Posted on 06/18/2007 9:52:22 AM PDT by AdamSelene235
What's your response to those who say you're not electable?
The idea of who is not electable is subjective. It's early. No one knows, and only one candidate will win, so everyone else will turn out to be not electable.
The nomination is completely open now because the party is in disarray, the base is unhappy and I offer them an alternative and a return to their tradition of true conservativism. I think I'm quite electable. I'm not placing any bets, but to argue that I'm not electable is just trying to dismiss someone they don't want to hear from. It's more rhetoric than anything else.
Do you believe in open borders? That's the libertarian position, after all.
Some libertarians believe in totally open borders. I don't. Remember, I was the Libertarian Party's candidate for president in 1988, and I ran as a right-to-life Libertarian. I don't support totally open borders because, although I think the federal government should be small, protecting borders and providing for national defense – which excludes occupying other countries – are two of its legitimate functions. I would beef up the borders and not worry about the borders in Korea and Iraq. It's ironic that we're taking border guards off our borders and paying them to go and train border guards over there. I do understand the libertarian argument. The more we deal with our neighbors, the better off we are. I like the idea of trade. I like the idea of free travel and friendship. When that happens, you're less likely to fight. But that doesn't mean anyone can come in and get easy citizenship.
My biggest argument is different than those who want to shoot anyone crossing the border. When you subsizide things, you get more of it, and we subsidize immigration. We need to stop that. I want to deny the benefits that draw people here.
Do you find the dichotomy between the excitement about your campaign on the Internet and the silence about it in the mainstream media to be a little strange?
I don't see it completely. I think that might be true of the three or four major networks, but on the national talk shows, the Bill Maher and John Stewart-type shows, we're getting a lot of invitations. I don't think we'd have that if we didn't have the Internet excitement. If we continue to do well, they'll be forced to follow and give us more attention. This is true of a lot of things; a lot of stories break on the Internet. The networks are usually pretty slow on picking up what's happening.
Do you think the endorsement of Rush Limbaugh would win you the nomination?
Oh, I don't think so.
Some Republicans criticize you for opposing the ongoing military occupations, since that's supposed to be a Democratic position.
There are some Democrats who oppose the war, although I oppose it in a different manner. They argue about tactics. My objections are strategic, philosophical and constitutional. The big debate recently was about whether you have a surge or not. I want to change the whole debate and not get involved in these insane alliances in the first place. There are a lot of arguments that support my position on non-intervention.
As a member of Congress, have you seen any evidence of attempts to merge the USA with Mexico and Canada?
I think they're working diligently for it, and that's why this administration is weak. They don't even believe in national sovereignty. It started with NAFTA, then SPP, and now they're moving to take the next step with this immigration bill. They're going to advance that effort to put the three countries together and have a single currency. Now that's something a president could do, is to let people know what plans have been made and express objection to them. I would work strongly against the North American Union.
Do you think being the only non-interventionist Republican helps your campaign?
I would think so. Of course, I see the philosophy as being very popular and commonsensical, and people respond to it. People like the message of the free enterprise system and letting people run their own lives with privacy. They are responding very favorably to minding our own business, and besides, we can't afford it.
For the complete text of Vox Day's interview with Ron Paul, visit Vox Popoli.
Why is this up here? Who care’s?
He should have asked them this questiom
Please clarify the following during the debate, Do you believe in spending billions on health care and education?
Exchange:
MR. PAUL: The president ran on a program of a humble foreign policy, no nation-building, and no policing of the world. And he changed his tune, and now we are fighting a war, and our foreign operations around the world to maintain our empire is now approaching $1 trillion a year.
MR. BLITZER: Thank you.
MR. PAUL: That’s where the money’s going, and that’s where it has to be cut so we can take care of education and medical cares that are needed here in this country. (Applause.)
I don't see it completely. I think that might be true of the three or four major networks, but on the national talk shows, the Bill Maher and John Stewart-type shows, we're getting a lot of invitations. I don't think we'd have that if we didn't have the Internet excitement. If we continue to do well, they'll be forced to follow and give us more attention. This is true of a lot of things; a lot of stories break on the Internet. The networks are usually pretty slow on picking up what's happening.
