Please and Im a guest in youc country as I am from the UK do try and avoid both pure personal abuse and swearing.The discipline invoved in making that effort often is a move to clearer thinking and a more generous spirit That we should do that back home I accept totally as we make those kinds of mistakes even more often I know
a women doesnt have a right to murder her baby... the baby has its own property right... women who do commit abortions should be thrown in jail, including the doctors that perform them...
Some say Reagan was a fake or a sellout. He was neither. He was a compromiser. At the 1980 Republican convention, the Bush supporters would have torn the party apart rather than have Reagan win the nomination. He compromised. As President, he had to deal with a hostile press and a Democrat congress.
Reagan did what he could with what he had. Don't forget, a "lone gunman" took a shot at him his 1st year in office.
Obviously that is a point of deviation where we take the opposite side. To end a life through abortion is a violent act of agression by a parties who assumed the risk by committing a what is normally a voluntary act in the vast majority of cases.
We all make choices. If I lay $10,000 on the roulette table I may win I may lose and there is no guarantee of getting my money back even if I shoot the table operator in the in during mid-spin.
please and im a guest in your counrty being fom the UK do try and avoid both personal abuse and swearing. The disciplinew of doing that really does hellp in moving towards cleare and more generous thinking,
My stance: We must determine by public vote when actual life begins within the womb- that will give us the basis of when the inherent rights of the child come into play. You can't nullify the child's civil rights in favor of the mother's.
Ultimately my stance is that our founders true intentions would yield this is a State right, thereby to be subjected to public vote. Not mandated via ruling of the Federal Supreme Court.
If you happen to find yourself in a state whose laws forbid abortion under popular vote, then I suggest that you vote with your feet (meaning go to another state which has voted no law prohibiting the act of abortion). Or in the long term; work towards changing popular opinion thus enabling you and your constituents to overturn the state law.
Always...not only that but if some people are SOOOOOO determined to have abortion available to women...why can't they start their own CHARITY to help those that want one and therefore providing airplane tickets and lodging to send those women to states where it IS permitted and end of story. Their money....they can do what they want with their bodies and they leave my money (federal dollars) out of the whole thing.
That is like saying you have the constitutional right to have slaves. But one person should not have the right to determine the right of another whether its slavery or abortion.
I believe you can't ever really reach a correct decision on abortion. However I do believe in state rights to decide this decision locally even at each individual county level. There is no question that partial birth abortion is borderline murder. What's worse is that people have to pay tax dollars for women to perform abortion. Women can have morning after pills to make sure they don't get pregnant. Why don't we want people to be more responsible for their actions. Abortion is being overabused
Marc...so because of that ONE issue...you are willing to throw this country down the drain? So f*ck balanced budgets, f*ck the 2nd amendment, f*ck small and limited gov....f*ck it all...as long as I get to have my abortion.
Rights are things people should fight for regardless of any other issue. I am all for limited government, but I will not cheer for those who support laws against abortion. I believe a woman has a right to regulate her own body even if I disagree with her choice.
I don't march in step with any political party as I am sure you don't either. I don't let others do my thinking for me. That is what Barry Goldwater said when he said: "It's time to bring conscience back to government."
@AStarSpangledGirl: "I believe a woman has a right to regulate her own body even if I disagree with her choice." That's not a contradiction. Rather, people have the right to make many choices in their lives, as they should be free to do so. They have the right to choose a religion even if I don't agree with their choice or their religion.
Having the right doesn't make it right, but rights trump laws. "A Woman has a right to an abortion" -- Barry Goldwater 1981.
Many "Christians" also subscribe to that doctrine, myself included. I do not think a nation that is predominatly Christian should have to take the pacifist role and subject themselves to whatever the enemy has in store.
Under this doctrine wars would have to be in self defense so using it to justify agressive invasions like the Crusades could not be done withing violating one of the foundational tentants.
That "Christian Just War Doctrine" was formed by Catholics and Catholics only. Probably to justify the Crusades. No one can theologically justify a war.
Again you make a blind quote and say that Ronald Reagan believed this and you give no evidence to support it. You are wrong again that Ronald Reagan was opposed to intervention in Vietnam in the 1960-70's
We should declare war on North Vietnam. We could pave the whole country and put parking strips on it, and still be home by Christmas. Ronald Reagan 1965
Which is similar to Goldwater's phrase bomb them back into the stone age
Reagan and Goldwater's views were pretty consistent yours are not
Try reading. I made no blind quote. I said that Reagan said some beautiful things. I never said anything about my regards to his presidency (which expanded government). Perhaps I was too subtle. Try this quote from me: "Reagan said some beautiful things, too bad he wasn't capable of following up on most of it". Your views are consistent with the neocons and interventionist. You can't have an aggressive interventionist foreign policy and small government. They are mutually exclusive.
"An international authority which effectively limits the powers of the state over the individual will be one of the best safeguards of peace." <-- That is not how these organizations and trade agreements are being used rather they are tools for government regulation.
Milton Friedman was asked to endorse CAFTA and refused after reading just a few pages of the 300+ document defining what free trade would be.
watch?v=jNrMQazZHDc <--- Right there from the man's own mouth. Look at 30:10 he talks about getting asked to endorse CAFTA its over 1000 pages and he defines REAL free trade in a couple sentences. NAFTA and CAFTA are not free trade they are government managed trade in free trade's clothes.
Hmm instead of opposing International trade organizations Hayek was the source of them.
Hayek Road to Serfdom pg 277
An international authority which effectively limits the powers of the state over the individual will be one of the best safeguards of peace. The international Rule of Law must become a safeguard as much against the tyranny of the state over the individual as against the tyranny of the new super-state over the national communities.
Does that make international organizations good? No.
Hayek had a lot of good ideas and some bad ones as well. Global government is diametrically opposed to the nation-state. Besides, it's unconstitutional. Spend some time studying the Constitution, republicanism, and Austrian economics. Read Ron Paul's The Revolution: A Manifesto.
I thought that Hayek and the Austrian School was opposed to trade organizations?
Hayek Road to Serfdom pg 275, 277
The need is for an international political authority which, without power to direct the different people what they must do, must be able to restrain them from action which will damage others ... even more than in the national sphere, it is essential that these powers of the international authority should be strictly circumscribed by the Rule of Law...
WOW You have a DavidMesaAZ mole! LOL Likes to talk a lot about nothing. I would rather the people's money be returned to them then given back to the executive branch. The money is already in their hands, to give it back to the people is the best thing to do in a corrupt system. It is broken, it is corrupt, we need to fix it, but this is the best to be done until it is changed.
I would agree that the system is corrupt and earmarks are one of the causes of it(see Duke Cunningham) I would agree that they money instead of funding shrimp research should be returned to the people.
1. Getting rid of earmarks does nothing to reduce spending.
2. Getting rid of earmarks just transfers the spending power to the execuative through some beurocrat.
3. At least earmarks are out in the open so the whole public can see the idiocy of federal spending instead of hiding in through layers of beurocracy.
Earmarks are Out in the open? You really don't know what they are. The problem with earmarks is that they are anonymous. They are tucked away in a congressional report. 90 percent of them are not voted on but they have the strenght of law.
If earmarks are out in the open why does the Media have to request the Candidates which earmarks they have requested?
Paul is sidestepping this question all together. He is requesting pork that he could not pass through the traditional appropriations process. through earmarks that are not voted on.
Explain to me how not requesting money for theaters money for shrimp research and for the FDA is part of the constitutional mandate?
Are subsidies ok? Well if its in the constitution according to Ron Paul. But that is his argument and not mine.
How can you not see funding shrimp research by the FDA as in Maryland (not in his home district by the way) as Goverment Pork? and at the same time say that the say that Ron Paul is always for limiting the size of the federal government?
He says that there are too many special interests in Congress but ignores his own special interest lobbying group. The Shrimp industry.
Why should other Congressman ignore their special interest groups in their own district when gives earmark funding for marketing FDA funding for the shrimp industry?
If the problem is spending then the method is irrelevent. If you fix the spending problem the earmark problem will likely go away with it. Fix the earmark problem and the money get spent elsewhere anyway.
Its funny where the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to negotiate trade he opposes it.
Of course, this sidesteps the real question: Paul claims to vote for nothing that the Constitution doesn't explicitly authorize. Where does the Constitution authorize $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics, or $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp, or $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research, or $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium?
You are such an idiot. The Constitution never granted Congress the authority to prohibit free trade, pass mercantilistic laws, and establish a North American Union. You are such a mole!
Idiot huh read the commerce clause I have said it once and I have said it again.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1,3:Congress has the power: To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
Secondly the idea that well the money is just going to be spent by the executive branch is a if you can't beat them join them idea. The money should not be spent.
If there are legitimate funding issues they should be voted on in the traditional apporpirations channels. Which earmarks are not. I don't care if its through traditional appropriations channels or throuh earmarks don't spend it...
You have failed to answer why he wants to eliminate the FDA but he is requesting earmarks for them?
To illustrate the absurdity of government spending. The people he represents pay taxes it would make to sense in not trying to get part of those taxes back in some form.
By subsidizing anything you give the government the power and precedent to subsidize everything.
The real problem is spending, earmarks are only ancillary.
