51% of AMericans dissaprove of Obama's job on the economy

[sideoutshu]

Just saw it on Oreilly. The ship be sinkin!

[RicoVacilon]

If it's on O'Reilly it must be true.

[sideoutshu]

If it's on O'Reilly it must be true.

Obviously I made this post toungue in cheek. But to imply that statistics given on the most popular cable news show in the country are unreliable is retarded.

You act like there isn't a line of people like you and Gtright a thousand miles long waitin to catch him screwing up.

[Gtrght77]

Fox news seems to only poll their viewers.


At this point what can we do? We could start cutting some programs. I would start with the Drug war and cut funding to the Military. The big problem is we seem to want it all at the same time.


I see those banks we bailed out are starting to turn billion dollar profits. We should get half of all their profits until they pay off what was given to them.

[Gtrght77]

Obviously I made this post toungue in cheek. But to imply that statistics given on the most popular cable news show in the country are unreliable is retarded.

You act like there isn't a line of people like you and Gtright a thousand miles long waitin to catch him screwing up.

I don't watch network news at all.

[RicoVacilon]

Obviously I made this post toungue in cheek. But to imply that statistics given on the most popular cable news show in the country are unreliable is retarded.

Actually, it's been proven that O'Reilly either doesn 't understand the stats he quotes or he plays really loose with the truth of what they actually mean. That's incontrovertible.

[RicoVacilon]

Good news: The economy seems to be leveling out and correcting itself. i.e. the worst is probably over.

Bad news: We're still spending like it's 2001.

The sad thing is that we could pay for all this social stuff without raising taxes. If only we weren't wasting billions on useless ish.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Who are these 51% ? I don't recall Fox News calling me......... CNN does sometimes, but Fox never has.

And Bill O'Reilly is just another shock jock with a camera on him. If someone is watching him then they are surely a GOP party puppet. Love it when Rick Sanchez on CNN pounds on him every other day.


.

[resnor]

Who are these 51% ? I don't recall Fox News calling me......... CNN does sometimes, but Fox never has.

And Bill O'Reilly is just another shock jock with a camera on him. If someone is watching him then they are surely a GOP party puppet. Love it when Rick Sanchez on CNN pounds on him every other day.


.

So if you didn't get called, the stats must be wrong? LOL. I've NEVER been called by any political polling person...that must mean that every poll that's been done since I was 18 must be wrong.

By the way, Fox News has one of the largest, if not THE LARGEST, bipartisan viewerships. I guess that means that everyone watching is a party puppet...

By the way, is "party puppet" the new name to call someone? Has it replaced "neocon?"

[theanalogkid]

So if you didn't get called, the stats must be wrong? LOL. I've NEVER been called by any political polling person...that must mean that every poll that's been done since I was 18 must be wrong.

By the way, Fox News has one of the largest, if not THE LARGEST, bipartisan viewerships. I guess that means that everyone watching is a party puppet...

By the way, is "party puppet" the new name to call someone? Has it replaced "neocon?"

I always find it humorous that when someone talks negatively about Fox News, "conservatives" always come out of the wood work to come defend it. It's like a bat signal almost.

Anyways, they never really delve into things like confidence level which is a pretty important figure to have when drawing conclusions on the whole population when using samples.

[Nevada_Ballin]

So if you didn't get called, the stats must be wrong? LOL. I've NEVER been called by any political polling person...that must mean that every poll that's been done since I was 18 must be wrong.

By the way, Fox News has one of the largest, if not THE LARGEST, bipartisan viewerships. I guess that means that everyone watching is a party puppet...

By the way, is "party puppet" the new name to call someone? Has it replaced "neocon?"


Where did i say they were "wrong"?

No where


Half of Fox's viewers are just Dems and Libs looking for a good laugh :D


.

[TheRealist]

I always find it humorous that when someone talks negatively about Fox News, "conservatives" always come out of the wood work to come defend it. It's like a bat signal almost.

Anyways, they never really delve into things like confidence level which is a pretty important figure to have when drawing conclusions on the whole population when using samples.

Most of the polls that we see usually take a 95% confidence level. (still meaning that 1 in 20 means nothing...lol)

By most I mean 89.2%. (which I made up to support my above claim)

J/k...really my stat professor told us that a lot of the polls these days use that CI.

