Support NeoGAF

[MojoRisin]

For anyone who watches The Daily Show you know Jon Stewart is fond of Ron Paul and he I'm pretty sure he even said maybe he wouldn't make a great overall president but he should be the 'idea man' for America. This ad is expanding on what he's been saying since 2003 and I believe it 100% to be true.

 

[Karma Kramer]

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!

Critics of Ron Paul because you think he would continue to allow corporations to run the show. Watch video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F67ZFpuZwl4

 

[Clevinger]

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

I support the guy who can actually get elected and do some good versus the guy who has no chance in hell and will do no good, despite having a few great positions among a sea of mindbogglingly shitty ones.

 

[Jenga]

Ron Paul has some great ideas but the whole package of his policies is so cancerous he's unelectable. Despite that, To me, the number one thing he has going for him is his ideas are so radical, I can't see him as a big business puppet-head which would be refreshing at this point. I wish he would get elected.

Even with his bad policies.

Hopefully he could learn from them before they ruined everything.

ron paul would be a great libertarian candidate if he wasn't libertarian

 

[Gaborn]

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.

You're not listening. Incremental change is fine, I'm in FAVOR of incremental change. However, until it becomes easier for a political party to get their candidates on the ballot (it can take a ridiculous number of signatures in some states and if you don't meet a particular threshhold in terms of votes in an election you have to do it again next time) it's a nonstarter. That's the first thing that must happen but obviously the Dems and Reps have a strong incentive to not make it any easier for new political parties to get their people on ballots at any level.

It would also help if the media had a modicum of respect for independent voices. Ron Paul for example has been treated like a side show in the debates, one of the debates basically asked him nothing but "trap" questions for libertarians that were COMPLETELY and TOTALLY different from those the other candidates received. I want to see Romney, or Perry, or some of the other candidates asked about the drug war for example. Let's see THEM defend it. Because I know they won't have the balls to give Ron Paul's answer.

 

[outunderthestars]

let's remember that this is a man who is against national parks. Parks. His rigid dogmatic approach to politics lacks the nuance and maturity that is required in a President.


I've voted for Kucinich in the last few elections, will do so again in 2012.

I support the guy who can actually get elected and do some good versus the guy who has no chance in hell and will do no good, despite having a few great positions among a sea of mindbogglingly shitty ones.

That is why you vote in your state's primary...

 

[Karma Kramer]

I support the guy who can actually get elected and do some good versus the guy who has no chance in hell and will do no good, despite having a few great positions among a sea of mindbogglingly shitty ones.

This is an illusion induced on you by the MSM.

 

[Jenga]

It is unfathomably sad to me that our only anti-interventionist, anti-Patriot Act, pro-legalization candidate is considered unelectable.

it's a bigger shame he's a libertarian

 

[Rehynn]

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.

This is exactly the kind of thing that cannot be summed up and presented in a three-minute spot. Nor SHOULD it be. Yet it goes on and on with the analogy between the US and pre-war Iraq/Afghanistan, essentially equating the two sides. Which I think is a mistake and very disrespectful towards the Afghan and Iraqi people.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

I support the guy who can actually get elected and do some good versus the guy who has no chance in hell and will do no good, despite having a few great positions among a sea of mindbogglingly shitty ones.

You must be a non voter.

 

[Gaborn]

let's remember that this is a man who is against national parks. Parks. His rigid dogmatic approach to politics lacks the nuance and maturity that is required in a President.

And this is another example of what I was talking about. If you get asked a question like "do you think the US should own vast tracts of land as federal parks" and you say "no" it's treated as if you are suddenly in favor of immediately selling off Yellowstone. Name ONE other candidate that has EVER been asked about their position on national parks.

 

[loosus]

This is exactly the kind of thing that cannot be summed up and presented in a three-minute spot. Nor SHOULD it be. Yet it goes on and on with the analogy between the US and pre-war Iraq/Afghanistan, essentially equating the two sides. Which I think is a mistake and very disrespectful towards the Afghan and Iraqi people.