"In some form" that conforms to the constitution. According to his campaign rhetoric.
In a through reading of the constitution I see no constitutional mandates for shrimp research done not in his own district but done in Maryland by branch of the Federal Government.
are you still on the shrimp thing? good god man. this country is going to hell in a handbasket, and you're talking about shrimp. when your grandfather is having a heart attack, do you point out that your mother uses artificial sweetner?
No its death by paper cuts and the earmarks are the paper cuts. It is not the shrimp industry alone that is creating pork but they are one of a million special interest groups.
I bring up the Shrimp because the shrimp industry is a just one of a million special interest industries that gets millions per year and hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding in the past 5 years in exchange for campaign contributions. Its the hypocrisy of the Ron Paul Revolution.
Yea, last time I looked involvement in the middle east is no paper cut sir. Neither are medicare and social security. The government is a tool. That tool has to be HUGE to police the world and police it's own people. You can't have it both ways sir. If you think that's true, then you sir are completely lost. Humans have the ability to rationalize anything. You don't want small government. You want to talk about shrimp. Go right ahead.
1. Pork barrel spending, while still bad, makes up a small part of what the government spends. The real problems are entitlement programs, which will end up costing many, many trillions of dollars.
2. When the legislature does not spend the allotted money on constituent services, it goes to the discretion of the executive branch. Paul must figure: better to get shrimp than more Iraq.
Yet lawmakers keep sneaking them in. "Over 90 percent of earmarks," Bush complained a year ago, "never make it to the floor of the House and Senate they are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law. Yet, they're treated as if they have the force of law."
So let me get this straight. 90% are not voted on they never make out of committee but they have the force of law wow DC is messed
The response from Ron Paul is the White Hous is just going to spend the money? This is classic Washington thinking. It not should the money be spent Ron Paul's response is well its going to be spent and it might as well be the Congress that spends it.
Ronald Reagan vetoed a transportation bill will a with a 100 earmarks from the entire congress. But Paul has submited 100 of his own into one bill and you protray Paul has some kind of Reagan disciple Reagan would be rolling over in his grave
Reagan had his flaws and sold out the country. Ron Paul is far better than Reagan. Even neocon Mitt Romney admitted (rather, was spoon fed the info) that Reagan raised taxes.
It is speculative to say who would endorse who, the point is that, for the most part, we hold to the traditional conservative platform. Where Reagan or Goldwater departed from that platform is irrelevant.
Reagan did not follow alot of his own rhetoric but that is besides the point because it is the principles that got Reagan elected that we are concerned with. Goldwater was extremely hawkish but that is irrelevant because the conservative position is noninterventionism.
Reagan and Paul follow different principles. In terms of foreign policy trade domestic spending. He disagrees with every one of them.
The intellectual back flips that Ron Paul goes through on the Earmark issues astounds me. While Reagan's solution was simple just veto the bill with earmarks. How is that following the same principles?
They didn't deviate from the platform they built it. Reagan Goldwater ideology is pretty consistent with each other but Paul is the one that deviates from the Conservative ideology.
I believe that you yourself recognized that Reagan increased and not reduced the government that is a deviation from his own policy.
There is a strong noninterventionist tradition in the party. Reagan went into the middle east got us blown up and left when he realized he didnt understand irrational middle east politics.
But your did not say that Ron Paul follows the Republican party stance of non-intervention. You said that Paul is a continuation of Goldwater and Reagan's policies. Which is factually not true.
Your not even consistent with your own argument. Your original thesis is that Reagan Goldwater and Paul are all for limited government. Now you are saying that Reagan was not for limited government but in fact increased the size of the Federal Government?
How many republicans do you want me to put in there it is almost 10 minutes already?
I could have put Taft's anti war rhetoric in but it would be audio only and the audio quality sucks.
The video is more coherent and better quality as it is. We can argue the menucia all day long the fact of the matter is the platforms have a 90% overlap and maybe a 10% deviation.
Reagan early 1970s talked some beautiful stuff. Of course what he did as president had absolutely nothing to do with what he preached in the 70s. You bet your ass Paul disagrees with Reagan on a lot of policies. The truth of the matter is you are an interventionist. You want a big federal government with foreign intervention, domestic intervention, and personal intervention. Hell your only half a step away from the socialist left, and the fascist right.
You just took a right turn to crazy land. I want big federal government? What I have argued time and time again for the elimination of wasteful spending whether its earmarks while you over look them.
Yes I am an interventionist. I do believe in and I am in good company with Reagan and Goldwater.
Get a clue guy you have no idea what Ronald Reagan stood for and
here's a clue for you. what can't you have if a country is determined to be the largest interventionist the planet has ever seen? clue: you can't have small government. and anyone who believes that you can have both is so far lost and ignorant, there's no hope for them.
That is a constitutional mandated role of government. There is a difference between limited in its roles and the insane idea that government should have no role at all...
I believe what you are referring to is the troop withdraw from Beruit. Well all politics are irrational. To say that he removed all troops and all assistance to the middle east is incorrect.
When he withdrew from Beruit he still increased financial support to Israel and gave Saudi Arabia the AWAC's system. But that dwarfed in comparssion to the billions he spent in a proxy war Afghanistan which continued through out his presidency.
Its wrong to assume that he withdrew from the region
Reagan did in fact increase spending on constitutional mandates such as defense which rose 21 percent. But things that were not constitutional mandates such as Energy he cut 42 percent and Education 32 percent.
Through earmarks, members of Congress can secure millions of dollars of funding for a recipient (a private company, nonprofit, university, or a state or local government) or a specific project (building a road, purchasing or setting aside land). Earmarks receive little or no debate from Congress as a whole; they are not subject to competitive bidding or administrative review, and most earmarks are not examined by the press.
Also if you knew the constitution you would know that in the Federal Government is given the right to REGULATE trade that is right the Federal Government has the right to REGULATE trade with other countries.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1,3:
it states Congress has the right: 'To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
I thought that Ron Paul believed in the Constitution? Why does he want to strip us of our constitutional rights?
Wow that is a stretch. Do pray tell explain what it means to make regular? Well even using your definition regular is defined as conforming to some accepted rule, discipline, etc. Also root word for regular is the same as rule. So again it is saying that congress has the right to define make the rules laws and regulations regarding trade with other countries.
But that still does not explain why Ron Paul requests shrimp research for the Federal Food and Drug Administration? in Maryland?
2 pages isn't that arbitrary limit? The constitution is longer than your 2 page limit and it has served us well. To say that a legal code should be fit with a 2 page agreement is also naive. And it is equally naive to think that international law should follow the same arbitrary 2 page limit.
If Ron Paul was genuinely for Free Trade he would have proposed an agreement by now. But he hasn't
I am quite aware of Milton Friedman's position on NAFTA. He state on numberous occasions that he supported NAFTA and that NAFTA was the first step into genuinely free trade. I wanted to cite the reference but it doesn't allow links.
But what you overlook is that the first modern army was built by Republican Theodore Roosevelt and his big stick policy.
It was Eisenhower that increased military funding in Vietnam after the defeat of the French in Diem ben fu in 1958.
After Vietnam liberals have bring the troops home and not have military bases overseas which is exactly what Ron Paul wants. While Reagan Republicans have pushed for a strong defense and forces overseas.
If Ron Paul believes in Free Trade but not "managed free trade" Why hasn't he in 30 year of submited a bill to Congress doing exactly that?
I have to say that pulling out of the WTO is an absolutely stupid idea. With out the negiotiation of the WTO everyone around the world could LEGALLY steal any copyrighted or patented material. That includes software medicine music movies
With out WTO any nation could raise tariffs for US goods while lowering them for other countries such as the China.
There has been bills to pull out of the UN and he voted for it. RP is the congressman who introduced the most bills. They are never passed, but he is busy none the less. If you believe in Free trade then you know there is no need for NAFTA or the WTO. I'm not going to start giving Lessons about free market. There are some very good books explaining this. check you for Friedman and members of the Austrian economics School
Ummm we are part of the WTO and Asia still relentlessly violates our copyrights by selling pirated copies of any intellectual property so the WTO fails in its objective anyway.
Rather if China wants to purchase 500 copies of Windows XP and install 500,000 bootleg copies on goverment computers congress should just slap a tarriff on their toaster ovens to compensate for the deficit. But we cant do that without going on our hand and knees begging for permission from the WTO.
But your argument is that because individuals disregard the law its pointless to have it.
But you fail to mention that there are millions of individuals in the United States that disregard the intellectual property rights. But the solution is more enforcement and in some cases punitives tariffs on chinese products.
But by your logic well people are disobeying the law so we should just eliminate the law. Doing so will give them an incentives to break and not keep IP Laws.
Don't try to put words in my mouth. That was never my argument. Laws exist to protect people's rights and intellectual property rights are included in that. Whether someone disregards the law doesn't enter into it in the least. Intellectual property rights should be enforced to the same extent that any other theft of comparable value.
The Peoples Republic of China and the United States of America could agree to enforce each others copyrights without a WTO. If one or the other refuses just tarriff their imports to make up the difference until they change policy.