Side-note:

Just funny to see the reversal in this thread.

Back to 07' we go:

"Bush has the worst approval rating in history!"
"Where do you get these numbers...they're not asking me, the sample size is flawed...blah blah blah."

Bring it back to 09':

"Obama is slipping, 51% dissaprove!"
"I don't believe that, where are they getting that...they didn't ask me."

On and on and on and on...when is this going to stop.

These networks are so blantantly polarized and profit driven that you guys should just turn them off. All the stuff you're hearing isn't information...it's noise.

[dsteve]

oh noes the fox news! guess what? theres a reason why all the other news channels are going under and fox has been the highest rated for years now and I would bet the amount of money obama has put us in debt that it isnt "dems and libs looking for a good laugh".

isnt it funny how nobody cares about glenn beck when hes on CNN but he jumps over to fox, says the same things and left wing hacks think its open season?

[dsteve]

Good news: The economy seems to be leveling out and correcting itself. i.e. the worst is probably over.

Bad news: We're still spending like it's 2001.

The sad thing is that we could pay for all this social stuff without raising taxes. If only we weren't wasting billions on useless ish.



nice to know youre an economist now but the people who actually have a clue think its going to get worse.

[Gtrght77]

oh noes the fox news! guess what? theres a reason why all the other news channels are going under and fox has been the highest rated for years now and I would bet the amount of money obama has put us in debt that it isnt "dems and libs looking for a good laugh".

isnt it funny how nobody cares about glenn beck when hes on CNN but he jumps over to fox, says the same things and left wing hacks think its open season?

All of them are garbage. Fox news just panders more to its watchers and gives them headlines they want to see.

Its not news if its created to keep you watching.

[resnor]

Where did i say they were "wrong"?

No where


Half of Fox's viewers are just Dems and Libs looking for a good laugh :D


.

Nice try at spin and deflection. You took the number from the Fox poll, and then said, "Who are these 51% ? I don't recall Fox News calling me......... CNN does sometimes, but Fox never has." If your point wasn't that the numbers were wrong, based on your belief that Fox News is a right-wing biased network, then what was your point? I can't think of any other point that you would have had.

Analog, I'm not coming out to "defend" Fox News. I was merely making a point about polls, and how I've never been polled in the 12 years that I've been eligible to vote. Then I gave a fact about Fox News' viewership which tends to debunk the partisan angle that some on this board like to take concerning Fox News.

[conviction]

Nice try at spin and deflection. You took the number from the Fox poll, and then said, "Who are these 51% ? I don't recall Fox News calling me......... CNN does sometimes, but Fox never has." If your point wasn't that the numbers were wrong, based on your belief that Fox News is a right-wing biased network, then what was your point? I can't think of any other point that you would have had.

Analog, I'm not coming out to "defend" Fox News. I was merely making a point about polls, and how I've never been polled in the 12 years that I've been eligible to vote. Then I gave a fact about Fox News' viewership which tends to debunk the partisan angle that some on this board like to take concerning Fox News.

Yeah nice try NB, mayb e it will work next time when we are napping. The economy will continue to fail with big government policy. The same fat cats who caused this crisis will be the ones that the government keeps afloat while the average citizens are pushed aside.

You can't borrow your way out of debt NB. Crazy prediction here.... I think Obama's economic and approval numbers will continue to fall faster than before, just a crutch :rolleyes:

[Gtrght77]

Yeah nice try NB, mayb e it will work next time when we are napping. The economy will continue to fail with big government policy. The same fat cats who caused this crisis will be the ones that the government keeps afloat while the average citizens are pushed aside.

You can't borrow your way out of debt NB. Crazy prediction here.... I think Obama's economic and approval numbers will continue to fall faster than before, just a crutch :rolleyes:

Only because nothing is getting done. He needs to get ahold of the Democrats in office and get them going. The Dems were not voted into the majority to argue among themselves. They need to get things done.

[Paydirt404]

I wonder if 75% of people polled supported Obama's tactics on fixing the economy, would Fox News even air it?

We all know Fox News will hardly ever show the President in a good light, so thats to be expected. This is not shocking news to anyone here.

