bush. Shit, this is getting lengthy. Whatever.
B:
I was never a believer in the Ron Paul "revolution." I understood why he appealed to people - his anti-war stance, his integrity and his straight-talking honesty were all commendable. But I think too many of his rabid fans were so enamored by someone actually telling the truth for a change, that they latched on to his integrity without taking a serious look at his libertarian policies. I personally think laissez-faire economics are more dangerous than ever with the increasing power of multi-national corporations, and Paul's dramatic plans to eliminate the Federal government were an invitation for bigger companies to own more and more of what we see, think, use, and eat. I'm not championing government regulation, either - I think government and the free market need to keep each other in check - checks and balances just like the branches of our government. This ultimately goes back to my belief that the only way we'll EVER have an honest government with the interests of the people in mind is to eliminate campaign financing entirely - but that's a discussion for another time.
But anyway, on the internet the Ron Paul fanfare was loud enough that from an outside perspective you'd think he was a much bigger contender than he actually was. But just like Kucinich, and Mike Gravel, Paul was too radical to get any attention from the mainstream media, which sadly still controls the opinions of most of our country. It's a shame - I may not personally support Ron Paul's politics, but having people like him, Kucinich, and Gravel able to participate more in the mainstream election process would bring a lot of intelligence and some much-needed edge to our homogenized infomercial of a political system"
This pretty much sums up how I feel about dr paul. You didn't ask but everyday there is a new bulletin about ron paul with your name attached to it. I don't think anyone who supports Obama ruined it for you guys. I think there is no way in hell ron paul could have beat hillary clinton in the general election. Sorry. Would you really want the state of texas to have more control than the government? I mean really, you live in austin but the rest of the state is populated with fetus loving simpletons they out number all of us. But I did enjoy the naomi wolf book thanks for the you tube post of her.
NOT