One thing that you over looked is that there are differences on China's and the United States copyright laws. The differences would have to be negiotaited which would take a good decade believe me. then we would have do to the same negiotiations with Germany France UK Italy Russia and all 180 some odd countries. Which would take a lifetime to get them all done. By that time it would be obsolete.
How can he even be considered a Goldwater conservative. How can you seriously say that Ron Paul is a disciple of Goldwater. When Goldwater was an extreme interventionist, he wanted to nuke Vietnam.
While Paul is a extreme isolationist. He is anti-war and wants to bring the troops home.
Goldwater spent his career on military issues the Goldwater-Nicols act bears that out. Paul s a issolationist and Goldwater is not.
Ron Paul is not an isolationist. Like Jefferson and Washington, Paul promotes free trade and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Ron Paul is a re-Founding Father of the American Revolution.
The questions is not whether he is like Jefferson. The question that this video is asking is he a Goldwater or Reagan Republican. The answer is a resounding no he is not.
Show me once in his 30 years of Congress that he has submitted a bill that promotes his his views on free trade. You can try and look but you won't find it.
If he is for the constitution why does he over look the fact that the founding fathers gave the right to regulate trade?
Dude, there are dozens of bills and articles Ron Paul has written promoting free trade. Just Google it. Show me one bill that George Bush or John McCain advocated that promoted free trade? I can show you quite a few that were MERCANTILISTIC that Bush and McCain supported.
The original intent of the commerce clause was to promote free trade. You should read the works of Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
No he said that he has never requested a earmark or voted on them. But the point of it is why does he request money for private businesses such as a theaters if he believes it is not a consitutional role of government? He says he is going to eliminate the FDA but he asks for more funding for the FDA? For shrip research of all things? That is an expansion of federal powers and not contraction of it.
How can he says he is going to change washington he he is part of the problem?
Paul answered that question thoroughly in his Meet the Press interview with Tim Russert. Congress has the obligation to decide where the money should go. Paul believes it shouldn't be taken in the first place, but puts the earmarks in because if it has to go somewhere, it should go to the people and not stay in the executive branch. It's like saying that you must support the income tax if you take a tax credit. Total rubbish, why spread nonsense on these boards?
Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. Ephesians 5:11 google video: clinton chronicles coke bush iraq for sale no end in sight 911 Mysteries Part 1 - Demolitions (Full - 1ed.) bodyofwar c om patriotsquestion911 c om pilotsfor911truth o rg 911pressfortruth c om revolutionmarch c om
reagan signed in rex 84 thank him for this when your in a camp. reagen created the plunge protection team thank him for the most manipulated market of all time. just a dumb ass actor manipulated by the elite.
Reagan specifically endorsed Ron Paul BECAUSE quote "he understand the importance of a strong defense". Reagan said invading the middle east was a mistake during his terms. Reagan also wanted a Gold standard as did Greenspan. Of course there are many differences. Ron himself was very disappointed in Reagan.
Ron Paul believes in free trade..not government regulated free trade.
Ron Paul and Reagan are similar in how they preach personal responsibility and small government. Thats the continuation.
McCain is for open borders (no matter what he said, he voted this way), he is for big goverment (No child left behind for example, he wants to keep almost all the departments), so big spending (higher taxes) and thus against a gold standard. He is for preemptive war which is a socialist or national socialist idea. He is weak on the 2nd amendment. He doesn't believe in the 4th and the 10th amendment.
really, I don't even see why McCain is in the republican party.
Well hate to break this to you but Ronald Reagan was for open borders. And the Wall Street Journal has been for open border. I thought Ron Paul was a libertarian so why does he want to regulate the labor market? I think its a stretch to say that McCain is for pre-emptive war. But Reagan invaded his fair share of countries.
Open borders works as long as you minimize welfare state. There are hospitals closing down in Texas because of too much illegals using welfare advantages.
Before Reagan left the presidency, his last statement was : My biggest mistake was Lebanon. So he learned that it wasn't good and he admitted it. Just as Wilson ask the American people to forgive him for letting the FED emerge. But you seem to be thankful.
Yes but he was saying withdrawing from lebbanon was a mistake. Terrorist groups learned that if you hit hard enough the US will withdraw. That is why he said it was his
Ron Paul district recieves millions in earmarked appropriations. Constitutionally financed things such as funding shrimp research fixing old theaters and other government pork. While Reagan opposed earmarks and vetoed earmarked bills.
It is the duty of the congress to plan how to spend earmarks. Being against earmark doesn't do anything but letting the money to the executive branch. So it doesn't balance the budget. Anyway RP never voted for an earmark since he voted against all the budgets. It is a mistake to doubt his constituency.
For Lebanon, since a for better than that GI's left. There is less bombs and no more kamikaze. America's intervention has done nothing but magnify the problems in the middle east.
Because it is the job of the congress to use earmarks. The district paid for it. If it was up to Ron Paul, their would be no taxation and no earmarks.
If Goldwater could be alive today, he would definitely take back what he said. And Reagan probably too. McCain is not a conservative for all the reasons I mentioned. and I didn't even mentioned his stands on Global warming which shows the complete liberal he is.
Its not the job of congress to use earmarks. They use earmarks so congressman don't have to vote on them. They are not a traditional appropriation bill.
It doesn't change anything anyway. What really matters is who is going to cut spendings? McCain plans are going to increase the federal goverment, already huge after 8 years of extreme liberal presidency.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who is ale to cut spendings.
Earmarks do not change anything. The republic was made to minimize the scope of the executive branch.
Well considering that Ron Paul's district receives government pork. McCain votes against pork. Paul opposes immigration opposes NAFTA opposes military intervention Is for drug decriminalization all ideas held by liberals. Its clear to see who is the liberal in McCain vs Paul. Its Ron Paul.
Paul doesn't oppose immigration, he opposes amnesty and illegal immigration. NAFTA was a liberal Clinton bill, it is a managed trade agreement and not a free trade agreement and he opposes it. Democrats started Vietnam and believe in intervention as much as neo-cons, only taking the other side when it's politically convenient, not as a part of their platform. Paul has voted against EVERY earmark going to his district, so you're lying there. These are all old conservative / libertarian positions.
Sorry to break it to you but the origins of NAFTA were during the Reagan administration. The Canada and American FTA was negiotated under Reagan and passed in 1988. That agreement was expanded to include Mexico during GHW Bush during his terms in office.
As a Candidate Clinton opposed NAFTA as a President he passed NAFTA heavily relying on Republican support. If Ron Paul is soo for free trade why doesn't he just try to submit a bill that would eliminate all tariffs?
NAFTA is just an other layer of Bureaucracy. Liberals support Bureaucracy. Free market doesnt need NAFTA or the WTO or any other organization.
The war on drugs is not working. It is wasted money. Millions of people are in jail for just using drugs while real criminals are running in the streets. plus it forbids useful plants like hemp which can be used for many other things than just drugs. And we can just imagine the profit it could make.
Military intervention for democracy is a idea introduced by Democrats. Democrats are the one supporting useless war. It is Wilson who introduced that Idea. Republicans are the one who got America out of Wars (Vietnam and Korea), do I have to remind you that Republicans where against the War in Kosovo?
While that maybe true with some parts of the Republican Party. The question in doubt is not what the party believes it is what Reagan believes and his long history of intervention and "getting us into wars" is further evidence that Ron Paul is not a Reagan Conservative.
Well the market needs a way to ensure laws, contracts and agreements. Which any libertarian will tell you is a role of government.
If that is role of government than an organization is needed to ensure that these laws and agrements are followed and that is precisely what the WTO NAFTA are designed to do. Just as the courts are necessary for a market to work within a country FTA are necessary to ensure that the rule of law is followed.
we had special forces in Afghanistan funded the contras in Nicaragua. He pre-emptively bombed Lybia. Had military battles in Honduras. According to Wikipedia there were 10 military actions under carter and 18 under Reagan. Paul is against intervention but Reagan intervened all over the world.
Listen to what Reagan said in the video and you will see it is not his view. Reagan was not alone in the goverment. They pushed G.W.B sr on him first then they shot him twice.
I can show you 10 videos that say that it is his view. Why don't you watch the you-tube video the real freedom fighters. There is a long history that shows his views.
Also Reagan was elected and negiotated the begining stages of NAFTA. He also pushed for free trade in the Uraguay round. But Ron Paul opposes NAFTA and negioted trade rounds that Reagan supported. While Reagan accelerated the FTA Ron Paul wants to with draw from the very agreements that Reagan pushed for. How is that a continuation of Reagan's record?
Barry Goldwater endorsed John McCain when he ran for the Senate in 1987. John McCain occupies Barry Goldwaters old desk in the senate. Who would Barry endorse now? No one knows and anyone who guess is making a counter-factual argument.
But Goldwater like Reagan was an interventionist. He wanted to bomb Vietnam he was the embodiment of the interventionist wing of the Republican Party.
Reagan realized that the non-intervention in world affairs and a decrease in Military spending after the Vietnam war did not make the US safer. This policy led to communist invasions Angola Honduras Afghanistan roving death squads in Argentina. We looked the other way when Pol Pot ruled destroyed the country with the Killing fields.
What did Reagan do he dramatically increased military spending. It intervened in Afganistan Nicaragua Lebanon Grenada and a million other places.
