Ron Paul Mega-Thread (Mergeness)

I was talking about people, not politicians. Most politicians have nothing but contempt for the Constitution. Most individual Paul bashers make a point of calling him a libertarian regardless that the party he represents and gets elected with is the republicans and his service record shows him as a constitutionalist much more strongly than a libertarian.

Click to expand...

That is correct he is more of a constitutionalist. For example most libertarians believe in open borders while Paul is a strong proponent of securing the borders.

Cell phones and the Paul campaign.

http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/06/are_cell_phones.html



Are cell phones killing Ron Paul's campaign?
Forget any possible cancer links. Dr. Ron Paul's main concern with the growing use of cell phones may be their effect on traditional poll results. About 13 percent of all households in the country have "cut the telephone cord" in favor of cell phones, according to federal figures released in May. This growing group of Americans are simply ignored in traditional telephone (i.e. land line) phone surveys.

This Pew Research Center survey is perhaps the most comprehensive to date in working to determine what impact this has on polling data. The Pew survey found that cell-phone-only Americans are disproportionately younger, less affluent, less likely to be married or to own their home, and more liberal on many political questions. Yet "the absence of this group from traditional telephone surveys has only a minimal impact on the results."

Notably, the Pew survey was conducted over a year ago, and the percentage of those now cell-phone-only has nearly doubled in that time. Perhaps a new study using the same techniques would reveal a different conclusion. Either way, though, "minimal impact" is in fact significant in the context of primary polling, where even a couple percentage points can make or break a candidate's future.

Although Rep. Ron Paul is essentially libertarian, many of his positions - opposition to the Iraq war, greater civil liberties, etc. - would traditionally be defined as "liberal" in the lexicon of some members of the press. And voters (particularly younger ones) who align with those positions would seem to be the very people Ron Paul counts among his most ardent supporters.

Of course some will simply reply that polls are irrelevant this early in a presidential race. But early polls do help determine who's in and who's out of candidate forums and debates, not to mention who gets the coveted early campaign donations. In Iowa, for instance, Rep. Paul has already been excluded from a significant forum that features all of the other main candidates.

In the end it may be impossible to determine what impact outdated polling methods have on Ron Paul's candidacy. But the constant rise in cell-phone-only Americans should give us cause for skepticism toward the countless land-line-only surveys that so drastically shape primary outcomes.

Good point. Many younger people go without landline phones in favor of a cell phone, and many younger people support Ron Paul (I fit this description).

Here is one for Sunday thoughts.
It Is dedicated to the Iowa Christian alliance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=847J99MkUdk

Something to think about.

Here is one for Sunday thoughts.
It Is dedicated to the Iowa Christian alliance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=847J99MkUdk

Click to expand...

Great video. It made me tear up a little.

I've been trying to get the word out to my family more about him, and my family is very pro 2A. we're all hunters, and even my mom, who hates going hunting, knows its very stupid to tell someone they can't own something, for whatever reason.

I gave up on landlines 4 years ago. Never looked back.

Sorry I don't live on this board to address this stuff immediately, but:

Marshall said:

And even some rambling about hair, whatever that's all about?

Click to expand...

If you base how you're going to vote on a candidate's hairstyle, you're not voting for a valid reason.

If you base how you're going to vote on a candidate's suit, you're not voting for a valid reason.

If you base how you're going to vote on how old he is, you're not voting for a valid reason.

If you base how you're going to vote on a slight hesitation when answering a question, or if he mispronouncerates his words, or if he sweats on TV, you're not voting for a valid reason.

I'm basically boiling every reason you would vote for a candidate which I do not consider relevant to the question at hand as "great hair". And I chose hair because in 2004 it seemed to be a MSM fascination, and they fed it to the sheeple as if it was relevant.

Again, I don't believe you're basing your vote on this - but that's what the "unelectable" argument boils down to. He doesn't have great hair.

I'll take a capable Claudius over a congenial Caligula any day of the week. And I'll continue to try to correct people who disagree with that.

I'll take a capable Claudius over a congenial Caligula any day of the week. And I'll continue to try to correct people who disagree with that.

Click to expand...

Ron Paul: It was nice knowng you.

Ron Paul praises convicted tax evaders

Associated Press - June 26, 2007 8:35 AM ET

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - New Hampshire's convicted tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown have gained a new supporter: presidential hopeful Ron Paul.

In an interview with RogueGovernment.com, the Texas congressman compares the Browns to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Junior. He says the Browns are suffering like those leaders.

The Browns are holed up in their Plainfield (New Hampshire) home and have threatened violence against federal officials if marshals come to arrest them. They were convicted of an elaborate scheme to hide millions of dollars in income. Their protest has become a rallying cry for anti-tax activists and militia members.

Click to expand...

Browns commended for civil disobedience

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has compared Plainfield tax fugitives Ed and Elaine Brown to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

In an interview with Lee Rogers, who runs the website roguegovernment.com, Paul expressed his sympathy for the couple, who have been holed up in their hilltop home for several months, threatening violence if marshals come to arrest them.

The Browns have each been sentenced to 63 months in prison for crimes related to their refusal to pay federal income taxes for nearly 10 years. The Browns contend that there is no law compelling Americans to pay income taxes.

Paul, a Texas congressman who has campaigned on promises to lower taxes and rein in the Federal Reserve, said the Browns' civil disobedience should be commended.