[RicoVacilon]

Almost all signs right now are pointing towards a recovery. We all can remember in the past 15 years of politics that the economy is basically the biggest factor in approval rating. If the economy continues to recover I think Obama is pretty safe.

What _I_ personally would like to see is lowering all these crazy amounts of spending once we start seeing unemployment figures (which are usually one of the slower factors to be affected by a recovery) going down.

Obama put all this spending spending spending into effect to prevent an economic meltdown. If we're all comfortable we aren't melting down and he STILL wants to spend like crazy--then we will see him for what he really is.

[Play Action]

It took 8 years to get our Economy in this mess. What idiots really expect Obama to fix it in 8 months...??

These same idiots have no solution or has had no viable solutions for the past 8 years!?

What these idiots should do, is just sit back and watch Obamas attempt at righting this ship...

Its laughable really.... Its like running a car through the front of your house and then arguing, and blaming the repair men for attempting to repair the mess you just created... Actually it is really ridiculous...

[Paydirt404]

It took 8 years to get our Economy in this mess. What idiots really expect Obama to fix it in 8 months...??

These same idiots have no solution or has had no viable solutions for the past 8 years!?

What these idiots should do, is just sit back and watch Obamas attempt at righting this ship...

Its laughable really.... Its like running a car through the front of your house and then arguing, and blaming the repair men for attempting to repair the mess you just created... Actually it is really ridiculous...

No one on VG has posted a solution. We just complain or support. Me included.

[Play Action]

No one on VG has posted a solution. We just complain or support. Me included.


No one has a solution... People need to get in where they fit in...

[resnor]

A good number of the conservatives on here have suggested solutions...tou have just chosen to ignore them because you don't agree with letting companies fail, letting the economy right itself, and tax cuts.

[sanantonio]

Bring our military home (all of them), let companies fail that should, not only cut taxes but abolish the IRS, send the Fed back to the abyss, and I could go on and on.

[Play Action]

Gee, I wonder why no one in Washington has come up with any of those ideas???

There is a diffrence between ideas and solutions....

[Gtrght77]

Gee, I wonder why no one in Washington has come up with any of those ideas???

There is a diffrence between ideas and solutions....

Ron Paul did.


He also said we should pay for healthcare by cutting funding to all the wars, that way we can pay for it without raising taxes or printing more money.

[Play Action]

Ron Paul did.


He also said we should pay for healthcare by cutting funding to all the wars, that way we can pay for it without raising taxes or printing more money.

I like Ron Paul...

He is against the prohibition of Marijuana...

That alone has my vote...:)

[RicoVacilon]

Ron Paul did.


He also said we should pay for healthcare by cutting funding to all the wars, that way we can pay for it without raising taxes or printing more money.

Ron Paul said only people who can afford health care deserve to get health care. That's one of the most despicable things I've heard from any politician lately. I used to support him. But now he can suck my nuts.

[Gtrght77]

Ron Paul said only people who can afford health care deserve to get health care. That's one of the most despicable things I've heard from any politician lately. I used to support him. But now he can suck my nuts.

Yeah and that is how all the right feel. At least he says it outloud and is honest.

I dont support him necessarily, its just he says the things most of them wont say because they are true. He said realistically its going to be done and if its done we might as well pay for it this way.

[sanantonio]

Gee, I wonder why no one in Washington has come up with any of those ideas???

There is a diffrence between ideas and solutions....

They are all only ideas until implemented as a solution the key word being implemented.

[resnor]

Gee, I wonder why no one in Washington has come up with any of those ideas???

There is a diffrence between ideas and solutions....

Oh...so now it's not what ideas people IN HERE came up with, it's what ideas people in the Congress came up with? Pick which one it is, dude. On one hand, people are complaining that the conservatives on here haven't put out any solutions. When I point out that we have, the response is that the people in Washington haven't suggested those, thereby acting like the ideas suggested in here were bad. Fact is, many of the people in Washington are not there to benefit their constituents...they're there to benefit themselves, and that is one of the main reasons that the ideas I suggested haven't been latched onto by the Republicans in Washington.

