Support NeoGAF

[unomas]

Yep, I disagree with Ron Paul on marriage, on abortion, and on immigration but that's sort of outweighed by my agreement with him on foreign policy, on the PATRIOT Act and related domestic overreach, and on the drug war. But hey, if you would rather support a President who as a senator voted for the FISA bill, who has allowed raids on legal medical marijuana dispensaries to continue and who opposes gay marriage AND who has never said a word against the PATRIOT Act or the TSA's groping of kids then by all means.

Agreed, people get boggled up in this garbage of having to agree with 99% of a what a candidate says, and most of the candidates just tell you what you want to hear anyway versus what they'll actually do. While I don't agree with everything Ron Paul says, at this point things like abortion etc. etc. need to take a backseat to the larger issues at hand in this country. Being a country that occupies so many others and is pro war regardless of who the president is makes me sick. Ron Paul will get my vote over any of the puppets being propped up in the 2 party system.

 

[Socreges]

I think the metaphor is missing the part where the Texas government sponsored an organization dedicated to the destruction of China/Russia and the deaths of its citizens and actually killed thousands of its citizens in an attack on one of its major landmarks.

I don't know if it is missing that. What you're saying doesn't apply to Iraq and doesn't apply to Afghanistan as of many years ago.

 

[Gaborn]

Agreed, people get boggled up in this garbage of having to agree with 99% of a what a candidate says, and most of the candidates just tell you what you want to hear anyway versus what they'll actually do. While I don't agree with everything Ron Paul says, at this point things like abortion etc. etc. need to take a backseat to the larger issues at hand in this country. Being a country that occupies so many others and is pro war regardless of who the president is makes me sick. Ron Paul will get my vote over any of the puppets being propped up in the 2 party system.

Yep, it's also worth noting that the country isn't where Ron Paul is on marriage, abortion or immigration either really. Even if he got elected and even he WANTED to push on those things it's unlikely any of them would go his way, but somehow I think he'd focus on more practical matters.

 

[JCX]

The difference is accountability. Currently both sides can continue to point fingers at one another and not get anything done, while still getting elected every term. If more responsibility lies on the states electorate they will more easily be able to hold their elected officials accountable for not following through on policy they campaigned for.

The same thing happens at the state level. That's more a problem of the incumbency effect and a lack of viable third parties than a problem inherent in a strong federal government.

 

[Jak140]

didnt i see that before, but it says it's new

anyways, if you thought that ad was good, you should watch this:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sam_richards_a_radical_experiment_in_empathy.html

This is great.

 

[Suikoguy]

Too long then got too loud...

But I agree with the message.

 

[Karma Kramer]

The same thing happens at the state level. That's more a problem of the incumbency effect and a lack of viable third parties than a problem inherent in a strong federal government.

So what is your solution? Do you think the 2 party system will allow third party growth? Because on a federal level it is practically impossible to compete as a third party candidate due to the millions of dollars needed to compete. State campaigns are more realistic.

 

[Mims]

Imagine if Americans killed more Americans than the foreign invaders during their attacks. Imagine if Americans forced other Americans to join their fighting cause or have their families killed.

While I am all for not going to war. You need to look at both sides of the coin.

 

[Kinyou]

The Republicans hate him because he doesn't toe the party line. He's the only anti-war Republican, he's for legalizing marijuana, etc.

Democrats hate him because he is a Republican who has more liberal views on many things than their own candidates, and yet is more economically conservative for their tastes.

So I guess you could say that he's a victim of the two party system? I mean it seems very unlikely that he will even get run against Obama

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm

that sure is a lot of text.

 

[Gaborn]

The same thing happens at the state level. That's more a problem of the incumbency effect and a lack of viable third parties than a problem inherent in a strong federal government.

States generally have laws against, for example marijuana. I'd much rather if California or some other state chooses to legalize marijuana the feds stay out of it. Over time it's likely more states would follow suit once the states that go first don't self destruct.

 

[Karma Kramer]

that sure is a lot of text.