"People who point this out and fight the tax code and fight the monetary code are heroic," he said in a video that's been linked to several pro-Brown websites. "I compare them to people like Gandhi, who was willing to speak out and try to bring about change in a peaceful manner. Martin Luther King fought laws that were unfair and unjust, and he suffered, too."

Click to expand...

And the original source:

ROGUEGOVERNMENT.COM EXPOSING GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER

I guess this makes me another stooge of the new world order. Novus ordo seclorum, baby.

I admire honesty. I truly do. I'm a very up front man myself, but there are times when you really should just shut up and keep your opinion to yourself.
This did not help the good Doctor's campaign at all.

Biker

I like Ron Paul, but sometimes NOT commenting on something is a good idea. Sheesh. I commend the Browns too, but if I were running in the lowliest city council election, let alone running for POTUS, I wouldn't bring it up.

That is very eloquently said Biker.

I do take issue with the ''promised to lower taxes'' falsehood. He promised to get rid of income taxes altogether.

This is starting to remind me of another Brown... One at Harpers Ferry. That also did not end well.

It might be different if the Brown's were "ordinary" Americans (whatever that means), but their cause won't resonate with a lot of people, who will view them as tax-evading millionaires. And ones that have been convicted, to boot.

Be careful who you pick as poster children.

K

Oh good God.

I am so very very very sad...

While the income tax is unnecessary and unjust it is legal. It really is.

Paul didn't say it was illegal. He commended the Browns for resisting, not for being straight on the facts. Hair-splitting distinction, though. People will probably accuse Paul of endorsing their entire position.

So what? He's correct in that the federal income tax should go away. Leave it up to the states to tax income. The FedGov should have no part in it.

Go Ron Paul. Amazing, people will moan about income tax, but when a presidential candidate proposes eliminating it, and praises those who fight against it, people get upset...interesting to observe.

He commended them for civil disobedience.

Which IS a duty of a citizen.

Amazing, people will moan about income tax, but when a presidential candidate proposes eliminating it, and praises those who fight against it, people get upset...interesting to observe.

Click to expand...

It's not so simple, Collector. I think you missed the point of most of these posts.

This is an opportunity for Paul to make this important point: Americans feel very strongly about being overtaxed, and having their hard-earned cash taken and handed to the spendthrifts in DC. The extremes to which some dedicated people will go shows that clearly. We need change, and there's no time like the present. Elect Ron Paul, for a real change from the status quo!

A statement like that would be a sign that he can be a winning candidate who can turn some current event into a reason to vote for him. That's how you win elections.

What he DID say is bad on two counts.

1. Who knows what sort of craziness will happen before this is all over in New Hampshire? Ron Paul has now linked himself to whatever does happen. A wise man doesn't link his fate to loose cannons when he doesn't have to.

2. He failed to turn this into an opportunity to campaign. He could have expressed support in the way I wrote above, and used this to the advantage of his campaign. If he becomes President, it will help the people in New Hampshire FAR MORE than his comparing them to Ghandi now.

This is the big time. He's running for the highest office in the land, and some say the most powerful political position in the whole world. If you want to play with the big boys, you've got to play LIKE the big boys. It's entirely possible to be principled, yet watch your words. Yes, many politicians are slimebuckets who say what they think people want to hear, but saying whatever crosses your mind when running for President is not the opposite of "slimy politician." It's the flipside.

Now I do understand that there are some people here who think that my comparing Paul with Howard Dean in 2004 was a compliment. It's not.

Personally, I think that Ron Paul can possibly do more good where he is -- or I'd love to see him make the jump to Senator -- than running a reckless Presidential campaign off a cliff.

On the other hand, I'd also love to see him, like Dean on the other side, become Chairman of the RNC. I don't think it's a waste of time to support Ron Paul, but I don't think he'll make it to the White House next year.

Any politician who says he will end income tax needs to say just exactly how he would fill the money gap. Ron Paul is in cloudcuckooland.

It is interesting that so many on the right who want to pay no taxes also support a powerful (and expensive) military, big border fences, a big internal security system to find terrorists and illegal immigrants, etc., etc. Oh, and the same folks who want that big homeland security program to find bad guys don't want it to interfere with any little illegal activities they engage in, like smoking dope or making machineguns.

Come, on guys, get real.

Jim

1. Who knows what sort of craziness will happen before this is all over in New Hampshire? Ron Paul has now linked himself to whatever does happen. A wise man doesn't link his fate to loose cannons when he doesn't have to.

Click to expand...

Not quite, if the Browns do something serious that makes the public hate them, Paul can condemn their actions, saying he supported their earlier non-violent action...

Jim: Paul does not want to fund most of those things. That is how he would get rid of income tax. There would be no gap. I think Bear pretty much nailed it; even if it is only the first time he got it right on Paul .

Any politician who says he will end income tax needs to say just exactly how he would fill the money gap. Ron Paul is in cloudcuckooland.

Click to expand...

Ron Paul is not someone on the right who wants what you listed, though. Like him or not, he's certainly NOT claiming he can reduce taxes while doing all these things, most of which he squarely opposes as a libertarian.

He's just unwise to link his reputation to loose cannons who may end up shooting, or at least shooting at, Federal Marshals before this is over.