Ron Paul believes that we need a strong defense not a military stretched so thin and that we can not afford. We have 700 foreign bases, that does not include domestic bases and US territories. This costs us $1 trillion a year.
Our current domestic entitlement programs leaves my generation (20's) with $70 trillion in entitlements due. Our national debt is $9.3 trillion and goes up $1.49 billion per day.
I am scared an Ron Paul is the only one mentioning this in all of Washington. Unbelievable.
No he wants to bring the troops home. If we don't intervene then other nations wont hate us. That is the crux of his foriegn policy.
The defense buget is less than one percent of GDP. During the vietnam war is was 1.6
percent.
The national debt is large but lets remember the GDP of the US is 16 trillion dollars per year. Payments on the National Debt account for 7 percent of the national budget. While we should be concerned with its size remember the economy is massive and growing as well
What you are saying just prove what I thought. You not only think that communism works, you think it work so well it could beat the free market. You think an Islamist Nation could rise upon the Western civilization. If collectivism works so well, then why not adopting it?
Because Communism, like any other collectivism system is going to fail no matter what.
About the debt. you have to realize that it cannot increase indefinitely .
Of Course Reagan endorsed him he was a republican. But an endorsement of the candidate is not an endorsement of all the candidates ideas. There are several large differences between Reagan and Paul on the issue of monetary policy (Greenspan was a Reagan nominee.) International policy Reagan dramatically increased military spend while Ron Paul wants to decrease military spending and bring the troops home.
While Ron Paul wans to eliminate the FED Reagan strengthened the FED. Reagan increased money and fought against the drugs coming into this country he was not for decriminalization. I love in the video it said that we presently give gave arms to Saudi Arabia but Reagan gaves AWACS to the Saudis as well. To say that Reagan or Goldwater would have would have endorsed Ron Paul is stretch to say the least.
The video refers to platform and not actions during the presidency. Paul himself was very critical of Reagan for some of his actions. Frankly Reagan's rhetoric was a lot more impressive than his actual actions, as is often the case.
Ron Paul isn't a Goldwater or a Reagan clone, but Paul has a lot more in common with the platforms of Reagan or Goldwater than any current Republican that I can think of.
They may disagree now because they have over 4o years of policy change, policy corruption, and the natural evolve of society. I think this video is just showing that their underlying principles are what they have in common. Although, maybe Reagan's was more rhetoric which makes you think whether Obama's rhetoric will be as dangerous as Reagan's. Politicians are liars. Period. You can only judge them by their track record.
Yes Reagan's rhetoric was dangerous "its morning in America" We can change things. That is dangerous you might be an optimist where would we be with angry liberal bloggers!!!
While its wrong to assume that there is some kind of conspiracy that all politicians intentional lie every chance they get. Do politicians fail to live up to their campaign promises? Absolutely.
David - Reagan did endorse Ron Paul when he ran for congress. Ron Paul also was 1 of 6 republicans in congress to endorse Reagan.
Goldwater's son Berry Goldwater Jr. campaigned around the country with Ron Paul because he said Paul is the man his father would have pushed for. Just thought you would find that interesting.
Goldwater and Reagan both believed in international military intervention. Reagan invaded Grenada and Goldwater wanted to "bomb Vietnam back to the stone age." ≈
It seems most folks his age like my father really dont get things or see things one way. My father is voting McCain because hes in the military and thinks if we leave Iraq there would be Chaos. Its sad that he's fallen for the MSM propaganda, if he knew history he would have known differently. I wont let their generation of blind patriotism continue to ruin us as they were grown up to believe, we are more conflicted with our fathers since we have technology & information at our finger tips.
If the pilots had guns there would have been no way the terrorists would have taken over with box cutters. The argument is sound do you have a better counter point that "fucking retarded"?
You stupid moron! Go ahead and vote for Mccain and get more of the same shit that we've been getting the last several years.
More lies, treachery, deception, more big government, more planned wars, less freedoms,
destruction of our constitution and the country. Wow, that is so much better then what Ron Paul wants for America. Go back to the rock you crawled from under or go to a place like China. You are a total idiot.
If anyone ever has a chance to ask Ron Paul a question, make sure to ask him if he will run in 2012 if he doesn't win. I pray every week that he wins but we all know the odds. It took RR 2 times to win the presidency. Oh yeah, make sure to put it up on youtube so the other RP supporters can be more encouraged.
Considering Ron Reagan's political record, not his rhetoric.. its a shame that Ron Paul would even be in the same video as that horrible president.
masflojo 11 months ago
@masflojo You gotta play the game :)
Madfoot713 8 months ago
Please and Im a guest in youc country as I am from the UK do try and avoid both pure personal abuse and swearing.The discipline invoved in making that effort often is a move to clearer thinking and a more generous spirit That we should do that back home I accept totally as we make those kinds of mistakes even more often I know
edgehill738 1 year ago
To bad they brought up the abortion issue, sure "life" begins at conception but not humanity
iamagi 1 year ago
good points. horrible music and horrible background tho...fail
drunkenboxer1985 1 year ago
a women doesnt have a right to murder her baby... the baby has its own property right... women who do commit abortions should be thrown in jail, including the doctors that perform them...
punjabisikhwarrior 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some say Reagan was a fake or a sellout. He was neither. He was a compromiser. At the 1980 Republican convention, the Bush supporters would have torn the party apart rather than have Reagan win the nomination. He compromised. As President, he had to deal with a hostile press and a Democrat congress.
Reagan did what he could with what he had. Don't forget, a "lone gunman" took a shot at him his 1st year in office.
tomrdee 2 years ago
ron paul is a conservative libertarian.... life begins at conception
punjabisikhwarrior 2 years ago
Ron Paul's speech at the end of this video is amazing---I was there!
radiofriendly 2 years ago
My body belongs me. I own it. I have total domain over it... "A woman has a constitution right to an abortion." -- Barry Goldwater.
marcparella 3 years ago
Obviously that is a point of deviation where we take the opposite side. To end a life through abortion is a violent act of agression by a parties who assumed the risk by committing a what is normally a voluntary act in the vast majority of cases.
We all make choices. If I lay $10,000 on the roulette table I may win I may lose and there is no guarantee of getting my money back even if I shoot the table operator in the in during mid-spin.
mipoleon 3 years ago 2
please and im a guest in your counrty being fom the UK do try and avoid both personal abuse and swearing. The disciplinew of doing that really does hellp in moving towards cleare and more generous thinking,
edgehill738 1 year ago
My stance: We must determine by public vote when actual life begins within the womb- that will give us the basis of when the inherent rights of the child come into play. You can't nullify the child's civil rights in favor of the mother's.
Ultimately my stance is that our founders true intentions would yield this is a State right, thereby to be subjected to public vote. Not mandated via ruling of the Federal Supreme Court.
AlwaysSimon 3 years ago
If you happen to find yourself in a state whose laws forbid abortion under popular vote, then I suggest that you vote with your feet (meaning go to another state which has voted no law prohibiting the act of abortion). Or in the long term; work towards changing popular opinion thus enabling you and your constituents to overturn the state law.
AlwaysSimon 3 years ago
Always...not only that but if some people are SOOOOOO determined to have abortion available to women...why can't they start their own CHARITY to help those that want one and therefore providing airplane tickets and lodging to send those women to states where it IS permitted and end of story. Their money....they can do what they want with their bodies and they leave my money (federal dollars) out of the whole thing.
AStarSpangledGirl 2 years ago
That is like saying you have the constitutional right to have slaves. But one person should not have the right to determine the right of another whether its slavery or abortion.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
I believe you can't ever really reach a correct decision on abortion. However I do believe in state rights to decide this decision locally even at each individual county level. There is no question that partial birth abortion is borderline murder. What's worse is that people have to pay tax dollars for women to perform abortion. Women can have morning after pills to make sure they don't get pregnant. Why don't we want people to be more responsible for their actions. Abortion is being overabused
vickyv85 2 years ago
Marc...so because of that ONE issue...you are willing to throw this country down the drain? So f*ck balanced budgets, f*ck the 2nd amendment, f*ck small and limited gov....f*ck it all...as long as I get to have my abortion.
NICE....*eyeroll*
AStarSpangledGirl 2 years ago
Rights are things people should fight for regardless of any other issue. I am all for limited government, but I will not cheer for those who support laws against abortion. I believe a woman has a right to regulate her own body even if I disagree with her choice.
I don't march in step with any political party as I am sure you don't either. I don't let others do my thinking for me. That is what Barry Goldwater said when he said: "It's time to bring conscience back to government."
marcparella 2 years ago
You are contradicting yourself.
AStarSpangledGirl 2 years ago
@AStarSpangledGirl: "I believe a woman has a right to regulate her own body even if I disagree with her choice." That's not a contradiction. Rather, people have the right to make many choices in their lives, as they should be free to do so. They have the right to choose a religion even if I don't agree with their choice or their religion.
Having the right doesn't make it right, but rights trump laws. "A Woman has a right to an abortion" -- Barry Goldwater 1981.
marcparella 2 years ago
Many "Christians" also subscribe to that doctrine, myself included. I do not think a nation that is predominatly Christian should have to take the pacifist role and subject themselves to whatever the enemy has in store.