Healthcare is not a right, nor is it something that the government should provide. The Constitution clearly lays out what the responsibilities of the government are, and healthcare is not one of them. For the record, the U.S. has about 300,000,000 people. We have a MASSIVE 40 million (roughly) without healthcare. That means that LESS THAN 20% of our population is without healthcare. Of that less than 20%, how many are people who CHOOSE not to have healthcare? It is interesting that people throw around this 43 million number, as opposed to saying 20%...I wonder if it's because 43 million sounds all big and bad, but 20% doesn't. I also think it's interesting that no one points out that 80%, EIGHTY PERCENT, of our population has healthcare coverage. It certainly puts it in a slightly different light when you look at it that way.

[RicoVacilon]

Healthcare is not a right

How do you separate health care from the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? As far as I'm aware, those are inherently dependent on being alive.

I don't know a whole lot of people that are going without health insurance simply because they don't want it.

[Play Action]

Oh...so now it's not what ideas people IN HERE came up with, it's what ideas people in the Congress came up with? Pick which one it is, dude. On one hand, people are complaining that the conservatives on here haven't put out any solutions. When I point out that we have, the response is that the people in Washington haven't suggested those, thereby acting like the ideas suggested in here were bad. Fact is, many of the people in Washington are not there to benefit their constituents...they're there to benefit themselves, and that is one of the main reasons that the ideas I suggested haven't been latched onto by the Republicans in Washington.

Healthcare is not a right, nor is it something that the government should provide. The Constitution clearly lays out what the responsibilities of the government are, and healthcare is not one of them. For the record, the U.S. has about 300,000,000 people. We have a MASSIVE 40 million (roughly) without healthcare. That means that LESS THAN 20% of our population is without healthcare. Of that less than 20%, how many are people who CHOOSE not to have healthcare? It is interesting that people throw around this 43 million number, as opposed to saying 20%...I wonder if it's because 43 million sounds all big and bad, but 20% doesn't. I also think it's interesting that no one points out that 80%, EIGHTY PERCENT, of our population has healthcare coverage. It certainly puts it in a slightly different light when you look at it that way.

Although I admit I agree with some of your points, bottomline is we going have to see whats happens with Obamas plan. 8 months is not enough time to plan, process and see results...So lets give Obama time, just like we do the other Presidents before him, to work his magic or not...

You dont really have a choice, so why not be positive??:eek:

[Gtrght77]

We dont have to have a right to healtchare, we just need a system that can be affordable and not corrupt like the current system.


Our system is built so people can make money, not so people can get care.

[sanantonio]

Ron Paul said only people who can afford health care deserve to get health care. That's one of the most despicable things I've heard from any politician lately. I used to support him. But now he can suck my nuts.

I am a Ron Paul supporter but at the same time I don't walk in lock step with all of his ideas. I find it hard to believe he would make such a statement him being a Dr. and all. Especially since he's given and cared for those without health care. Do you have a link that I could verify that statement?

Edit: This is all I could find and I agree with him that all citizens should receive medical care but we part ways as to medical care not being a right.


As far as the Texas Congressman is concerned, healthcare is not a right. "I don't have a right to medical care," he emphatically states. In his view, the constitution only guarantees citizens "life, liberty and (the right to) keep the fruits of my labor."

Don't be mistaken, he's very clear to point out, he is in favor of all citizens receiving medical care. "I want everybody to have maximum care at the best price. And that's why I want the government out of it completely."

[theanalogkid]

Ron Paul said only people who can afford health care deserve to get health care. That's one of the most despicable things I've heard from any politician lately. I used to support him. But now he can suck my nuts.

LOL. Way to take him out of context and misquote him too. Ron Paul is arguing that government shouldn't be involved in health care, because it causes the price of health care to go up because there is no incentive to charge the lowest price possible. He said you don't have a right to health care, the same way you don't have a right to a house, job or anything else, because it's not int the Constitution so the government shouldn't be involved in it. Apparently you don't have the right to not have health care under the Obama plan, because you'll get taxed for not having it.

Because of that, you work for it, and it ends up being cheaper and more efficient than a government bloated run option which will end up being bogged down in red tape and bureaucracy, and would be far worse than what we have now. Ron Paul wants everyone to have affordable health care, but not from government handouts.

It will also cost the government $2 - 3 trillion to have this "public option." The money doesn't exist. You can't even cover that by pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Entitlement programs as is, are one of the largest parts of the federal budget. Ofcourse you want to create a lazy society where everyone gets everything from the government but somehow still wants to work, even though there would be no incentive to.

