The surge of Ron Paul has barely anything to do with Ron Paul. In fact, it's probably hindered by Ron Paul. This is a revolution of philosophical ideals. It is a revolution to give the power back to the people. It won't stop with Ron Paul. Many of us that support him will begin to run and begin to change things. I plan on it. There many people that could bring this idea to forefront better than Dr. Paul. He is great man and very good for the people but I wish he had a more comanding presence and public speaking. I'm sure I'm going to hammered for this, but he needs the public speaking skills of Adolf Hitler. Everything that Hitler stood for and did was heinous and completely opposite of what I believe, but he was one of the best at commanding the attention. People listened to him. It was his message that was wrong. I honestly think Dr. Paul is a stronger leader than any of the other candidates because I do not trust any of the candidates as far as I can throw them. But there are better leaders within this movement that will come to the forefront. We are not going away. We will go from a thorn in the establishment's side to the knife at its throat. The norm is going to change.

Given his large amount of support from white supremacist groups coupled with his own personal racist views, I wouldn't be surprised if Paul counted Hitler among his role models.

__________________

You are both right and wrong.

You are right, Congress can override a presidential veto.

But here is where you are wrong. Every year the president submits a budget to Congress and then votes on appropriations for it. Yes, they can and generally do add to the president's budget with earmarks (even Ron Paul has added earmarks to approraitions but then he votes against the approriation - he would rather Congress not spend the money but if they insist then he want some of his constituants money to come back to them).

But the president has a lot of national political power. If Ron Paul, for example, requested only $100 billion for the military Congress could vote for more but how much more could they get away with. Even doubling the president's budget would still result in a savings of hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition, the president has almost instant access to the population through the news media. He could openly condemn excessive spending justifying why it isn't needed. For example, if Ron Paul withdrew the US military from S. Korea then there is no justification that Congress can come up with to fund that mission. It would no longer exist. If Ron Paul was able to end the War on Drugs (even if he merely eliminated the spending and not the laws) it is a huge savings to the country.

So yes, Congress can override the president's budget but there are powers in the executive branch which would still justify a major reduction in spending.

Ron Paul isn't a racist. And he gets support from white supremacist groups because they want less government. And unlike the other candidates, just because they gave him money doesn't mean he'll do what they want him to do. Are you going to call him a pot head if people who want marijuana legalized send him money?

This forum has seen enough of the "Ron Paul is (not) a racist" argument; this is a pretty good thread so lets try to stay on topic for once.

It is a defense mechanism for paul detractors to resort to "Oh yeah, Paul is a racist!" just as it is one for paul supporters to resort to "Oh yeah, you hate the Constitution!" when they have no valid argument left.

__________________
"Men buy things already made in shops. But there is no shop that makes friendship, and so men have no friends anymore."-Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.

"Humans are interested in communication with extraterrestrial intelligence. Would not a good beginning be improved communication with terrestrial intelligence? With humans of different culture, and with the dolphins?"-Carl Sagan

O rly?

"our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."

"only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational."

-Straight from the Ron Paul Political Report... his own newsletter.

Reading the entire article here will show that the quotes were not taken out of context:

Shofar FTP Archives: people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793

If he truly isn't a white supremacist, why does he willingly accept funds from them? Why hasn't he publicly denounced them and their racist views? Could it be because he shares them?

Irrelevant. Smoking marijuana is nothing like holding strong anti-black and anti-Semitic sentiments.

Funny you should mention that though; I heard he accepted a $500 donation from the leader of the so-called "Pot Party."

__________________

You know very well that he says he did not write that, and that it was a ghost writer. But of course your more interested in hijacking the thread, which will lead to the disintegration of debate on the topic of the thread.

__________________

We all know that that's what he claims... that doesn't make it true, however. It seems a bit suspicious that he wouldn't at least glance over an article before allowing it to be published under his name. I can only assume that by allowing that to happen, he agreed with the views expressed in the article.

Hijacking? Is that what you call any response to a Ron Paul thread that doesn't speak in support of him?

I responded to a comment made by another poster. As we know, that's essentially how online debate works. I made no attempt to shift the debate away from the over-discussed topic of Ron Paul.

__________________

Original subject was Ron Paul and how he would handle government spending. Of course it will get expanded and redirected some, but your last few posts do nothing but turn it into another Ron Paul racist or not pissing contest.

Let's see how you Hijacked it to that.

theorderoflife: I'm sure I'm going to hammered for this, but he needs the public speaking skills of Adolf Hitler.

(Referring to his relatively poor public speaking abilities)

iTaliAN_ICe : Given his large amount of support from white supremacist groups coupled with his own personal racist views, I wouldn't be surprised if Paul counted Hitler among his role models.

(Attempt to turn it into yet another Ron Paul is a racist thread, which there have been a dozen of)

So yes, I consider that threadjacking. We all know that turning it into the racist debate will totally ruin any further debate on the issues of spending, since its already been hashed out in 15 page threads, which you have participated in. Ron Paul is a racist

__________________

Ya know, between Ron Paul and Huckabee, I'm terrified.
I'll admit that I'm attracted to some of his ideas, and he probably would make a better president than George Bush, but some of them are just ridiculous! How is cutting the income tax going to help americans? If the government falls even deeper into debt, we'll all be overrun by Canadians! That would be terrible! They'd probably pass a law requiring us to end every sentence with "Eh?"! And I HATE hockey!

Humor aside, I don't feel that it would be practical to reduce spending enough to compensate for the taxes that would be lost by abolition of the income tax (Although I like the idea of removing our troops stationed overseas and relinquishing bases in other countries).

P.S. I also am kind of freaked out by the way any candidate other than Ron Paul is attacked as being supported by the "welfare state". That is just a kind of namecalling (although I'm not sure that its really an insult). Take that, you fithy people-who-are-kind-to-puppies-and-help-little-old-ladies-across-the-street!

__________________
"What would they do to me," he asked in confidential tones, "if I refuse to fly them?"
"We'd probably shoot you," ex-P.F.C. Wintergreen replied.
"We?" Yossarian cried in surprise. "What do you mean we? Since when are you on their side?"
"If you're going to be shot, whose side do you expect me to be on?" ex-P.F.C. Wintergreen retorted.