I like being able to hear more of his views and even though I don't agree totally with him, I still think he's the best candidate. I think his opinion on how to protect the environment is WAAAAY off base. he says no one should be able to pollute a neighbors property, but doesn't advocate regulators or inspectors to help enforce this. I think corporations already get to rape the environment without much more than a slap on the wrist, while leaving a disaster in their wake that affects the population.

Madness. Hilarious madness.

Say what you want - but you're not going to agree with anyone on everything unless you're just a mindless follower.

This guy has integrity and that's a breath of fresh air in an otherwise putrid room if you ask me.

Unlike any other candidate I've seen - from either party - this guy answers questions directly, succinctly, and consistently. I don't just see him teeing up the answer that will garner the most support from whoever happens to be in front of him at the time.

We get the candidate we deserve collectively. Let's hope we have the courage to vote for someone who will speak the truth - even if that isn't exactly what we want to hear at the time.

I don't think he has any integrity whatsoever. He's merely ideologically consistent. (Of course right-wing libertarianism is anathema to "the people having a voice in government.") Also you realize he's published racist screeds in the 80s, is, at the very least, a fellow traveller with the right-wing militia movement.

No, I didn't realize that - sources?

Google is your friend.

^ I googled it and I can't find any credible source.

You couldn't have been looking too hard.

Qualm -

I googled it and found the same stuff - taken out of context - over and over. About 3 or 4 short quotes and a lot of fill by the writer(s) damning Paul for what he was purportedly saying.

How about you back up your comment with some citations that you are specifically aware of and provide the sources that allow others to read and judge the comments in context.

I am not in any way saying you are wrong but I would like to be able to examine the evidence for what you claim myself.

Also - could you educate me as to why libertarianism is "anathema" to people having a voice in government. If you are referring to a particular subset of libertarians then I would like to know that as well. My understanding is that Paul has strong libertarian leanings but also is a constitutionalist - how does this position in any way reject the notion of people having a voice in government?

Looking forward to your reply.

These are some of the "decontextualized" quotes from Ron Paul's political newsletter:

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e., support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

"Politically sensible blacks are outnumbered as decent people... I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Ron Paul *barely* stops short of stating that black people are less human. There is no re-contextualization necessary, unless it was omitted that Paul began each quotation with an excised "this is what a racist would say."

Ron Paul has been pandering to the racist far-right almost his entire political career.

Well, I will say that I can't swing with that crap if that's what he believes... I still would like to see the articles in their entirety. I will search further...

Those are the only quotes I could find when I looked. Not an excuse, but I did see where (I believe) he denied having written those things. Still, if your name is on it you better be prepared to take the credit or deny it from the highest mountaintop.

You still didn't address the libertarian/peoples voice question. Care to take a swipe at that?

Thanks.

qualm "clearly cannot support his original comment. I'll take that to mean he concedes the ground to me".

On the last question that is.

It's just not interesting enough - nothing personal. And I noticed right away how you've reweighted your question by narrowing the terms of my original statement to constrict its meaning, so I stopped taking you seriously.

I have time constraints, and videosift not being a serious political website I have to remain mindful of my time's economy.

The truth of my original statement re right-wing libertarians is self-evident for anyone who knows what a rw libertarian is -- rw libertarians included.

But you like to say L Ron Paul is a "constitutionalist" -- so I take it you aren't yet aware of the branch of USian right-wing libertarians mainly concerned with divining the "original intent" of the us constitution.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'politics, campaign, 2008, libertarian, gop' to 'ron paul, politics, campaign, 2008, libertarian, gop' - edited by Grimm