[conviction]

LOL. Way to take him out of context and misquote him too. Ron Paul is arguing that government shouldn't be involved in health care, because it causes the price of health care to go up because there is no incentive to charge the lowest price possible. He said you don't have a right to health care, the same way you don't have a right to a house, job or anything else, because it's not int the Constitution so the government shouldn't be involved in it. Apparently you don't have the right to not have health care under the Obama plan, because you'll get taxed for not having it.

Because of that, you work for it, and it ends up being cheaper and more efficient than a government bloated run option which will end up being bogged down in red tape and bureaucracy, and would be far worse than what we have now. Ron Paul wants everyone to have affordable health care, but not from government handouts.

It will also cost the government $2 - 3 trillion to have this "public option." The money doesn't exist. You can't even cover that by pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Entitlement programs as is, are one of the largest parts of the federal budget. Ofcourse you want to create a lazy society where everyone gets everything from the government but somehow still wants to work, even though there would be no incentive to.

good post. Our government was meant to be slow and inefficient at getting work done. That was the point of the system, so that nothing got done. Free markets are innovative and efficient. There are ways to fix health care other than an inefficient multi-trillion dollar takeover that would end up in subpar health care compared to if we had a more fair, open market. Lazy asses......

[RicoVacilon]

I am a Ron Paul supporter but at the same time I don't walk in lock step with all of his ideas. I find it hard to believe he would make such a statement him being a Dr. and all. Especially since he's given and cared for those without health care. Do you have a link that I could verify that statement?

Edit: This is all I could find and I agree with him that all citizens should receive medical care but we part ways as to medical care not being a right.

Head to his website--he's got the text of his blog and a video of him reading it.

[RicoVacilon]

LOL. Way to take him out of context and misquote him too.

Not really.

[theanalogkid]

Not really.

Uhhh...yes really. But I'm not going to spiral down into an arguement of "Yes. NO! Yes!" with you. You're creating a strawman by taking half of what he is saying, and claiming that is his total argument. He wants health care being distributed by the private sector like cells phones are being distributed. He doesn't want government intervention.

You do know there used to be a lot of charity hospitals that provided care through endowments, for the people who couldn't afford insurance. Too much governemnt bueracracy and regulations closed them down. Ron Paul used to work at one and used to work out payment plans with people so they could afford treatment. Do you really think he wants people to go without the ability to seek treatment with affordable health care? If so, you should really go back and watch what he is saying rather than cherry pick statements to support your arguement with a weak base.

[resnor]

How do you separate health care from the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? As far as I'm aware, those are inherently dependent on being alive.

I don't know a whole lot of people that are going without health insurance simply because they don't want it.

Those are rights that we have from God. The government, according to the Declaration of Independence, is supposed to protect those rights...not provide them. Would you argue that we should have the government provide food for everyone in America? Being alive is much more dependent on eating than it is on having health insurance, last time I checked. You're being very broad with your interpretation...because we have a right to happiness, does that mean that the government should provide us with whatever makes us happy, too?

I know many people who COULD AFFORD health insurance who CHOOSE to not have it because they would rather spend their money on other things.

[MonoxideChild]

Too bad Ron Paul isn't Ron Paul anymore huh? I think he's had a little too much of that Alex Jones kool-aid. I don't trust Ron Paul. You know the same guy that was, "Libertarian until death", then changed parties because it would be easier to get elected? But I mean, at least he doesn't oplay the same old games right? Saying what people want to hear for support and then doing absolutely nothing once elected except for complain about his peers. For whatever reason Ron Paul has become the same thing for the progressives that Obama has for the Dems.

[theanalogkid]

Too bad Ron Paul isn't Ron Paul anymore huh? I think he's had a little too much of that Alex Jones kool-aid. I don't trust Ron Paul. You know the same guy that was, "Libertarian until death", then changed parties because it would be easier to get elected? But I mean, at least he doesn't oplay the same old games right? Saying what people want to hear for support and then doing absolutely nothing once elected except for complain about his peers. For whatever reason Ron Paul has become the same thing for the progressives that Obama has for the Dems.