There's one reason and one reason only that Bill Maher and Jon Stewart have been inviting him on their shows, and it has nothing to do with the "Internet excitement." It has EVERYTHING to do with bringing a "Republican" onto their shows who will slam President Bush, which is all that Stewart and Maher are interested in at this point.
Rush wouldn’t endorse him, so the question is irrelevant.
Anyone who opposes the Republican's efforts to integrate the United States with Mexico, anyone who opposes Republican efforts to massively expand Medicare, anyone who opposes the Republican efforts to massively expand the Department of Education, anyone who is skeptical of the the Neo-Wilsonian efforts to convert the rabid Islamist hordes to liberal democracy,etc, etc.
They should of asked, how long have you been a member of the blame america first team?
Correct - RuPaul is this year’s McCain.
Blitzer couldn’t moderate his way out of a paper bag.
How does he feel about taking over Mexico by force and Canada too if they don’t shape up?
LOL!
There’s one reason and one reason only that Bill Maher and Jon Stewart have been inviting him on their shows, and it has nothing to do with the “Internet excitement.” It has EVERYTHING to do with bringing a “Republican” onto their shows who will slam President Bush, which is all that Stewart and Maher are interested in at this point.
Correct.
“MR. PAUL: That’s where the money’s going, and that’s where it has to be cut so we can take care of education and medical cares that are needed here in this country. (Applause.)”
Perdogg, You’ve posted this several times. It was a point in the debate when he was cut off. Our money (tax money) is going overseas. 1 trillion of it. If we didn’t have to spend that money it could go back in our pockets (the tax payer) so that we personally would be able to afford health care and education.
For clarification, he doesn’t want government sponsored health care and or education.
You should know this by his voting record, Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. Health care and education isn’t authorized by the Constitution.
(chuckle)
We already HAVE a McCain.
Not for long.
So do believe the US President and Congress should cite the United Nations as an authority when deploying US troops?
Q. Do you really believe the U.S. has no national interest in the Middle East?
Q. What would have to occur in order for you to believe fighting Islamofacism is part of our national defense.
Paul believes that the threat can be mitigated by tough border protection. In other words, it’s an over here versus over there argument.
Is he one of those who thinks we shouldn’t have fought Hitler’s Germany?
And I’m assuming you’re kidding about his idea of fighting Islamofacism being border security.
How many of you Ron Paul supporters really think he will be elected?
So after he abolishes the IRS youre saying he meant hes going to spend more on education and health care...? yeah thats realistic... Hes basically for abolishing all federal departments, to claim hes for more government spending is just ridiculous.
Realistically, he was probably speaking about veterans care. Which is the only area he feels needs more attention and thats only because we make a promise to our veterans and they get shitty care, and you have to jump through hoops to get the GI bill moving. I know, I have been to a veterans hospital before and heard the stories about getting the government to begin paying for the education they promise you. Someone should ask him, but seriously after examining his VOTING record and the legislation he proposes to congress to make such a dumb insinuation is ridiculous.
Look, we like to talk about the Constitution. Do a little flag waving about how wise the Founding Fathers were to draw it up, what a beacon of freedom it is to the world, yadda, yadda, yadda. But We The People would crap in our pants if ever faced with a Government that actually followed it.
Hitler’s Germany would most likely not have existed if not for Wilsonian adventurism two decades earlier.
I believe RP would have a better chance in the general election than the primaries.
If it came down to RP vs. Hillary, I think he could attract a good number of Reagan Democrats and Independents. This coalition could potentially push major reform in Congress, if not, RP will use all his power to block Congress's nonsense. We're talking about daily vetos.
However, I think RP has very little chance of winning the Republican primary.
The Republican primary will likely be won by a "business as usual" Republican.
If it is Giuliani, the conservative base will fragment and Hillary has a good shot at winning. A potentially disasterous scenario, although the Republicans will regain the House and Senate in the backlash.
If it is Fred Thompson or any generic conservative vs. Hillary the generic conservative will win. However, the generic conservative will not have the courage to alter the status quo and will collaborate with the Democratic Congress. Look for more Ted Kennedy/White House collaboration.