Read it if you want your question answered.

 

[TheSeks]

Too long then got too loud...

But I agree with the message.

Not to mention that the text is hard to follow since it goes left right left trying to fill up all the space it can before suddenly shifting to another place to have another large word and hard to follow sentence.

 

[braves01]

Because Iraq was totally involved in 9/11.

Anyway, I like the ad, it brings up a discussion that isn't talked about that often in the national media.

I had Afghanistan in mind in my first post, but since I wasn't specific, here goes:

I don't think anyone denies the Iraq War began with misinformation, but I think once you destroy a nation's infrastructure and government you have an obligation to keep order until those things are fixed. Saying no WMDs here and bailing isn't a responsible option. And hasn't the number of troops there dramatically decreased within the past couple years anyway?

And RE: the other bases, I don't think anyone believes troops shouldn't be held accountable for despicable behavior.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I had Afghanistan in mind in my first post, but since I wasn't specific, here goes:

I don't think anyone denies the Iraq War began with misinformation, but I think once you destroy a nation's infrastructure and government you have an obligation to keep order until those things are fixed. Saying no WMDs here and bailing isn't a responsible option. And hasn't the number of troops there dramatically decreased within the past couple years anyway?

And RE: the other bases, I don't think anyone believes troops shouldn't be held accountable for despicable behavior.

Our presence is what created more violence in the region. Also, is this obligation an obligation when the people of the nation you feel obligated to "fix" don't want you there?

 

[alphaNoid]

I liked Ron Paul the first time I read his agenda many years ago. This guy needs to be President.

 

[Enron]

lol ronpaw

 

[Karma Kramer]

lol ronpaw

Who are you supporting?

 

[Ilive1up]

imagine all the people.

 

[Wanace]

Good ad, but the escalating tone was annoying and off-putting.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Imagine Ron Paul as President

 

[JCX]

So what is your solution? Do you think the 2 party system will allow third party growth? Because on a federal level it is practically impossible to compete as a third party candidate due to the millions of dollars needed to compete. State campaigns are more realistic.

That's why I support public financing for campaigns. As for third parties, there was a commentary I read elsewhere about how third parties in contemporary American politics suffer because they are centered around a few big personalities (Nader, Paul). The solution there was to have third parties grow gradually in states, then spread to regions, and eventually congress. These two steps would help foster an environment for third party growth.

 

[Enron]

Who are you supporting?

not ron paul, that's for sure.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

At the end it went to a Ron Paul speech. Was the whole thing a speech Ron Paul made at some point?

 

[Karma Kramer]

Imagine Ron Paul as President

Yeah for once there would be a candidate who actually believes what you conservative preach. Limited Government.

not ron paul, that's for sure.

Obviously... but who is the clear best candidate to you? I'm curious

 

[Kinyou]

Read it if you want your question answered.

I bookmarked it for later

 

[unomas]

Yep, it's also worth noting that the country isn't where Ron Paul is on marriage, abortion or immigration either really. Even if he got elected and even he WANTED to push on those things it's unlikely any of them would go his way, but somehow I think he'd focus on more practical matters.

Agreed 100%, it's too bad most people can't look past these issues with their blinders on to see what's really important right now. Hopefully people will spread the message as Ron Paul is pretty much ignored by the MSM.

 

[Gaborn]

That's why I support public financing for campaigns. As for third parties, there was a commentary I read elsewhere about how third parties in contemporary American politics suffer because they are centered around a few big personalities (Nader, Paul). The solution there was to have third parties grow gradually in states, then spread to regions, and eventually congress. These two steps would help foster an environment for third party growth.

No, they suffer not least because ballot access laws in most states are RIDICULOUSLY skewed against them. Not to mention the winner take all electoral college makes it hard for a political party that gains a LITTLE bit of traction to have a noticeable impact.

 

[Karma Kramer]

That's why I support public financing for campaigns.

I agree completely, however do you really think public financing is achievable with our current political climate and mainstream presidential candidates? I see no one favoring such policy in the media or on the national level.