Are you kidding me? It's the biggest boost for the Afghan and Iraqi people to ever see publication from a modern politician. I have NO IDEA how you are interpreting this.

And this is another example of what I was talking about. If you get asked a question like "do you think the US should own vast tracts of land as federal parks" and you say "no" it's treated as if you are suddenly in favor of immediately selling off Yellowstone. Name ONE other candidate that has EVER been asked about their position on national parks.

To be fair, there isn't as much reason to ask other candidates this question to begin with, as they have made no indication that they would ever be against federal involvement with national parks.

 

[braves01]

Our presence is what created more violence in the region.

Undeniable, and I'm not defending the decision to enter in the first place.

Also, is this obligation an obligation when the people of the nation you feel obligated to "fix" don't want you there?

Well, when you put it that way...

 

[To Far Away Times]

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.

While Ron Paul occasionally believes in some dumb shit the good points overwhelmingly outweigh the bad.

Ron Paul is the only candidate not to toe a party line, he chooses what he believes is right on each individual issue, and though I don't always agree with him, he won't let his "obligation" to his political party get in the way of fixing all the dumb shit we've done like the War on Iraq, the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs, ect.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I agree with the point the ad is making, but there´s a biiit too much processing and yelling going on for it to seem rational.

This.

Also, I disagree with Ron Paul on too many issues consider him my candidate, but there are so many things he says that I wish more politicians would say.

 

[Jenga]

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.

democrats hate him because he's a fucking libertarian

it's pretty simple

really odd to watch ron paul supporters twist and turn in an attempt to explain why liberals don't support him

 

[Gaborn]

democrats hate him because he's a fucking libertarian

it's pretty simple

really odd to watch ron paul supporters twist and turn in an attempt to explain why liberals don't support him

Yeah, Democrats HATE people in favor of things like legalizing drugs and elimating the PATRIOT act.

 

[Karma Kramer]

democrats hate him because he's a fucking libertarian

it's pretty simple

really odd to watch ron paul supporters twist and turn in an attempt to explain why liberals don't support him

because liberals currently aren't supporting liberals by supporting people like Obama.

 

[To Far Away Times]

democrats hate him because he's a fucking libertarian

it's pretty simple

really odd to watch ron paul supporters twist and turn in an attempt to explain why liberals don't support him

I consider myself a democrat and the only republican I would ever vote for is Ron Paul.

 

[Jenga]

Yeah, Democrats HATE people in favor of things like legalizing drugs and elimating the PATRIOT act.

yeah because people on one side are a-ok with voting in people with drastically different viewpoints from their general viewpoints outside of 3 things

it's really funny to watch ron paul supporters trying to hook in left leaning people on a few points and then get ignored once they piece together all he advocates

 

[outunderthestars]

And this is another example of what I was talking about. If you get asked a question like "do you think the US should own vast tracts of land as federal parks" and you say "no" it's treated as if you are suddenly in favor of immediately selling off Yellowstone. Name ONE other candidate that has EVER been asked about their position on national parks.

Well he has said that he would dramatically cut funding for the parks. And actually, I have asked every candidate I have ever met about parks. I wrote over a dozen letters criticizing Democrats for not funneling more of the stimulus money to park creation and renovation.

I've also been critical of our current President's lack of support for the National park Service.

Of course I am a lifetime member of the Association of National Park Rangers so it is an important issue to me.

It also highlights the flaw in Ron Paul's platform: He sounds great when you first hear him, then as you begin to piece together all of the flaws in his beliefs you begin to dislike him more and more.

Paul supporters claim his lack of support is because people don't know anything about him. I counter that by saying that his lack of support is due to people learning his views and being repulsed by them.

 

[Gaborn]

To be fair, there isn't as much reason to ask other candidates this question to begin with, as they have made no indication that they would ever be against federal involvement with national parks.