Lol again. You know ballot access laws in Texas make it nearly impossible for anyone to be placed on the ballot if they aren't Republican or a Democrat. Anyway I don't know what you are talking about Paul only ran once as a Libertarian for President, but always ran as a Republican for any office before and after that. The party is also made up of various factions, one of which are libertarians with a lower case L.

As far as doing nothing in Congress, he's actually done a lot of co/sponsoring of legislation and sits on various committees. Yeah it doesn't make it too far since the majority of Congress regardless of party is for big governent spending, however his bill to audit the Federal Reserve is gaining momentum.

But lets just make up some facts and do no research into the guy. Lolz.

[MonoxideChild]

Lol again. You know ballot access laws in Texas make it nearly impossible for anyone to be placed on the ballot if they aren't Republican or a Democrat. Anyway I don't know what you are talking about Paul only ran once as a Libertarian for President, but always ran as a Republican for any office before and after that. The party is also made up of various factions, one of which are libertarians with a lower case L.

As far as doing nothing in Congress, he's actually done a lot of co/sponsoring of legislation and sits on various committees. Yeah it doesn't make it too far since the majority of Congress regardless of party is for big governent spending, however his bill to audit the Federal Reserve is gaining momentum.

But lets just make up some facts and do no research into the guy. Lolz.
I'm not talking about what he runs as. He identifies himself as a constitutionalist and a libertarian. He's not. Mr. individual rights comes up short constantly on anything that supports individual freedoms. You know, things like gay marriage or the abortion issue. Mr.Paul would like everuyone to be free to make their own choices as long as they're in line with his. He's just another christian fundamentalist. And where are my m,ade up facts? I'd like to know. I'm actually a Libertarian and know plenty of Dr. Paul's history to debate his contradictions with you.

[sanantonio]

Too bad Ron Paul isn't Ron Paul anymore huh? I think he's had a little too much of that Alex Jones kool-aid. I don't trust Ron Paul. You know the same guy that was, "Libertarian until death", then changed parties because it would be easier to get elected? But I mean, at least he doesn't oplay the same old games right? Saying what people want to hear for support and then doing absolutely nothing once elected except for complain about his peers. For whatever reason Ron Paul has become the same thing for the progressives that Obama has for the Dems.

Not sure where your getting that from but Ron Paul is known as Dr. No in Congress for going against one spending bill after another.

[MonoxideChild]

Not sure where your getting that from but Ron Paul is known as Dr. No in Congress for going against one spending bill after another.

Okay? So he's fiscally copnservative. What does that have to do with anything?

[theanalogkid]

You know the same guy that was, "Libertarian until death", then changed parties because it would be easier to get elected?


I'm not talking about what he runs as.

Clearly you were or at least you made it so ambigous no one could tell what you were talking about.


You know, things like gay marriage or the abortion issue.

He personally doesn't believe in it, but he also doesn't believe the government should have any involvement in any marriage at all, and certianly not the federal governemnt.

As for abortion, he believes the fetus is a human and therefore as human rights. That doesn't make him less libertarian or for smaller government, and certainly libertarianism doesn't mean you. He wants the federal government out of the abortion issue as well. He's voted against having federal funds provided to abortion related causes, but that's fiscal conservatism anyway, but he's also voted against a lot of state left restrictions by the federal government on abortion.

[MonoxideChild]

Clearly you were or at least you made it so ambigous no one could tell what you were talking about.



He personally doesn't believe in it, but he also doesn't believe the government should have any involvement in any marriage at all, and certianly not the federal governemnt.

As for abortion, he believes the fetus is a human and therefore as human rights. That doesn't make him less libertarian or for smaller government, and certainly libertarianism doesn't mean you. He wants the federal government out of the abortion issue as well. He's voted against having federal funds provided to abortion related causes, but that's fiscal conservatism anyway, but he's also voted against a lot of state left restrictions by the federal government on abortion.
He doesn't want the government to say that abortion is legal because of his own views. Which is against what he says he "fights" for. He talks about how the government should not interfere with anyone's personal choices at all. And yet he stands up and says abortion should be illegal, we shouldn't recognize gay marriage. Oh and lets not forget the whole thing about calling every Saudi a terrorist, about arresting egyptian americans and sending them home because they are from what he would call a terrorist nation. Let's not forget about him saying that people should'nt pay their taxes, and then condemning the Brown's in New Hampshire. Oh, and I'm sure we don't have to delve into the slavery issue. You do remember that right?