If its generic Republican vs. generic Democrat, the Democrat will win on the issue of the war alone in the same manner Bush managed to lose the House and Senate. Democrats get all 3 branches of government.
So given the options are "business as usual" i.e. the globalization of the American welfare state,integration with Mexico, grotesque Congressional incompetence, etc. OR Hillary OR a slim chance at Paul, I'm pulling for Paul.
So, that’s a “yes”?
Of course if you're trying to compare the rise of a first world power army compared to the semi-rise of a bunch of nuts in the desert from a third rate country that's even more ridiculous. But that's about all you've got. It's simply not a comparison.
Yes I wanted an answer to the question I asked. I *think* now that the answer is “no.” I asked it in response to an “over here versus over there” reply.
If Paul agrees with your assessment of the threat from Islamofacism, then that answers some of my other questions as well.
I disagree strongly with your, and assumably his, view of the threat.
Hmmm.....
“...Can’t have it both ways...”
Some questions for you:
(1) Does Ron Paul think that our “cease-fire” with Saddam’s Iraq should have been “honored” by the US, even though the terms of that “cease-fire” were being deliberately violated by Saddam’s Iraq?
(2) Since Ron Paul thinks the US should not be the “world’s policeman”, who would he prefer to see in that role? Al Qaeda? The UN? Russia? China? Iran?
(3) Or did Ron Paul sleep through that part of his Physics class where vaccuums (”Nature abhors a vaccuum”) were explained?
(4) Does Ron Paul believe that, if ONLY Amercia would just set a high enough “moral example” to the world, then the world would renounce human nature and “Peace” and “Harmony” would thrive everywhere in the world?
(5) Does he understand that EVERY culture which actually practiced such “holier-than-thou pacifism” has been destroyed?
(6) Or did Ron Paul sleep though that part of his history class where the sacking of Iona was explained?
IMHO, it is Ron Paul who is trying to “have it both ways”...
How many of you Bush supporters think Hillary will be elected? Just mention her name and you guys pee your pants.
No, I think that’s his belief...don’t let the bad guys in and nothing bad will happen.
I've taken many graduate level physics courses and have never ever heard this stated.
In fact, the only way RP would have been taught this in a physics class is if he was attending course in Aristotelian physics, many, many centuries ago.
(6) Or did Ron Paul sleep though that part of his history class where the sacking of Iona was explained?
Do you really think a handful of monks on the the tiny Isle of Iona is a credible analogue for the 21st Century American Superpower?
You are suffering from a nasty case of psdueo-intellectualism.
Thanks for your reply.
I do think that’s quite naive and bad strategy.
There’s much we can do to improve security, border security in particular but “don’t let the bad guys in” is a possibly successful strategy in a police state.
We’ve also mega-tons of cargo, thousands of miles of coastland and borderland. A purely defensive strategy against Islamofacism is naive in the extreme.
It also ignores national interest in energy supplies and many other areas.
Paul really seems very wrong on national security from top to bottom, with a few exceptions, that I think most others agree with anyway.
OK.. OK..
Perhaps I should have specified that Mr. Paul’s ignorance of vacuums is of an “elementary” nature. Please see the experiment described at this website of the Physics Department of the University of Virginia:
http://phun.physics.virginia.edu/demos/drum.html
It seems so strange to me that in all of your graduate courses in Physics, you never encountered the “Ideal Gas Law”. This law explains why the vacuum created in the experiment above was crushed,, why jet engines work, why refrigerators work, why rockets work, why internal combustion engines work etc etc. Forgive the pun, but if you don’t know what happens when gases of different pressures meet, than your knowledge of Physics contains a “vacuum”.
The sacking of Iona was a historical example selected to show that the “power of moral leadership” is much, much weaker than its moralistic proponents (mostly Democrats, pacifists and RP) claim it to be. Superior “holiness” does not, in itself, prevent violent people from doing evil things.
In other words, if our 21st Century Super-power shirks its DUTY to be the world’s policeman, then the world’s thugs and bully-boys will call the tune that we find ourselves dancing to.
The tactical position of the residents of Iona was extremely poor regardless of their views of morality.
Who the *bleep* nominated you to be posting police?
Ron Paul is the Eugene McCarthy of the Republican party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.