But my point is I don't think Ron Paul particularly cares either. I don't think it's on his agenda if he gets elected. I don't think it would be on his second term agenda. That question was designed to play "gotcha" and "look at the crazy libertarian" rather than talking about the real issues like every other candidate. What does Ron Paul think of the health care law? You wouldn't have found out from the presidential debates even though he's a doctor. Federal Reserve? they actually asked the OTHER candidates about that and ignored him even though that's been his driving force (ad nauseum) for DECADES. The media is supposed to shed light on candidate's views in debates but they've seemed more interested in painting him as a caricature rather than treating him like the other candidates on the issues of the day.

 

[Enco]

Brilliant ad with a great message.

If only that would happen.

 

[Draft]

Good ad. Really puts occupation in perspective.

 

[PhoenixDark]

democrats hate him because he's a fucking libertarian

it's pretty simple

really odd to watch ron paul supporters twist and turn in an attempt to explain why liberals don't support him

This. Most liberals agree with Paul's foreign policy and stances on civil liberties. Any mistrust or dislike is due to his draconian economic policies and some of his more laughable stances on eliminating government programs. I don't know any liberals who "hate" Paul.

I respect the man and think he's one of the few honest people in politics. If anything there may be some jealousy among some democrats and liberals who see Paul as the candidate they thought Obama was in 2007/2008: a principled champion of their economic, social, and foreign policy beliefs who would fight for them. Of course Obama turned out to be quite the corporatist and has a civil liberties record one could easily argue is worse than Bush's. Not to mention him being a spineless "leader" who cannot lead.*


*and yes, I will be voting for him next November.

 

[Advance_Alarm]

The ad is completely true but incredibly naive at the same time. I think what is more true is that being the hegemon is preferable to being the occupied country. The ideal in the long run is of course a multilateral, diplomatic and economic normalization of relations with every nation. The problem is that if the US withdraws its military from overseas and allows the brics or any other regional hegemons rise to prominence the door is opened for them to abuse their position in the same way that the US has (arguably) abused its position. Instead of having a single country that is by almost all measures above retaliation such as the US you would have a multiplicity of powers that are actually open to military intervention with the eventual outcome being world war or nuclear war. The cost in real lives is substantially lower even if you don't get to win the philosophical victory. Honestly as an American I am glad that there aren't foreign troops occupying the country and killing US citizens but I am enough of a realist to understand that it is because of these foreign policies and military power that I am protected, not international law or the liberal global view that it's based on.

 

[Jenga]

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.

"ron paul definitely won't do all those other things he and his viewpoint supports, just the ones you like, plz vote for us liberals"


lol

it's the devil in the details that really snip ron paul's support

 

[B_Rik_Schitthaus]

I consider myself a democrat and the only republican I would ever vote for is Ron Paul.

I could never vote for him but he is the only republican I know of who doesn't do constant u-turns or tailor himself for whatever crowed he finds in front of him.

 

[Gaborn]

yeah because people on one side are a-ok with voting in people with drastically different viewpoints from their general viewpoints outside of 3 things

it's really funny to watch ron paul supporters trying to hook in left leaning people on a few points and then get ignored once they piece together all he advocates

Look, Dems and Libertarians basically agree on social issues for the most part. Libertarians and Republicans PHILOSOPHICALLY agree on fiscal issues for the most part (in practice the Reps are as bad as the Ds but they at least talk a good game). It's really more a question of emphasis and which issues are more important to you if you don't agree with a candidate on some issues but do on others.

 

[outunderthestars]

I could never vote for him but he is the only republican I know of who doesn't do constant u-turns or tailor himself for whatever crowed he finds in front of him.

Dick Cheney was fairly consistent.