[sanantonio]

He doesn't want the government to say that abortion is legal because of his own views. Which is against what he says he "fights" for. He talks about how the government should not interfere with anyone's personal choices at all. And yet he stands up and says abortion should be illegal, we shouldn't recognize gay marriage. Oh and lets not forget the whole thing about calling every Saudi a terrorist, about arresting egyptian americans and sending them home because they are from what he would call a terrorist nation. Let's not forget about him saying that people should'nt pay their taxes, and then condemning the Brown's in New Hampshire. Oh, and I'm sure we don't have to delve into the slavery issue. You do remember that right?

He did not say they shouldn't pay their taxes. What he said was that if you were to exercise civil disobedience (such as not paying your taxes) that you had better be prepared for the repercussions.

As for Abortion to my knowledge he has always said he wants the Federal goverment out of that debate and that it should be dealt with at the state level.

Don't know about him calling every Saudi a terrorist.

[MonoxideChild]

He did not say they shouldn't pay their taxes. What he said was that if you were to exercise civil disobedience (such as not paying your taxes) that you had better be prepared for the repercussions.

As for Abortion to my knowledge he has always said he wants the Federal goverment out of that debate and that it should be dealt with at the state level.

Don't know about him calling every Saudi a terrorist.

That was after the fact. He said non-violent civil disobedience should be treated as someone trying to reclaim their individual freedoms that they felt were taken from them. And then when they're getting ready to rush the house with all types of storm troopers and weapons, Dr. Paul pretty much said, they should'nt have stepped out of line.

He is Pro-life, and feels that no state should recognize anyones right for abortions at all. Even though he voted against a Clinton-era program that would leave the choices up to the states. (sorry, can't rememebr the name of the bill, it was biggie though at the time.) that's one of the biggest things he gets caught up on when giving interviews is his undecided way of handling the abortion issue.

Dr.Paul thinks that anyone hailing from a nation with terrorists, which is typically a minute group of the populations, should be considered a terrorist and not be on American soil. Also, Ron's foreign policy is strange. He claims to be a non-interventionist. And yet, he voted to interfere, basically, in the Romanian child services, he condemned terror attacks in Egypt, but not Israel, because if anyone needs to be attacked, it's the damn jews, right ronnie? And yet, he voted not to send a letter to China discussing the affairs of Tibet. He's nothing more than just another say-anything-to-get-elected politician, get over it guys. I know it's neat that he knows how to use a computer and all, but that doesn't detract from the fact that this guy doesn't ever actually take a stand on things that he actually says he protects. The sad thing is, I can actually agree with him on most things, but then he just goes ape****.

[RicoVacilon]

I, too, found myself agreeing with him more than any other politician. But this latest thing has me irreconcilably detached from him. We're humans and we need to act like humans. Golden rule is universal.

[conviction]

I don't know everything about Ron Paul but what i do know is that Ron Paul would attempt to represent the average citizen whilst the rest of congress has turned their backs to us. Republicrats are just more the same, all they do is fiddle with stupid, insignificant problems.

[theanalogkid]

That was after the fact. He said non-violent civil disobedience should be treated as someone trying to reclaim their individual freedoms that they felt were taken from them. And then when they're getting ready to rush the house with all types of storm troopers and weapons, Dr. Paul pretty much said, they should'nt have stepped out of line.

Paul said he supports "the right" of civil disobediance when a person or a group feels that the law is unjust, but he also said they should be aware that the consequence of it could be imprisonment.



He is Pro-life, and feels that no state should recognize anyones right for abortions at all. Even though he voted against a Clinton-era program that would leave the choices up to the states. (sorry, can't rememebr the name of the bill, it was biggie though at the time.) that's one of the biggest things he gets caught up on when giving interviews is his undecided way of handling the abortion issue.

If he belives that a fetus has human rights, than according to him, abortions are akin to murder. So if he believes that is the case, why wouldn't he try and stop it? He wouldn't be the only libertarian trying to stop it either.



