This video has been referenced a few times and I've decided to break down some of the political jargon into terms all of us can understand. So before you jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon, at least make sure you know what you're voting for. Just take some time to look over the video and each corresponding website and you'll be able to formulate your own opinions on each subject before you vote next year.

YouTube - Ron Paul


Ron Paul supports the Just War Theory. Just War Theory [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] The problem with this is that, as mentioned earlier, the just-war tradition will not be followed by those who are primarily motivated by religion (IE - the entire middle east). Supporting this theory in modern times is simply an exercise in futility.

Ron Paul does not support the National ID Act. Read the CNN article here National ID cards on the way? | CNET News.com for more information on the Real IDs. These will no doubt limit the freedoms of Americans and lead to more invasive technology in the future. Americans should be working on building relations with foreign countries, not implementing a costly system to taxpayers to 'screen' out 'terrorists'.

Ron Paul wants us out of the UN. Have a look here at some pros and con of the UN and base your own decision on whether or not we should get out. BalancedPolitics.org - U.S. Involvement in the U.N. (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against) My personal feeling in this matter is that we either need to shit or get off the pot. And by that I mean, if we stay in the UN we need to follow the UN mandates (not a fan) or we just need to get out. We can't keep looking like hypocrites to the world by complaining other countries are not following UN mandates but then turning around and not doing it ourselves. In reality, I don't think it's in the best interest of the United States to stay in the UN and we probably are better off getting out. That said, I may be for a new, more selective UN that does not include leaders of communist countries only looking out for their best interests.

Ron Paul is against implementing NAIS... Stop the NAIS by Ron Paul $33 million on microchips in cows? Think I'll pass. Thanks anyway, big government.

Ron Paul is not a member of the CFR, or Council on Foreign Relations. Ron Paul Online - Dr. Paul is NOT a member of the CFR or Trilateral Commission There's a blurb straight from his website. Not knowing much about the CFR, this link was fairly informative to me WorldNetDaily: Treasonous agenda of the Council on Foreign Relations. Based on what I've read my opinion is negative of the CFR. Anyone with a differing argument, please tell me more.

He wants all of the troops home immediately. This is a personal judgment call and I'll leave it up to all of you to draw your opinions on it.

Ron Paul doesn't except campaign money from Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia That will tell you everything you need to know about this seedy character.

Ron Paul opposes eminent domain Eminent Domain Thank god. Eminent domain is a joke and if the federal government came to my door to take my property I'd tell them to fuck off. Especially when they offer me $150,000 for my $300,000 home and call it a 'fair trade'. This goes right back to sponsoring someone like Rupert Murdoch. He has enormous pull in the political community due to his deep pockets, and if he wants to build some huge center on state land he can ask the government to buy your land for an offensive price.

Ron Paul does not support the construction of the NAFTA superhighway. Bush Administration Quietly Plans NAFTA Super Highway - HUMAN EVENTS You can't support tightening the borders and the NAFTA superhighway. Building it will increase illegal immigration. Just another example of wasting tax payer money. Lets spend millions of dollars on a huge wall to keep immigrants out but build a superhighway 400 yards wide that is impossible to police straight through the US. Right.

Ron Paul doesn't support the North American Union. North American Union to Replace the USA? - HUMAN EVENTS Why would he? Let's increase our borders by 3 or 4 times the square footage (guestimate) and make it impossible to screen terrorists from entering the country.

Ron Paul supports the Principle of Sound Money. Read his article here Paper Money and Tyranny by Rep. Ron Paul along with this article on FIATs Fiat currency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I think I support the principle of sound money as well, however I'd have to have more information on it as well as an organized plan before I signed on.

Ron Paul does not support the Amero, a currency on the way to be shared equally between all three North American cities. Europe has the Euro. Are you ready for The Amero? | Wise Bread The truth is, only big business benefits from the Amero. This point is linked very closely with the last three paragraphs and Ron is fairly consistent in his views on these matters in that they are generally not a good idea aside from the Principle of Sound Money which can be considered a separate entity.

Ron Paul does not support the Patriot Act, Question the PATRIOT Act Now – Before It's Too Late - by Ron Paul which is an injustice to American freedoms. Bravo.

Ron Paul does not support the tax consuming "War on Drugs". Ron Paul on Drugs Just for amusement, take a look at BalancedPolitics.org - Legalization of Marijuana (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against) and review the positions under 'No'. Only 2 of them are legitimate concerns, yet the bullets under 'Yes' are resoundingly concrete.

Ron Paul is against nationalizing the health care system. Take a look at BalancedPolitics.org - Universal Health Care (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against) Ron Paul is consistent in upholding his views of minimizing the government so I wouldn't expect him to endorse a topic such as this. This may be one of the biggest issues we Americans have to deal with this election, so there must be considerable thought placed into this. I've spent a long time considering the pros and cons and have come to the conclusion that it's a good idea if implemented correctly. However, taking point 1 of the negative aspects from the website into consideration; "There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?" I've decided I probably wouldn't support it unless I got to read an entire plan of the bill first. Maybe Ron Paul could have a hand in helping to design it, I may trust it more since he's a doctor and is on the other end of this spectrum. I certainly feel health insurance must be attainable in this day and age and if Ron Paul works to cut agencies such as the IRS there will be spending available for programs such as this.

Ron Paul hasn't become 'Hannitized'. If you've ever watched Hannity and Colmes you know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm right and everything Republicans do is right and the Democrats are wrong on every single issue and have no idea what they're talking about. Sorry buddy, this is 2007-2008 and that kind of thinking is turning this debate backwards. Interesting short article: Have You Been De-Hannitized? | Ron Paul 2008 Revolution - Ron Paul for President - Daily Paul

Ron Paul is against a surveillance society. The next inevitable step ahead from the above mentioned Real ID program.