Under this doctrine wars would have to be in self defense so using it to justify agressive invasions like the Crusades could not be done withing violating one of the foundational tentants.
mipoleon 3 years ago
That "Christian Just War Doctrine" was formed by Catholics and Catholics only. Probably to justify the Crusades. No one can theologically justify a war.
samwich717 3 years ago
It's not a bad set of standards though---take a look at it--what part of it do you disagree with?
radiofriendly 2 years ago 2
"A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see."
Hysterical.
And people tell me Im not Republican enough? To quote Reagan again. 'I didnt leave the Democratic Party, the party left me.'
Im a conservative, not a Republican.
FUCK JOHN MCCAIN.
sidrosteel 3 years ago 10
Again you make a blind quote and say that Ronald Reagan believed this and you give no evidence to support it. You are wrong again that Ronald Reagan was opposed to intervention in Vietnam in the 1960-70's
We should declare war on North Vietnam. We could pave the whole country and put parking strips on it, and still be home by Christmas. Ronald Reagan 1965
Which is similar to Goldwater's phrase bomb them back into the stone age
Reagan and Goldwater's views were pretty consistent yours are not
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Try reading. I made no blind quote. I said that Reagan said some beautiful things. I never said anything about my regards to his presidency (which expanded government). Perhaps I was too subtle. Try this quote from me: "Reagan said some beautiful things, too bad he wasn't capable of following up on most of it". Your views are consistent with the neocons and interventionist. You can't have an aggressive interventionist foreign policy and small government. They are mutually exclusive.
saxrider 3 years ago
saxrider:
He did slow its growth..
sidrosteel 3 years ago
This is true, I think that people would be surprised on how their civil liberties have chipped away by the liberals and the neocons
jimhunt81 3 years ago
Excellent video! This revolution is far from over.
FrankHaddad 3 years ago
"An international authority which effectively limits the powers of the state over the individual will be one of the best safeguards of peace." <-- That is not how these organizations and trade agreements are being used rather they are tools for government regulation.
Milton Friedman was asked to endorse CAFTA and refused after reading just a few pages of the 300+ document defining what free trade would be.
mipoleon 3 years ago
Prove it... You and your grand conspiracies. Its much easier to say it than to prove it.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
watch?v=jNrMQazZHDc <--- Right there from the man's own mouth. Look at 30:10 he talks about getting asked to endorse CAFTA its over 1000 pages and he defines REAL free trade in a couple sentences. NAFTA and CAFTA are not free trade they are government managed trade in free trade's clothes.
mipoleon 3 years ago
Further fueling me to take more outgoing action of educating others on RP and Freedom...see you all in DC on JULY 12th!
marchbomb . com
revolutionmarch . com
See you all in WASHINGTON on JULY 12th!
jasrid04 3 years ago
Hmm instead of opposing International trade organizations Hayek was the source of them.
Hayek Road to Serfdom pg 277
An international authority which effectively limits the powers of the state over the individual will be one of the best safeguards of peace. The international Rule of Law must become a safeguard as much against the tyranny of the state over the individual as against the tyranny of the new super-state over the national communities.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Does that make international organizations good? No.
Hayek had a lot of good ideas and some bad ones as well. Global government is diametrically opposed to the nation-state. Besides, it's unconstitutional. Spend some time studying the Constitution, republicanism, and Austrian economics. Read Ron Paul's The Revolution: A Manifesto.
fishslab 3 years ago
I thought that Hayek and the Austrian School was opposed to trade organizations?
Hayek Road to Serfdom pg 275, 277
The need is for an international political authority which, without power to direct the different people what they must do, must be able to restrain them from action which will damage others ... even more than in the national sphere, it is essential that these powers of the international authority should be strictly circumscribed by the Rule of Law...
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
WOW You have a DavidMesaAZ mole! LOL Likes to talk a lot about nothing. I would rather the people's money be returned to them then given back to the executive branch. The money is already in their hands, to give it back to the people is the best thing to do in a corrupt system. It is broken, it is corrupt, we need to fix it, but this is the best to be done until it is changed.
CharityAngel 3 years ago
I would agree that the system is corrupt and earmarks are one of the causes of it(see Duke Cunningham) I would agree that they money instead of funding shrimp research should be returned to the people.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Earmarks 101:
1. Getting rid of earmarks does nothing to reduce spending.
2. Getting rid of earmarks just transfers the spending power to the execuative through some beurocrat.
3. At least earmarks are out in the open so the whole public can see the idiocy of federal spending instead of hiding in through layers of beurocracy.
mipoleon 3 years ago
Earmarks are Out in the open? You really don't know what they are. The problem with earmarks is that they are anonymous. They are tucked away in a congressional report. 90 percent of them are not voted on but they have the strenght of law.
If earmarks are out in the open why does the Media have to request the Candidates which earmarks they have requested?
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Paul is sidestepping this question all together. He is requesting pork that he could not pass through the traditional appropriations process. through earmarks that are not voted on.
Explain to me how not requesting money for theaters money for shrimp research and for the FDA is part of the constitutional mandate?
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
He didn't side step anything. He clearly answered the question he justifies it by viewing it as a type of twisted tax rebate.
Regarding constitutionality, is it ok for the government to ever subsidize anything?
mipoleon 3 years ago
Are subsidies ok? Well if its in the constitution according to Ron Paul. But that is his argument and not mine.
How can you not see funding shrimp research by the FDA as in Maryland (not in his home district by the way) as Goverment Pork? and at the same time say that the say that Ron Paul is always for limiting the size of the federal government?
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
He says that there are too many special interests in Congress but ignores his own special interest lobbying group. The Shrimp industry.
Why should other Congressman ignore their special interest groups in their own district when gives earmark funding for marketing FDA funding for the shrimp industry?
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
If the problem is spending then the method is irrelevent. If you fix the spending problem the earmark problem will likely go away with it. Fix the earmark problem and the money get spent elsewhere anyway.
mipoleon 3 years ago
If Congressman like Paul would stop requesting federal pork maybe that ideas is a bit too complex.
The method is revealvant how can you say its irrevelant when 90 percent of the pork projects come from earmarks?
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Its funny where the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to negotiate trade he opposes it.
Of course, this sidesteps the real question: Paul claims to vote for nothing that the Constitution doesn't explicitly authorize. Where does the Constitution authorize $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics, or $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp, or $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research, or $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium?
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
You are such an idiot. The Constitution never granted Congress the authority to prohibit free trade, pass mercantilistic laws, and establish a North American Union. You are such a mole!
fishslab 3 years ago
Idiot huh read the commerce clause I have said it once and I have said it again.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1,3:Congress has the power: To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
How Paul justifies it: watch?v=BWTyHbGcUQY
mipoleon 3 years ago
Secondly the idea that well the money is just going to be spent by the executive branch is a if you can't beat them join them idea. The money should not be spent.
If there are legitimate funding issues they should be voted on in the traditional apporpirations channels. Which earmarks are not. I don't care if its through traditional appropriations channels or throuh earmarks don't spend it...
You have failed to answer why he wants to eliminate the FDA but he is requesting earmarks for them?
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
To illustrate the absurdity of government spending. The people he represents pay taxes it would make to sense in not trying to get part of those taxes back in some form.
By subsidizing anything you give the government the power and precedent to subsidize everything.
The real problem is spending, earmarks are only ancillary.
mipoleon 3 years ago
"In some form" that conforms to the constitution. According to his campaign rhetoric.
In a through reading of the constitution I see no constitutional mandates for shrimp research done not in his own district but done in Maryland by branch of the Federal Government.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
are you still on the shrimp thing? good god man. this country is going to hell in a handbasket, and you're talking about shrimp. when your grandfather is having a heart attack, do you point out that your mother uses artificial sweetner?
saxrider 3 years ago
No its death by paper cuts and the earmarks are the paper cuts. It is not the shrimp industry alone that is creating pork but they are one of a million special interest groups.
I bring up the Shrimp because the shrimp industry is a just one of a million special interest industries that gets millions per year and hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding in the past 5 years in exchange for campaign contributions. Its the hypocrisy of the Ron Paul Revolution.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Yea, last time I looked involvement in the middle east is no paper cut sir. Neither are medicare and social security. The government is a tool. That tool has to be HUGE to police the world and police it's own people. You can't have it both ways sir. If you think that's true, then you sir are completely lost. Humans have the ability to rationalize anything. You don't want small government. You want to talk about shrimp. Go right ahead.
saxrider 3 years ago
Two reasons, davidmesaaz:
1. Pork barrel spending, while still bad, makes up a small part of what the government spends. The real problems are entitlement programs, which will end up costing many, many trillions of dollars.
2. When the legislature does not spend the allotted money on constituent services, it goes to the discretion of the executive branch. Paul must figure: better to get shrimp than more Iraq.
CptWillard1 3 years ago
Yet lawmakers keep sneaking them in. "Over 90 percent of earmarks," Bush complained a year ago, "never make it to the floor of the House and Senate they are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law. Yet, they're treated as if they have the force of law."
