About Ron Paul in the debate

Now, dont get me wrong, I would never vote for him, but...

If the republicans were the only ones running, was RP (based on this debate only) the only one who did not sound like a complete jingoistic moran?

...and I really hate the way the others are so condescending towards him, like he's their crazy, senile uncle or something.

i dont agree with him on tons of stuff, but i like to see a little thought coming through a repugly- it does break up the monotony of their 'debate.'

i think the twitchiness is a tremor. early parkinsons maybe?

I just cannot take much of his *let's get rid of government* crap.

He did sound like the only sane person in a nuthouse, regarding the warmongering.

why do you expect government to give handouts?
And why do you think the government will, without giving most of the tax money to their own cohorts?

i.e. Why have soc sec? Why not just have IRA? Why is this bad?
i.e. Why have Department of Education? Why not just raise the tax money at the local, city, and state level, and let local schoolboards mayors and governors take responsibility for educating the children of their own village? How much do superintedents, mayors, and governors pull in yearly? $100k, $200k ???
i.e. Why do you believe that Federal Officials care what happens to your child? Did you elect the beuracrats in the myriad of Federal Departments? Do you think they have your best interests foremost in their minds? Or do you think the dentist on your local school board cares more about his schools in his village?

This is the questions that libertarians ask, and comes back, the lower down the poll the tax money is raised and spent, the better. And each $$$ left in your hands and not in the governments is better spent. i.e. The government will spend $$$ on their friends. You will spend money in your best interest, your families best interest, your towns best interest.

i think most libertarians would be surprised in how much we and them have in common when it comes to political ideology concerning alot of issues...then theres that we disagree on...which is pretty much everything democrats stand for when it comes to social change and helping the people with the least....

but as far as wanting to follow the constitution and putting an end to government being controlled by special interests, big corporations, and most importantly world banks..... we walk hand in hand ;)


hes the only guy i know that i can agree with as avidly as i disagree with. lol.

plenty of us liberal had libertarian leanings before we grew up!

i read plenty of Ayn Rand (her non-fiction even!) before reading Buddha...

they just have a VERY different view on the best way to accomplish providing opportunities for improvement to the poor than do liberals.

As I see the difference, liberals believe if someone is hungry you hand them a fish as often as needed to keep a hungry man from starving, no questions asked. Hungry is hungry.

A libertarian will hand out fishes for awhile and ask the hungry guy to learn how to use a fishing pole. At someone point a libertarian expects the able bodied hungry guy to fish for himself - and if he chooses not to then the guy's hunger is his own problem.

Now a Republican is glad the hungry guy is hungry. More likely he'll be too weak to fight back when they take away his house, his car, his wife and kids, the shoes off his feet, beat the shit out of him and leave him for dead.

I think libertarians think that if the starving guy is worthy, someone will hand him a fish. (They're not going to spend government money to teach anyone to fish, afterall). Liberals are more likely to see the need and demand that the gov't provide the programs.

Liberals have long been portrayed as softies (in head and heart) who never look at the long-term, but who love to spend gov't money on short term fixes. I don't think that can be borne out with facts, though. It's just another convenient conservative meme that has unfortunately, stuck.

But yes, I do think liberals do tend to expect the government to do something about getting fish to hungry people and a libertarian is more likely to tell the government where to kiss off, personally round up all the neighbors and get the guy a fishing pole.

Republicans will use the government to hide all the fish, and the fishing poles, drain all the lakes and then blame the guy for being hungry in the first place.

That's just my take.

cause you know, we both (liberals and libertarians) believe that governments job is mostly just to protect us from threats....
its just that most liberals consider poverty, hunger, and being under educated as a threat and think the government should do everything it can to prevent people from suffering in this country.

The man is genuine, true, nothing fake on him. Not in his words, his looks, or anything else. In the land of hair color and fake boobs the man has no chance. I'm impressed he's rating high enough to get a seat at ABC's debate (didn't they require at least 5% support in at least one major poll?)

I have some honest disagreements with Ron Paul on issues but I can understand why some DUers are drawn to him. He's the real deal. I don't like him as a government candidate but I repect him as a man.

God Bless Ron Paul.

that would destroy this country

If the hypothetical is as you state, only a Republican party as it exists today, then for me it is time to look for greener pastures

It was one whacky maroon after another and Ron, who ought to be the whackjob in any normal situation, ended up being the only one making any sense at all.