Ron Paul wants to end corporate welfare. Corporate welfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I think this is because he actually supports farm subsidies (as do I) and realizes that the majority of corporate welfare in relation to farm subsidies are given to larger corporations, not helping out the local farmers (which I strongly endorse).

Ron Paul is against the WTO. A fairly liberal stance. World Trade Organization (coupled with a fairly liberal article). I agree 100% though.

Ron Paul prefers to guard our country not police the world. BalancedPolitics.org - U.S. Role as World's Policeman (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against) "America..... FUCK YEAH!!"

Ron Paul wants to seal the borders, as mentioned above. I believe this is a wise idea at this point in time, however I do not want the United States to drift toward Isolationism. I also believe that free trade is a necessity of the times and also condone a path to citizenship for some immigrants.

Ron Paul wants no gun control laws. Ron Paul on Gun Control
I've never owned a gun and I really don't plan on owning a gun nor do I think it should be a necessary right of the people. Apologies to you hard core shot gun toting republicans but they aren't necessary. Just because it was drafted into the constitution 200 years ago doesn't mean it's applicable to today's society.

On top of all of that, he voted against regulating the internet, did not participate in the congressional pension program, is against selective service registration and wants to apply the "Golden Rule" in government.

I'll probably be voting for Ron, but the sad truth is that the American public has already made up their minds for the 2008 election. The neediness of the American public has been ingrained into our culture and the trend toward instant gratification is in everything; from our fast food restaurants to our strip clubs to our home shopping networks. Americans want immediate change and they will vote Hillary into office in '08. Never mind researching candidates. They see Hillary and Bill as a package. They see a woman being elected for the first time ever. They see a democrat in office, not a republican. That's all they need to see.

I agree with most of the above with the exception of the medical. I sincerely believe in a single payer medical system. I also believe in the right to own firearms. Living in the wild west, we have had the priveledge of carrying firearms for 300 years and aren't about to give it up to some New York Liberal dickwads that fear for their safety in the big city. I say, everyone would be better off carrying a gun. If the scumbags thought you had a gun, they'd leave your ass alone. I have a legal carry permit and am subject to have a .45 on me at any time.

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

I'm fairly certain Canada didn't take that approach and they have less than what, 20 handgun deaths a year? So your logic must be flawed at some point.

It's too late to take away the guns. There would be open rebellion and I for one wouldn't give them up untill the swat team broke down my front door. Believe me when I say that scenario is not that far fetched. What did Hitler do when he took control? first he outlawed guns. Then he made an enemy (Jews) in our case (Terrorists), then he took away constitutional rights, (Bush and wrecking crew), When will it end. We need a guy like Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, or my favorite, Dennis Kucinich! BTW, who is doing 99% of the handgun killings, the bad guys. If the good guys had guns, the Bad guys would be a little less inclined to attack. Also my logic is always suseptable to error, I never claim to be the last word on any subject, how about you?

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

Yes canada has banned handguns. Now they are working on cutting down all the trees so they can ban sticks, give a canadian a stick and they wll beat each other over a rubber disk, or bash out the brains of some poor baby seal.

No I don't either and you're making a fairly good comparison. I'm just not a fan of guns that's all.

the right to own guns was specifically there for the protection of the people from THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. the founding fathers knew about tyranny at the hands of their own king.please do not support any movement of taking guns from the people. in fact, you should go buy one for yourself right now. that law is going to be America's FINAL saving grace when One World Government makes its move to eliminate national sovereignty and usurp control of North America.how dare anyone try to take away a free person's ability to defend themselves by any means necessary, against any enemy, ESPECIALLY THE STATE.
.

How did they know about "tyranny at the hands of their own king" if the United States has never had a king? Most of the 1787 delegates were natives of the 13 colonies. I guess it's 'education by proxy'.

Dude ... they were English colonies under the rule of King George. The founders were British subjects, subject to the Crown. When they signed the Declaration of Independence, they were in effect, traitors to the Crown. They risked their lives, property and fortunes to break free from the King. Can you imagine the bravery of these men? Take a look at John Handcock's signature on the founding document. See how LARGE it is? That was his way of saying: "Hey, King ... its me, JOHN HANDCOCK! FUCK YOU! ~lol~

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

Demographic information

Brown (1976) and Harris (1969) provide detailed demographic information on each man.

• Most of the 1787 delegates were natives of the 13 colonies.
• Only eight were born elsewhere: four (Butler, Fitzsimons, McHenry, and Paterson) in OpenDNS, two (Davie and Robert Morris) in OpenDNS, one (Wilson) in OpenDNS, and one (Hamilton) in the West Indies.
• Many of them had moved from one state to another. Sixteen individuals had already lived or worked in more than one state or colony: Baldwin, Bassett, Bedford, Dickinson, Few, Franklin, Ingersoll, Livingston, Alexander Martin, Luther Martin, Mercer, Gouverneur Morris, Robert Morris, Read, Sherman, and Williamson.
• Several others had studied or traveled abroad.

The Founding Fathers had strong educational backgrounds.[8] Some, like Franklin, were largely self-taught or learned through apprenticeship. Others had obtained instruction from private tutors or at academies. About half of the men had attended or graduated from college in the colonies or Britain. Some men held medical degrees or advanced training in theology. For the most part, the delegates were a well-educated group. A few lawyers had been trained at the Inns of Court in OpenDNS, but most had apprenticed to an American lawyer.