kthnx.

He just thinks it should be up to local government to decide. to reiterate, THIS IS A NONISSUE.

Disregard my last post, I was talking bout abortion not the ******ed obama birth thing. Also always wondered: Is Rand Paul named after Ayn Rand?

no he wasn't named after ayn rand

Rand was named after Dante's friend in the Clerks franchise iirc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc4GblK75xg

someone said he is in the debate may 5th. source?

because foxnews said this:
"When will Paul stop exploring and formally enter the race? He's said a final decision will come in the next couple of weeks, which is starting to look like a decision that will come after the first GOP debate on May 5th"

I really hope he is in this i look forward to the Ron Paul vs the republicans matches

so ridiculous.

http://www.p2012.org/chrnprep/fox121510pr.html

Ron Paul on Fox Business Freedom Watch

Ron Paul on CNN The Arena

thanks.

are these types of things available streaming online? or posted online in full afterwards? im lacking tv

He needs to get off the constitution platform. Until then his interviews are going to go like the CNN one.

Worst interviewer ever. Maybe actually let the guy answer the question before butting in?

The guy has been in office for 30 years on this platform. He's not going to drop it because of one interview.

Ron Paul's whole ideology is based on the constitution platform. You have to understand that all of his positions all come from the same principle, they are logically consistent. Whether you agree with the logic or not. He's not going to pick and choose his position on social security, pollution, mosque in NYC, etc like most other politicians. He's going to say, well if I believe in individual freedom, property rights, and the constitution, then it should be obvious what my position on those issues are.

You're free to believe that liberty and property rights aren't sufficient in some circumstances. But you shouldn't say he should drop the constitution idea to become a viable candidate as if it was some small issue. To other politicians it's a small issue. To Ron Paul it's the fundamental issue.

I think the bigger injustice was choosing to discuss basically two issues in a 10 minute interview, gov't healthcare and pollution. Paul's positions on these issues are unpopular compared to most other issues. They never discussed the Fed, the dollar, the wars, the debt ceiling, the bailouts, and other issues where Paul has a more popular position.

This is just...wow.

I worded that wrong, probably shouldn't have used "platform". I didn't mean he needed to change his views on the constitution and how it applies. I meant he needs to downplay it. Constantly quoting the constitution is going to turn off a ton of undecided voters. When he starts off his arguments with "article 1, section 8 says..." he's already lost most people. He already has the constitutional base so he needs to find other talking points to get his message across to those that could careless about what the constitutions says.

Pretty solid 10-minute interview on CNBC wrt RP discussing The Fed, monetary policy, inflation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drVy5_3pCIU

You should listen to the first couple of minutes of the interview again. Spitzer cites the necessary and proper clause and asks Paul to get specific on why social security is unconstitutional. How else is he supposed to answer without going into detail. Spitzer doesn't ask him why social security is going bankrupt or what his plan is to fix it.

You should listen to other Ron Paul interviews and compare the questions that are asked.

Your reasoning is exactly why a lot of the audience gets duped by Spitzer cornering him with the type of questions he asks.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...09&postcount=3

I don't know how Ron does it. It seems like most of the time the interviewer's goal is to see how unfavorably he can paint him by the end of the exchange, bringing up his controversial positions (which are all too sane for this world) and then attempting to prevent him from explaining his reasoning behind them. And all Ron can do is be polite about it.

Spitzer sucks so badly. I learned that the federal government can only do what the Constitution says in high school. What is so hard to understand about that concept?

Ron Paul is a highly intelligent man; too bad the American public is too stupid to accept someone like him.

Where could he win? (hypothetically)

Honestly, I have no idea. I cannot speak for other countries, but it easy to say that Americans will generally conform with what their government says and blindly follow one party.

Americans just don't think for themselves. It's sad to see Americans losing their freedoms at such a rapid rate, and yet, if their party says it, it must be right.

We should definitely be more optimistic this race since everyone though Obama was the savior to all our problems and clearly has not been. But then again, the President doesn't have much power in the first place. Ron Paul would be the most powerful President of all time.

How can America be founded upon freedom and be so unfree?