 

[Chinner]

ron paul's exclusive ad campaign on somethingawful is still better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HBo7q8VWvQ&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL42C53D08F7A0F463

 

[Angry Fork]

democrats hate him because he's a fucking libertarian

it's pretty simple

really odd to watch ron paul supporters twist and turn in an attempt to explain why liberals don't support him

I'm liberal and support him. Ron Paul is more liberal to me than Obama.

 

[Emily Chu]

we really just need to gtfo of Afghanistan and Iraq once and for all

and don't even think about attacking Iran... ffs

theres no fucking money left you assholes in office

 

[∀ Narayan]

Imagine if bullets were bacon.

I wish! BACON FOR EVERYONE!

 

[Angry Fork]

we really just need to gtfo of Afghanistan and Iraq once and for all

and don't even think about attacking Iran... ffs

 

[unomas]

Well he has said that he would dramatically cut funding for the parks. And actually, I have asked every candidate I have ever met about parks. I wrote over a dozen letters criticizing Democrats for not funneling more of the stimulus money to park creation and renovation.

I've also been critical of our current President's lack of support for the National park Service.

Of course I am a lifetime member of the Association of National Park Rangers so it is an important issue to me.

It also highlights the flaw in Ron Paul's platform: He sounds great when you first hear him, then as you begin to piece together all of the flaws in his beliefs you begin to dislike him more and more.

Paul supporters claim his lack of support is because people don't know anything about him. I counter that by saying that his lack of support is due to people learning his views and being repulsed by them.

So park funding is a bigger issue to you than occupying more than 130 countries around the world? I'm glad your priorities are in order.

 

[siddx]

It's obnoxious as fuck. There are some valid and important points being made in it, but it's ruined by the the guy's voice and the way he half screams everything. It's also an incredibly naive and manipulative way of looking at the entire situation, despite the fact that I agree and we shouldn't have troops there.

 

[timetokill]

It's obnoxious as fuck. There are some valid and important points being made in it, but it's ruined by the the guy's voice and the way he half screams everything. It's also an incredibly naive and manipulative way of looking at the entire situation, despite the fact that I agree and we shouldn't have troops there.

I eagerly await all of the totally non-manipulative and extremely nuanced political ads that are soon to be coming our way.

Any day now.

 

[Angry Fork]

It's obnoxious as fuck. There are some valid and important points being made in it, but it's ruined by the the guy's voice and the way he half screams everything. It's also an incredibly naive and manipulative way of looking at the entire situation, despite the fact that I agree and we shouldn't have troops there.

It's meant to rouse people, keep them listening and make them feel like they should take action. If the entire vid was Ron Paul speaking in a monotonous tone people would x out the video within 15 seconds.

 

[NullPointer]

It's obnoxious as fuck. There are some valid and important points being made in it, but it's ruined by the the guy's voice and the way he half screams everything. It's also an incredibly naive and manipulative way of looking at the entire situation, despite the fact that I agree and we shouldn't have troops there.

I don't think this ad is meant to lay out nuance or details - its meant to shift a predominant perspective or open a hole in a closed mind. Its meant to get people to ask a question. The hard work comes after that moment but doesn't happen at all without it.

 

[Gaborn]

I eagerly await all of the totally non-manipulative and extremely nuanced political ads that are soon to be coming our way.

Any day now.

Indeed.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Indeed.

Can't believe thats real

 

[outunderthestars]

I'm liberal and support him. Ron Paul is more liberal to me than Obama.

Really? Ron Paul, the man who doesn't believe in government, is more liberal than Obama?

I'm not really sure if you understand the concept of modern liberalism.

Ron Paul doesn't believe in a federal social safety net, abortion, parks, environmental protections, fuel standards, airline, food, or drug inspections, etc etc.

He is more conservative than Dick Cheney on the vast majority of issues. Dick fucking Cheney.

Don't let his faux folksy charm distract you from the horrible nature of true views. This, once again, is a man who refuses to give his full time staffers health insurance and told someone he called "one of his best friends" to ask churches for help when became sick and later died.