Dr.Paul thinks that anyone hailing from a nation with terrorists, which is typically a minute group of the populations, should be considered a terrorist and not be on American soil. Also, Ron's foreign policy is strange. He claims to be a non-interventionist. And yet, he voted to interfere, basically, in the Romanian child services, he condemned terror attacks in Egypt, but not Israel, because if anyone needs to be attacked, it's the damn jews, right ronnie? And yet, he voted not to send a letter to China discussing the affairs of Tibet. He's nothing more than just another say-anything-to-get-elected politician, get over it guys. I know it's neat that he knows how to use a computer and all, but that doesn't detract from the fact that this guy doesn't ever actually take a stand on things that he actually says he protects. The sad thing is, I can actually agree with him on most things, but then he just goes ape****.


I don't know much about what he thinks foreigners coming from countries with terrorists being considered a terrorist. (It would be a logically unsound position because there have been terrorist inside the US, so he'd have to consider himself a terrorist too)

I also don't know about him voting for intervening in Romanian child services.

I do know however, that he is against subsidizing Israel, selling them arms, and having those arms being used against the Palestinians. He believes America should remain neutral in the affairs of Israel and the Palestinians.

He's also against the blind support of Saudi Arabia though.

[RicoVacilon]

Paul said he supports "the right" of civil disobediance when a person or a group feels that the law is unjust, but he also said they should be aware that the consequence of it could be imprisonment.

What exactly is the "right of civil disobedience"?

[MonoxideChild]

Paul said he supports "the right" of civil disobediance when a person or a group feels that the law is unjust, but he also said they should be aware that the consequence of it could be imprisonment.

If he belives that a fetus has human rights, than according to him, abortions are akin to murder. So if he believes that is the case, why wouldn't he try and stop it? He wouldn't be the only libertarian trying to stop it either.

I don't know much about what he thinks foreigners coming from countries with terrorists being considered a terrorist. (It would be a logically unsound position because there have been terrorist inside the US, so he'd have to consider himself a terrorist too)

I also don't know about him voting for intervening in Romanian child services.

I do know however, that he is against subsidizing Israel, selling them arms, and having those arms being used against the Palestinians. He believes America should remain neutral in the affairs of Israel and the Palestinians.

He's also against the blind support of Saudi Arabia though.

His stand on Civil disobediance was already stated.

The abortion issue makes no sense. He states that HE himself is against abortion and that the legality of the procedure should be left up to the states. Then he doesn't support that exact thing. He constantly talks about states rights, but doesn't ever support any of it when it comes to legislature. This inevitably lead to that horrible interview where he basically screwed himself and he knew it. He said that slavery shouldn't have been abolished from a war, that it should've survived another hundred years to be dealt with diplomatically. whoops...

And I actually agree with some people's support of Palestine. The things that Israel have done are disgusting to me. Like the bombing of refugee camps etc. But for Ron Paul to pick and choose whioch countries should be condemned for basically mass murders is ridiculous.
ON ething I do liike is that he's anti-death penalty. At least he's consistant with his "shouldn't take a life policy", unlike many other Pols.

[MonoxideChild]

What exactly is the "right of civil disobedience"?

What he means is basically a quiet protest. Say for the instance already staed about the Brown family in NH. He believed taxes were unconstitutional, so he stopped paying them. The thing is though, the FBI and State police started building up outside of his home with the usual riot gear etc. Mr.Brown then came out and said that if they tried to remove him or his family from his property that he would fight untnil the end. Thats where the civil ddisobedience ended.

[resnor]

What exactly is the "right of civil disobedience"?

Ummmm...our founding documents give us, the citizens, the right to revolt, using weapons, if necessary, againsta government that has become tyrannical. Would that qualify? At the very least, the Constitution and Bill of Rights give us the right to go against a government that has gone awry.

[MonoxideChild]

Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying power, without resorting to physical violence. It is one of the primary tactics of nonviolent resistance. In its most nonviolent form (in India, known as ahimsa or satyagraha) it could be said that it is compassion in the form of respectful disagreement.

Lol, civil disobediance has nothing to do with a revolution. It's main purpose is to resist without violence. I don't recall seeing anything about this in our founding documents. Maybe the right to assemble? Taking up arms against our government isn't civil disobediance. CD would be more along the lines of refusing to pay a speeding ticket. Once you threaten anyone with physical violence it becomes a completely different issue.