So let me get this straight. 90% are not voted on they never make out of committee but they have the force of law wow DC is messed
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
The response from Ron Paul is the White Hous is just going to spend the money? This is classic Washington thinking. It not should the money be spent Ron Paul's response is well its going to be spent and it might as well be the Congress that spends it.
Ronald Reagan vetoed a transportation bill will a with a 100 earmarks from the entire congress. But Paul has submited 100 of his own into one bill and you protray Paul has some kind of Reagan disciple Reagan would be rolling over in his grave
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
....doubt that david... Paul was one of 4 in Congress that backed him in 74.
Paul is the best choice weve ever had.
sidrosteel 3 years ago
The question is not did Ron Paul back Reagan. The question is would Reagan and Goldwater back Ron Paul?
First of all what if questions are a counter-factual argument you can't say definately one way or the other
But considering that Goldwater was the most hawkish member of either house of Congress. But Ron Paul is anti-war and an isolationist.
Considering that Reagan was for trade agreements for military intervention and opposed earmarks while Paul to so many of Reagan's positions.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Reagan had his flaws and sold out the country. Ron Paul is far better than Reagan. Even neocon Mitt Romney admitted (rather, was spoon fed the info) that Reagan raised taxes.
fishslab 3 years ago
It is speculative to say who would endorse who, the point is that, for the most part, we hold to the traditional conservative platform. Where Reagan or Goldwater departed from that platform is irrelevant.
Reagan did not follow alot of his own rhetoric but that is besides the point because it is the principles that got Reagan elected that we are concerned with. Goldwater was extremely hawkish but that is irrelevant because the conservative position is noninterventionism.
mipoleon 3 years ago
Reagan and Paul follow different principles. In terms of foreign policy trade domestic spending. He disagrees with every one of them.
The intellectual back flips that Ron Paul goes through on the Earmark issues astounds me. While Reagan's solution was simple just veto the bill with earmarks. How is that following the same principles?
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
They didn't deviate from the platform they built it. Reagan Goldwater ideology is pretty consistent with each other but Paul is the one that deviates from the Conservative ideology.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
I believe that you yourself recognized that Reagan increased and not reduced the government that is a deviation from his own policy.
There is a strong noninterventionist tradition in the party. Reagan went into the middle east got us blown up and left when he realized he didnt understand irrational middle east politics.
mipoleon 3 years ago
But your did not say that Ron Paul follows the Republican party stance of non-intervention. You said that Paul is a continuation of Goldwater and Reagan's policies. Which is factually not true.
Your not even consistent with your own argument. Your original thesis is that Reagan Goldwater and Paul are all for limited government. Now you are saying that Reagan was not for limited government but in fact increased the size of the Federal Government?
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
How many republicans do you want me to put in there it is almost 10 minutes already?
I could have put Taft's anti war rhetoric in but it would be audio only and the audio quality sucks.
The video is more coherent and better quality as it is. We can argue the menucia all day long the fact of the matter is the platforms have a 90% overlap and maybe a 10% deviation.
mipoleon 3 years ago
Again this isn't about what Taft or the Republicans think its about what Reagan and Goldwater think and their record is decidedly pro-intervention.
Paul and Reagan are disagree on trade on Foriegn policy and on the drug war on earmarks and spending I don't see where they agree.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Reagan early 1970s talked some beautiful stuff. Of course what he did as president had absolutely nothing to do with what he preached in the 70s. You bet your ass Paul disagrees with Reagan on a lot of policies. The truth of the matter is you are an interventionist. You want a big federal government with foreign intervention, domestic intervention, and personal intervention. Hell your only half a step away from the socialist left, and the fascist right.
saxrider 3 years ago
You just took a right turn to crazy land. I want big federal government? What I have argued time and time again for the elimination of wasteful spending whether its earmarks while you over look them.
Yes I am an interventionist. I do believe in and I am in good company with Reagan and Goldwater.
Get a clue guy you have no idea what Ronald Reagan stood for and
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
here's a clue for you. what can't you have if a country is determined to be the largest interventionist the planet has ever seen? clue: you can't have small government. and anyone who believes that you can have both is so far lost and ignorant, there's no hope for them.
saxrider 3 years ago
That is a constitutional mandated role of government. There is a difference between limited in its roles and the insane idea that government should have no role at all...
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
and only an insincere person would suggest that people are wanting "no role at all".
saxrider 3 years ago
I believe what you are referring to is the troop withdraw from Beruit. Well all politics are irrational. To say that he removed all troops and all assistance to the middle east is incorrect.
When he withdrew from Beruit he still increased financial support to Israel and gave Saudi Arabia the AWAC's system. But that dwarfed in comparssion to the billions he spent in a proxy war Afghanistan which continued through out his presidency.
Its wrong to assume that he withdrew from the region
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Reagan did in fact increase spending on constitutional mandates such as defense which rose 21 percent. But things that were not constitutional mandates such as Energy he cut 42 percent and Education 32 percent.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Through earmarks, members of Congress can secure millions of dollars of funding for a recipient (a private company, nonprofit, university, or a state or local government) or a specific project (building a road, purchasing or setting aside land). Earmarks receive little or no debate from Congress as a whole; they are not subject to competitive bidding or administrative review, and most earmarks are not examined by the press.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
How did Reagan go so wrong?
How could he bring such evil people into his cabinet? Did he not know who the "elite" were that he refers to in his speech here?
healyourself 3 years ago
They threatened his family, and when he went against them at all, they shot him.
CharityAngel 3 years ago
Healyourself..
1. There is a greater power behind the throne than the king himself. (cant remember the author of the quote)
2. Political power moves are made to insure victory.
3. He did.. He also knew that it was a fine line to balance.
Reagan was an awesome guy. Thank God we had him. Who would we point to referring to Ron Paul???
ps. I love Ron Paul... no homo.
sidrosteel 3 years ago
Is it not obvious how far this country has moved from those days.
The people have become sheep, but have given many years of growth to something ugly, and it owns them.
base1aransas 3 years ago
Luckily, we are still free whether the government tells us we are or not. Revolution is coming whether they like it or not. God Bless America
sidrosteel 3 years ago
True, it's not about them, it's about US.
Plant a garden, find a local food source and trade with them. Not as a revolution, just as part of waking up.
Life is a wonderful thing and reality is the only way to be alive.
base1aransas 3 years ago
Also if you knew the constitution you would know that in the Federal Government is given the right to REGULATE trade that is right the Federal Government has the right to REGULATE trade with other countries.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1,3:
it states Congress has the right: 'To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
I thought that Ron Paul believed in the Constitution? Why does he want to strip us of our constitutional rights?
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
To "regulate", in the language used by the Founders, means "to make regular", not to restrict, like it does now.
ikester8 3 years ago
Wow that is a stretch. Do pray tell explain what it means to make regular? Well even using your definition regular is defined as conforming to some accepted rule, discipline, etc. Also root word for regular is the same as rule. So again it is saying that congress has the right to define make the rules laws and regulations regarding trade with other countries.
But that still does not explain why Ron Paul requests shrimp research for the Federal Food and Drug Administration? in Maryland?
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
2 pages isn't that arbitrary limit? The constitution is longer than your 2 page limit and it has served us well. To say that a legal code should be fit with a 2 page agreement is also naive. And it is equally naive to think that international law should follow the same arbitrary 2 page limit.
If Ron Paul was genuinely for Free Trade he would have proposed an agreement by now. But he hasn't
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
I am quite aware of Milton Friedman's position on NAFTA. He state on numberous occasions that he supported NAFTA and that NAFTA was the first step into genuinely free trade. I wanted to cite the reference but it doesn't allow links.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
But what you overlook is that the first modern army was built by Republican Theodore Roosevelt and his big stick policy.
It was Eisenhower that increased military funding in Vietnam after the defeat of the French in Diem ben fu in 1958.
After Vietnam liberals have bring the troops home and not have military bases overseas which is exactly what Ron Paul wants. While Reagan Republicans have pushed for a strong defense and forces overseas.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
If Ron Paul believes in Free Trade but not "managed free trade" Why hasn't he in 30 year of submited a bill to Congress doing exactly that?
I have to say that pulling out of the WTO is an absolutely stupid idea. With out the negiotiation of the WTO everyone around the world could LEGALLY steal any copyrighted or patented material. That includes software medicine music movies
With out WTO any nation could raise tariffs for US goods while lowering them for other countries such as the China.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
There has been bills to pull out of the UN and he voted for it. RP is the congressman who introduced the most bills. They are never passed, but he is busy none the less. If you believe in Free trade then you know there is no need for NAFTA or the WTO. I'm not going to start giving Lessons about free market. There are some very good books explaining this. check you for Friedman and members of the Austrian economics School
philippe1985 3 years ago
Ummm we are part of the WTO and Asia still relentlessly violates our copyrights by selling pirated copies of any intellectual property so the WTO fails in its objective anyway.
Rather if China wants to purchase 500 copies of Windows XP and install 500,000 bootleg copies on goverment computers congress should just slap a tarriff on their toaster ovens to compensate for the deficit. But we cant do that without going on our hand and knees begging for permission from the WTO.
mipoleon 3 years ago
But your argument is that because individuals disregard the law its pointless to have it.
But you fail to mention that there are millions of individuals in the United States that disregard the intellectual property rights. But the solution is more enforcement and in some cases punitives tariffs on chinese products.
