The point of Paul
|
|
I'm going to be blunt and just state it: Dems have an opportunity to use Paul as their Nader. His fellow Rep candidates must hate having to campaign with someone who threatens to reveal the truth that they aren't out to protect that American institution, capitalism. They're out to protect the corporations that line their pockets and hire friends, familiy members, and themselves once they are freed from government jobs all in the guise of protecting capitalism. We're talking long held frames of reference that many people still cling to, especially when faced with overwhelming information. Instead of Dems arguing internally about the fine points of Paul's campaign, they should be exploiting the opportunity to expose the lies repeatedly passed on by Reps. I keep harping about the economy because it affects everyone and could be the deciding issue IF Dems decide to band together and have similar talking points. Then, they could use unaltered facts to "divide and conquer" the other party. Unfortunately, after reading other political message boards and seeing the "discussions" deteriorate into petty squabbling, I don't expect much, but what the hay, it's my two cents. (which, thanks to fed meddling, is worth even less these days!)


















Paul is speaking alot of truth about foreign policy but is whacko on just about every other issue. With Ron Paul in charge long enough we'd end up with monopolies in every industry because Paul doesn't believe in government regulation and trust-busting.
Feudalism isn't a small issue.
Yeah, he's pretty much wacko, but he's gotten a lot of people to reexamine the Constituition.
What Paul really wants is for America to go back to the way things were before the American Civil War. He wants stronger state governments and a weak federal govt.
But my question for the Paul fans is this---what if a state govt. decides to ban all guns? The federal govt. wouldn't have the power to overturn such a ban if Paul was in charge.
Paul also supports privitizing all government functions. He'd sell all the National Parks to companies some of them being foreign owned. They ought to be able to charge $100/tourist to see the Grand Canyon.
Why would the Democratic Party want another Nader. I am pretty much convinced that Nader and the Ohio Secretary of State cost Kerry the Presidency.