 

[Rehynn]

I like Ron Paul and I oppose war, but I still find this ad naive and its analogy rather weak.

Still, it's good to talk about these things.

 

[Rorschach]

I'm a minute and thirty eight seconds into it and that guy's got me. GO TERRORISTS!

 

[NullPointer]

Imagine Ron Paul as President

I'm having a very hard time doing this.

Does he have say, a first 100 day/first year/first term plan for what he'd attempt to accomplish?

 

[Joel Was Right]

I had Afghanistan in mind in my first post, but since I wasn't specific, here goes:

I don't think anyone denies the Iraq War began with misinformation, but I think once you destroy a nation's infrastructure and government you have an obligation to keep order until those things are fixed. Saying no WMDs here and bailing isn't a responsible option. And hasn't the number of troops there dramatically decreased within the past couple years anyway?

And RE: the other bases, I don't think anyone believes troops shouldn't be held accountable for despicable behavior.

On a related note,

US insists on immunity for troops in Iraq

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Yeah for once there would be a candidate who actually believes what you conservative preach. Limited Government.



Obviously... but who is the clear best candidate to you? I'm curious

I'd love to see it. Actual CHANGE.

 

[KidA Seven]

Agreed, people get boggled up in this garbage of having to agree with 99% of a what a candidate says, and most of the candidates just tell you what you want to hear anyway versus what they'll actually do. While I don't agree with everything Ron Paul says, at this point things like abortion etc. etc. need to take a backseat to the larger issues at hand in this country. Being a country that occupies so many others and is pro war regardless of who the president is makes me sick. Ron Paul will get my vote over any of the puppets being propped up in the 2 party system.

Pretty much this.

 

[loosus]

I like Ron Paul and I oppose war, but I still find this ad naive and its analogy rather weak.

Still, it's good to talk about these things.

Why is it "naive" and "weak?" I thought it was right on the money. Are there ANY more complications to it? Sure. But for a three-minute spot, I'm not sure you could've made it any better.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

I like Ron Paul and I oppose war, but I still find this ad naive and its analogy rather weak.

Still, it's good to talk about these things.

I thought the analogy was nearly 1:1.

 

[speculawyer]

Meh. His anti-gay, anti-abortion, and anti-environmental beliefs make him a profoundly dis-likable candidate to me.

This.

Much of hardcore Libertarian thinking is incredibly naive. There is a reason why created various government agencies . . . because things like patent medicines and rivers that burn are bad things.

And theocratic tendencies are annoying.

 

[outunderthestars]

Do Ron Paul supporters really believe a "free market environmentalism" could actually work?

Don't let his anti-war/anti-drug war rhetoric mask his archaic beliefs when it comes to equal rights, environmental policy, and social policy.

This is a man who wouldn't offer his full time employees health insurance and sat back and watched one of his "best friends" and employees die a slow death while saying that churches should be helping to pay for his health care.

 

[speculawyer]

Imagine Ron Paul as President

It really would not be very different than it is now because he wouldn't be able to get shit through Congress & the Senate.

 

[B_Rik_Schitthaus]

Do Ron Paul supporters really believe a "free market environmentalism" could actually work?

They love as much deregulation as possible, doubt even seeing the fall out of such bullshit would change their minds.

 

[timetokill]

Do Ron Paul supporters really believe a "free market environmentalism" could actually work?

Some of them do, sure.

There's a weird thing with people questioning Ron Paul supporters as though they're all exactly like-minded.

How about this: Do Obama supporters really like the Patriot Act? Do Obama supporters really agree with Obama's stance that marriage is only between a man and a woman? Do Obama supporters really laugh at the mere notion of legalizing marijuana, like Obama does?

 

[Suikoguy]

Do Ron Paul supporters really believe a "free market environmentalism" could actually work?

I wonder that too...
Even my libertarian economics professor says there needs to be limits on pollution, because the air is shared, and not limited to a specific property line. She says the pollution should be tradable, but still understands that there is an unseen cost via negative extranalities.