But by your logic well people are disobeying the law so we should just eliminate the law. Doing so will give them an incentives to break and not keep IP Laws.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Don't try to put words in my mouth. That was never my argument. Laws exist to protect people's rights and intellectual property rights are included in that. Whether someone disregards the law doesn't enter into it in the least. Intellectual property rights should be enforced to the same extent that any other theft of comparable value.
mipoleon 3 years ago
The Peoples Republic of China and the United States of America could agree to enforce each others copyrights without a WTO. If one or the other refuses just tarriff their imports to make up the difference until they change policy.
mipoleon 3 years ago
One thing that you over looked is that there are differences on China's and the United States copyright laws. The differences would have to be negiotaited which would take a good decade believe me. then we would have do to the same negiotiations with Germany France UK Italy Russia and all 180 some odd countries. Which would take a lifetime to get them all done. By that time it would be obsolete.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Ron Paul maybe in some sense a libertarian but he is NOT a Reagan Conservative..
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Never said he was. Why imply Reagan? What about Goldwater, which is what I meant?
BansheeXYZ 3 years ago
How can he even be considered a Goldwater conservative. How can you seriously say that Ron Paul is a disciple of Goldwater. When Goldwater was an extreme interventionist, he wanted to nuke Vietnam.
While Paul is a extreme isolationist. He is anti-war and wants to bring the troops home.
Goldwater spent his career on military issues the Goldwater-Nicols act bears that out. Paul s a issolationist and Goldwater is not.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Ron Paul is not an isolationist. Like Jefferson and Washington, Paul promotes free trade and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Ron Paul is a re-Founding Father of the American Revolution.
fishslab 3 years ago
The questions is not whether he is like Jefferson. The question that this video is asking is he a Goldwater or Reagan Republican. The answer is a resounding no he is not.
Show me once in his 30 years of Congress that he has submitted a bill that promotes his his views on free trade. You can try and look but you won't find it.
If he is for the constitution why does he over look the fact that the founding fathers gave the right to regulate trade?
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Dude, there are dozens of bills and articles Ron Paul has written promoting free trade. Just Google it. Show me one bill that George Bush or John McCain advocated that promoted free trade? I can show you quite a few that were MERCANTILISTIC that Bush and McCain supported.
The original intent of the commerce clause was to promote free trade. You should read the works of Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
fishslab 3 years ago
No he said that he has never requested a earmark or voted on them. But the point of it is why does he request money for private businesses such as a theaters if he believes it is not a consitutional role of government? He says he is going to eliminate the FDA but he asks for more funding for the FDA? For shrip research of all things? That is an expansion of federal powers and not contraction of it.
How can he says he is going to change washington he he is part of the problem?
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Paul answered that question thoroughly in his Meet the Press interview with Tim Russert. Congress has the obligation to decide where the money should go. Paul believes it shouldn't be taken in the first place, but puts the earmarks in because if it has to go somewhere, it should go to the people and not stay in the executive branch. It's like saying that you must support the income tax if you take a tax credit. Total rubbish, why spread nonsense on these boards?
BansheeXYZ 3 years ago
Its a well if you can't beat them join them position.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Mikietroop 3 years ago
When and where did he give this speech?
healyourself 3 years ago
The thing is - Ron Paul has the general idea correct. Protecting personal liberties and reducing taxation and spending is the most important thing.
How does the Ron Paul control the labour market?
Reagan got that idea mostly right. By the way, was Reagan actually talking about Ron Paul?
soccom8341576 3 years ago
He was talking about Barry Goldwater during the Repub Nat convention.
tplevel 3 years ago
Sounds like a liberal. Getting back to the Constitution is the most revolutionary thing we can do.
liveoilfree 3 years ago
Thank you for putting this together. I watched spellbound. Wonderful. Thank you.
profg11 3 years ago
reagan signed in rex 84 thank him for this when your in a camp. reagen created the plunge protection team thank him for the most manipulated market of all time. just a dumb ass actor manipulated by the elite.
st0ckman 3 years ago
Reagan specifically endorsed Ron Paul BECAUSE quote "he understand the importance of a strong defense". Reagan said invading the middle east was a mistake during his terms. Reagan also wanted a Gold standard as did Greenspan. Of course there are many differences. Ron himself was very disappointed in Reagan.
Ron Paul believes in free trade..not government regulated free trade.
Ron Paul and Reagan are similar in how they preach personal responsibility and small government. Thats the continuation.
erinmhughes 3 years ago
So does John McCain preach personal responsiblity there are fewer differences between Reagan and McCain and Reagan and Paul.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
McCain is for open borders (no matter what he said, he voted this way), he is for big goverment (No child left behind for example, he wants to keep almost all the departments), so big spending (higher taxes) and thus against a gold standard. He is for preemptive war which is a socialist or national socialist idea. He is weak on the 2nd amendment. He doesn't believe in the 4th and the 10th amendment.
really, I don't even see why McCain is in the republican party.
philippe1985 3 years ago
Well hate to break this to you but Ronald Reagan was for open borders. And the Wall Street Journal has been for open border. I thought Ron Paul was a libertarian so why does he want to regulate the labor market? I think its a stretch to say that McCain is for pre-emptive war. But Reagan invaded his fair share of countries.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Open borders works as long as you minimize welfare state. There are hospitals closing down in Texas because of too much illegals using welfare advantages.
Before Reagan left the presidency, his last statement was : My biggest mistake was Lebanon. So he learned that it wasn't good and he admitted it. Just as Wilson ask the American people to forgive him for letting the FED emerge. But you seem to be thankful.
philippe1985 3 years ago 3
Yes but he was saying withdrawing from lebbanon was a mistake. Terrorist groups learned that if you hit hard enough the US will withdraw. That is why he said it was his
Ron Paul district recieves millions in earmarked appropriations. Constitutionally financed things such as funding shrimp research fixing old theaters and other government pork. While Reagan opposed earmarks and vetoed earmarked bills.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
It is the duty of the congress to plan how to spend earmarks. Being against earmark doesn't do anything but letting the money to the executive branch. So it doesn't balance the budget. Anyway RP never voted for an earmark since he voted against all the budgets. It is a mistake to doubt his constituency.
For Lebanon, since a for better than that GI's left. There is less bombs and no more kamikaze. America's intervention has done nothing but magnify the problems in the middle east.
philippe1985 3 years ago
If he voted against them why does he accept them for his district? This is a classic case of having his cake and eating it to.
Reagan and Goldwater endorsed McCain during 1980's.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Because it is the job of the congress to use earmarks. The district paid for it. If it was up to Ron Paul, their would be no taxation and no earmarks.
If Goldwater could be alive today, he would definitely take back what he said. And Reagan probably too. McCain is not a conservative for all the reasons I mentioned. and I didn't even mentioned his stands on Global warming which shows the complete liberal he is.
philippe1985 3 years ago
Its not the job of congress to use earmarks. They use earmarks so congressman don't have to vote on them. They are not a traditional appropriation bill.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
It doesn't change anything anyway. What really matters is who is going to cut spendings? McCain plans are going to increase the federal goverment, already huge after 8 years of extreme liberal presidency.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who is ale to cut spendings.
Earmarks do not change anything. The republic was made to minimize the scope of the executive branch.
philippe1985 3 years ago
Well considering that Ron Paul's district receives government pork. McCain votes against pork. Paul opposes immigration opposes NAFTA opposes military intervention Is for drug decriminalization all ideas held by liberals. Its clear to see who is the liberal in McCain vs Paul. Its Ron Paul.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Paul doesn't oppose immigration, he opposes amnesty and illegal immigration. NAFTA was a liberal Clinton bill, it is a managed trade agreement and not a free trade agreement and he opposes it. Democrats started Vietnam and believe in intervention as much as neo-cons, only taking the other side when it's politically convenient, not as a part of their platform. Paul has voted against EVERY earmark going to his district, so you're lying there. These are all old conservative / libertarian positions.
BansheeXYZ 3 years ago
Sorry to break it to you but the origins of NAFTA were during the Reagan administration. The Canada and American FTA was negiotated under Reagan and passed in 1988. That agreement was expanded to include Mexico during GHW Bush during his terms in office.
As a Candidate Clinton opposed NAFTA as a President he passed NAFTA heavily relying on Republican support. If Ron Paul is soo for free trade why doesn't he just try to submit a bill that would eliminate all tariffs?
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
NAFTA is just an other layer of Bureaucracy. Liberals support Bureaucracy. Free market doesnt need NAFTA or the WTO or any other organization.
The war on drugs is not working. It is wasted money. Millions of people are in jail for just using drugs while real criminals are running in the streets. plus it forbids useful plants like hemp which can be used for many other things than just drugs. And we can just imagine the profit it could make.
philippe1985 3 years ago
Military intervention for democracy is a idea introduced by Democrats. Democrats are the one supporting useless war. It is Wilson who introduced that Idea. Republicans are the one who got America out of Wars (Vietnam and Korea), do I have to remind you that Republicans where against the War in Kosovo?
philippe1985 3 years ago
While that maybe true with some parts of the Republican Party. The question in doubt is not what the party believes it is what Reagan believes and his long history of intervention and "getting us into wars" is further evidence that Ron Paul is not a Reagan Conservative.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Well the market needs a way to ensure laws, contracts and agreements. Which any libertarian will tell you is a role of government.