I personally find him to be one the most vile, greedy, and misguided people in politics today.

but hey, he's for legal drugs and a absurdly limited military/state department, so i guess that makes him liberal.

 

[Josh7289]

Oh Ron Paul, I think his heart's in the right place but libertarians in general are a bit too naive.

But yeah, I absolutely agree with him on this point about the wars. Fuck war.

 

[Rehynn]

Are you kidding me? It's the biggest boost for the Afghan and Iraqi people to ever see publication from a modern politician. I have NO IDEA how you are interpreting this.

Let me tell you then.

Pre-war Iraq/Afghanistan had bigger problems that an ailing economy. No, I don't think it was the US's job to fix those problems, but to imply that living under Saddam's rule is even remotely similar to living in the US today is very hypocritical IMHO.
I used the word "disrespectful" because the ad basically ignores the fear that many Iraqis lived in under Saddam.

I am aware of the suffering the war has brought upon them, and totally agree with those who say it was a mistake. I just don't think it's fair to draw parallels between life in modern-day US and Saddam-era Iraq.

I understand and appreciate your point of view, and I hope I've managed to make myself clear this time.

 

[Gaborn]

Really? Ron Paul, the man who doesn't believe in government, is more liberal than Obama?

I'm not really sure if you understand the concept of modern liberalism.

Ron Paul doesn't believe in a federal social safety net, abortion, parks, environmental protections, fuel standards, airline, food, or drug inspections, etc etc.

He is more conservative than Dick Cheney on the vast majority of issues. Dick fucking Cheney.

Don't let his faux folksy charm distract you from the horrible nature of true views. This, once again, is a man who refuses to give his full time staffers health insurance and told someone he called "one of his best friends" to ask churches for help when became sick and later died.

I personally find him to be one the most vile, greedy, and misguided people in politics today.

but hey, he's for legal drugs and a absurdly limited military/state department, so i guess that makes him liberal.

Liar. (that isn't to say that you're right about the others, I just flat out happened to KNOW you were wrong about that.) Any further claims please source them.

 

[Jenga]

ron paul's exclusive ad campaign on somethingawful is still better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HBo7q8VWvQ&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL42C53D08F7A0F463

man lowtax looks old

 

[Karma Kramer]

Let me tell you then.

Pre-war Iraq/Afghanistan had bigger problems that an ailing economy. No, I don't think it was the US's job to fix those problems, but to imply that living under Saddam's rule is even remotely similar to living in the US today is very hypocritical IMHO.
I used the word "disrespectful" because the ad basically ignores the fear that many Iraqis lived in under Saddam.

I am aware of the suffering the war has brought upon them, and totally agree with those who say it was a mistake. I just don't think it's fair to draw parallels between life in modern-day US and Saddam-era Iraq.

I understand and appreciate your point of view, and I hope I've managed to make myself clear this time.

Let me ask you something. Who is the bigger terrorist, Osama Bin Laden/Saddam Hussein or the United States?

Think about our history a little bit

 

[siddx]

I don't think this ad is meant to lay out nuance or details - its meant to shift a predominant perspective or open a hole in a closed mind. Its meant to get people to ask a question. The hard work comes after that moment but doesn't happen at all without it.

Except it's not going to do any of that. The people who don't believe having troops in Afghanistan is an issue that needs to be fixed aren't going to be swayed by some jerkoff screaming in their ear for 2 minutes. They aren't going to be swayed by anything at this point. If the argument is the ad is simply trying to let people know Ron Paul will bring the troops home, they've heard it before, and got only a quarter of what was promised. Few people outside of diehard Paulites are going to believe Ron will be anymore honest to them than any other politician.

 

[Jenga]

Let me ask you something. Who is the bigger terrorist, Osama Bin Laden/Saddam Hussein or the United States?

Think about our history a little bit

ron paul supporters = saddam hussein sympathizers