 

[Gaborn]

I had Afghanistan in mind in my first post, but since I wasn't specific, here goes:

I don't think anyone denies the Iraq War began with misinformation, but I think once you destroy a nation's infrastructure and government you have an obligation to keep order until those things are fixed. Saying no WMDs here and bailing isn't a responsible option. And hasn't the number of troops there dramatically decreased within the past couple years anyway?

And RE: the other bases, I don't think anyone believes troops shouldn't be held accountable for despicable behavior.

It's not whether troops should be held accountable, it's the US policy of the US military trying our troops for criminal acts that take place in a foreign country rather than letting that country's own judicial system do so. Or, to put it in simpler terms, Iraq was deemed competent to try Saddam Hussein but not the soldiers involved in the massacre in Haditha. That did not happen in the course of battle. They should have been tried for murder in an Iraqi court of law.

 

[JCX]

No, they suffer not least because ballot access laws in most states are RIDICULOUSLY skewed against them. Not to mention the winner take all electoral college makes it hard for a political party that gains a LITTLE bit of traction to have a noticeable impact.

I know you're not a fan of incremental change, but I would say it should start at the local level and grow over time, rather than going for broke at the national level every four years half-heartedly pretending to be a republican, then running independent anyway. Laws are stacked against them, but at a certain level, if you are a third party have the votes, then you have them. Start small, grow, change the rules. People don't ignore third party candidates because of laws written by the GOP and Democrats, they don't because only those two have the national infrastructure for a big campaign, or in basic terms, have a higher chance of winning.

I agree completely, however do you really think public financing is achievable with our current political climate and mainstream presidential candidates? I see no one favoring such policy in the media or on the national level.

I don't think it is likely in this climate, especially since the current laws support the loudest (richest) "people", but that doesn't change how much I'd like it. I am actually somewhat surprised that there isn't a lot of outrage at the absurd about of money spent on elections. So much good could be done with that money.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Some of them do, sure.

There's a weird thing with people questioning Ron Paul supporters as though they're all exactly like-minded.

How about this: Do Obama supporters really like the Patriot Act? Do Obama supporters really agree with Obama's stance that marriage is only between a man and a woman? Do Obama supporters really laugh at the mere notion of legalizing marijuana, like Obama does?

Exactly... please all critics of Ron Paul... please tell me who you are supporting.

 

[PhoenixDark]

That's the best political ad I've ever seen. I would never vote for Paul given his social and economic views, but he's right on foreign policy and I look forward to the day when libertarians extinguish neocons (and the religious right) in the republican party.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

Some other Ron Paul videos really are entertaining.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hwho9xfZhA&feature=related

He doesn't mess around.

 

[loosus]

They love as much deregulation as possible, doubt even seeing the fall out of such bullshit would change their minds.

Yeah, that's the biggest flaw with Republicans/Libertarians in my mind. I think some things, especially regarding individual freedoms, need to be de-regulated or lessened in regulation, but there are numerous environmental regulations that we have in place FOR A REASON.

The reason? People/companies were already not taking care of the environment, so government finally stepped in and tried to reduce the problem. In other words, we have already tried letting the free market take care of the environment, and it just didn't worked. Again, THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN TRIED.

Otherwise, why don't we reverse all murder and rape laws on the books and let the free market take care of that, too? I mean, hell, it costs money to prosecute and jail people!

 

[NullPointer]

How about this: Do Obama supporters really like the Patriot Act? Do Obama supporters really agree with Obama's stance that marriage is only between a man and a woman? Do Obama supporters really laugh at the mere notion of legalizing marijuana, like Obama does?

*hi five*

 

[unomas]

Some of them do, sure.

There's a weird thing with people questioning Ron Paul supporters as though they're all exactly like-minded.

How about this: Do Obama supporters really like the Patriot Act? Do Obama supporters really agree with Obama's stance that marriage is only between a man and a woman? Do Obama supporters really laugh at the mere notion of legalizing marijuana, like Obama does?

Nail on the proverbial head!