If that is role of government than an organization is needed to ensure that these laws and agrements are followed and that is precisely what the WTO NAFTA are designed to do. Just as the courts are necessary for a market to work within a country FTA are necessary to ensure that the rule of law is followed.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Its called checks and balances for a reason. All three branches of government check the other two and the states check the federal government.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
McCain was a conservative when he first arrived in washington. Time and government changed him a great deal. The MIC owns his campaign.
tplevel 3 years ago
Leaving the money in the executive branch for Bush to spend on Blackwater is even worse. Get an education.
tplevel 3 years ago
Name one country besides Grenada.
tplevel 3 years ago
we had special forces in Afghanistan funded the contras in Nicaragua. He pre-emptively bombed Lybia. Had military battles in Honduras. According to Wikipedia there were 10 military actions under carter and 18 under Reagan. Paul is against intervention but Reagan intervened all over the world.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Listen to what Reagan said in the video and you will see it is not his view. Reagan was not alone in the goverment. They pushed G.W.B sr on him first then they shot him twice.
philippe1985 3 years ago
I can show you 10 videos that say that it is his view. Why don't you watch the you-tube video the real freedom fighters. There is a long history that shows his views.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Also Reagan was elected and negiotated the begining stages of NAFTA. He also pushed for free trade in the Uraguay round. But Ron Paul opposes NAFTA and negioted trade rounds that Reagan supported. While Reagan accelerated the FTA Ron Paul wants to with draw from the very agreements that Reagan pushed for. How is that a continuation of Reagan's record?
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Barry Goldwater endorsed John McCain when he ran for the Senate in 1987. John McCain occupies Barry Goldwaters old desk in the senate. Who would Barry endorse now? No one knows and anyone who guess is making a counter-factual argument.
But Goldwater like Reagan was an interventionist. He wanted to bomb Vietnam he was the embodiment of the interventionist wing of the Republican Party.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Reagan realized that the non-intervention in world affairs and a decrease in Military spending after the Vietnam war did not make the US safer. This policy led to communist invasions Angola Honduras Afghanistan roving death squads in Argentina. We looked the other way when Pol Pot ruled destroyed the country with the Killing fields.
What did Reagan do he dramatically increased military spending. It intervened in Afganistan Nicaragua Lebanon Grenada and a million other places.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Ron Paul believes that we need a strong defense not a military stretched so thin and that we can not afford. We have 700 foreign bases, that does not include domestic bases and US territories. This costs us $1 trillion a year.
Our current domestic entitlement programs leaves my generation (20's) with $70 trillion in entitlements due. Our national debt is $9.3 trillion and goes up $1.49 billion per day.
I am scared an Ron Paul is the only one mentioning this in all of Washington. Unbelievable.
erinmhughes 3 years ago
No he wants to bring the troops home. If we don't intervene then other nations wont hate us. That is the crux of his foriegn policy.
The defense buget is less than one percent of GDP. During the vietnam war is was 1.6
percent.
The national debt is large but lets remember the GDP of the US is 16 trillion dollars per year. Payments on the National Debt account for 7 percent of the national budget. While we should be concerned with its size remember the economy is massive and growing as well
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
What you are saying just prove what I thought. You not only think that communism works, you think it work so well it could beat the free market. You think an Islamist Nation could rise upon the Western civilization. If collectivism works so well, then why not adopting it?
Because Communism, like any other collectivism system is going to fail no matter what.
About the debt. you have to realize that it cannot increase indefinitely .
philippe1985 3 years ago
Communism? When did I ever even mention that? you just fell of the deep end... and took a right turn to crazy town.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Of Course Reagan endorsed him he was a republican. But an endorsement of the candidate is not an endorsement of all the candidates ideas. There are several large differences between Reagan and Paul on the issue of monetary policy (Greenspan was a Reagan nominee.) International policy Reagan dramatically increased military spend while Ron Paul wants to decrease military spending and bring the troops home.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Only four congressman endorsed Reagan in 1976.
acrosoc101 3 years ago
Goldwater and Reagen have indeed endorsed Ron Paul.
sratiug 3 years ago
While Ron Paul wans to eliminate the FED Reagan strengthened the FED. Reagan increased money and fought against the drugs coming into this country he was not for decriminalization. I love in the video it said that we presently give gave arms to Saudi Arabia but Reagan gaves AWACS to the Saudis as well. To say that Reagan or Goldwater would have would have endorsed Ron Paul is stretch to say the least.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
The video refers to platform and not actions during the presidency. Paul himself was very critical of Reagan for some of his actions. Frankly Reagan's rhetoric was a lot more impressive than his actual actions, as is often the case.
murphycline 3 years ago
But Ron Paul is not a continuation of the ideas of Goldwater and Reagan as the video suggests but a break from them.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
dm- The message is an 3VOLution. C'mon now, join the r3VOLution.
r3vmarch. com
mkauai2 3 years ago
Ron Paul isn't a Goldwater or a Reagan clone, but Paul has a lot more in common with the platforms of Reagan or Goldwater than any current Republican that I can think of.
murphycline 3 years ago
Like what? they disagree on nearly ever policy decision from free trade to foriegn policy to the war on drugs.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
They may disagree now because they have over 4o years of policy change, policy corruption, and the natural evolve of society. I think this video is just showing that their underlying principles are what they have in common. Although, maybe Reagan's was more rhetoric which makes you think whether Obama's rhetoric will be as dangerous as Reagan's. Politicians are liars. Period. You can only judge them by their track record.
QbanNewWave 3 years ago
Yes Reagan's rhetoric was dangerous "its morning in America" We can change things. That is dangerous you might be an optimist where would we be with angry liberal bloggers!!!
While its wrong to assume that there is some kind of conspiracy that all politicians intentional lie every chance they get. Do politicians fail to live up to their campaign promises? Absolutely.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
David - Reagan did endorse Ron Paul when he ran for congress. Ron Paul also was 1 of 6 republicans in congress to endorse Reagan.
Goldwater's son Berry Goldwater Jr. campaigned around the country with Ron Paul because he said Paul is the man his father would have pushed for. Just thought you would find that interesting.
erinmhughes 3 years ago
Goldwater and Reagan both believed in international military intervention. Reagan invaded Grenada and Goldwater wanted to "bomb Vietnam back to the stone age." ≈
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
I cannot understand how Republicans from Arizona went from electing Goldwater in the senate to John McCAin.
A good commie is a dead commie whether he as an 'R' next to his name or not.
philippe1985 3 years ago 2
"9-11 would have never happened if we had used the 2nd amendment," That's fucking retarded.
jimpedigo 3 years ago
Jim...It's a shame there wasn't a sawed-off 16ga n' a 357 magnum handgun in each of those cockpits.
YOU seem to be the "retard" involved in such a discussion...
WA4RRN 3 years ago 2
It seems most folks his age like my father really dont get things or see things one way. My father is voting McCain because hes in the military and thinks if we leave Iraq there would be Chaos. Its sad that he's fallen for the MSM propaganda, if he knew history he would have known differently. I wont let their generation of blind patriotism continue to ruin us as they were grown up to believe, we are more conflicted with our fathers since we have technology & information at our finger tips.
Seiku 3 years ago
"Could have been prevented if we had alot more respect for the second amendment."
Please listen carefully and get the full story of his arguement. He already discussed it in depth.
Seiku 3 years ago
If the pilots had guns there would have been no way the terrorists would have taken over with box cutters. The argument is sound do you have a better counter point that "fucking retarded"?
mipoleon 3 years ago
You stupid moron! Go ahead and vote for Mccain and get more of the same shit that we've been getting the last several years.
More lies, treachery, deception, more big government, more planned wars, less freedoms,
destruction of our constitution and the country. Wow, that is so much better then what Ron Paul wants for America. Go back to the rock you crawled from under or go to a place like China. You are a total idiot.
070469blueboy 3 years ago 2
Looks great in High Quality
fagan411 3 years ago
"were"?
Seiku 3 years ago
Memo to "conservatives" and ANYONE against big DEM govt and even bigger REP govt:
Throw out the Reagan template. He only "talked" about less government.
Massive deficit spending is NOT the answer.
Any "revolution" that begins with "Reagan" is flawed and misguided.
The LAST thing that a REAL revolution needs is a red ink Republican as its guidepost.
RonPaulGeorgeRingo 3 years ago 2
Ron Paul was dissatisfied with Reagan and his spending.Ron did believe in the ideals,but not the practices of RR.
cincinnatusnow 3 years ago 4
If anyone ever has a chance to ask Ron Paul a question, make sure to ask him if he will run in 2012 if he doesn't win. I pray every week that he wins but we all know the odds. It took RR 2 times to win the presidency. Oh yeah, make sure to put it up on youtube so the other RP supporters can be more encouraged.
Tasadaru 3 years ago
Ron Paul + The leader of the FREE WORLD!!!!!
midwestcharm 3 years ago 2
RP..08
Peace AFter the Revolution
RundoeTX
rundoetx 3 years ago 4