Ron Paul 2008 On G4TV Attack Of The Show

Ron Paul the greatest presidential candidate known to the people, speaks on Attack of the Show. Here's why Ron Paul want people to vote for him.

[Legionaire2005]

Everybody put on your V suits, because we are going to takeover this government and bring back true Freedom in America!!!! Attention all Gamers!!! Register to vote for Ron Paul!!! He religiously follows the constitution, he believe in freedom of expression, he is against the taxation of the internet which governments are trying to regulate, he will put end to inflation and abolish the Federal Reserve the first two weeks in office!!! Think about it!!! For example: Game Designers will have the freedom to create games like Manhunt 2, for the attended audience without the government violating freedom by censorship!!! Ron Paul is even against the ban of internet gambling!!!! Guys this is a no brainner!!! Ron Paul is our voice for this country. Here is a link to his website:

http://ronpaul2008.com/

[JsonHenry]

This guy used to be a Libertarian. ( lp.org for info )

Anyone who knows ANYTHING about the third largest political party here in America, the Libertarians, knows that they are the only ones interested in TRUE freedom in America.

Ron Paul is a viable candidate, and I HOPE he makes it out of the GOP primaries. But something tells me the Republicans are no longer interested in freedoms for America, and we all know if Democrats win it will be nothing but new goverment control and more taxes.

[BlackCountryBob]

Dear everyone in America

Vote for this guy, he seems to be a pretty straight guy and has his head screwed on. If you don't want him can you send him over to the UK because he has gotta be better than Messrs Blair (going today :D) Brown and Cameron.

[emptiness]

NICE :) i hope we as a people want him because he is definately coherent, clear, and knowledgable ...unlike some other runners (and elects)

[Marona]

Holy crap, first ever amazing president in my life time! GTFO Bush, Welcome Paul! :D He got my vote already.

[Rooted_Dust]

I've been follwing Ron Paul for some months now. He is by far the most popular candidate on the internet, but the mainstream media is refusing to report on him. They are die-hard on trying to push that Rudy Guliani and Hilary Clinton are the only viable candidates. The media is subverting our democratic process. Tell you family and friends about Ron Paul, the only true Constitutionalist and Statesman running for President.

[emptiness]

you are correct sir...

[emptiness]

if i were to vote now, Ron Paul would get my vote, hands down. this guy has consistently presented a solid and stable view of freedom, interpretation of the constitution, and solutions to current problems. he is definately the BEST candidate for office at this point.

[socomnick]

I Wont vote for this guy hes too liberal he seems like the type of person who would never go to war no matter how much it is needed.

[Rooted_Dust]

I believe he voted to go into Afghanistan after they refused to surrender Bin Laden, but he voted no on Iraq because there was obviously no reason to go to Iraq, seeing as there is no Terrorist connection and no Weapons of Mass destruction. I hope you realize that our attacks on countries that have never threaten us or attacked us has severely damaged our standing in the world.

[snoop_dizzle]

i do think we probably shouldn't of gone into iraq but iran, because they are more of a threat to us.

I don't really want to go to war all the time, to be honest, but we can't just be isolationists, pacifists, and appeasers because look how well that went.

Think about WW2 we didn't go in until japan bombed us, while countless people were bing slaughtered by the nazis.

Think about sudan(i believe)in the 90s when almost a million people were killed by the tribal war. The US and UN did absolutely nothing. Under Clintons term might i add.(bush and clinton aren't exactly the best guys for the job).

Now we have another issue there in darfur. And we are attempting to do something while we try to get the un to intervine.

Sadly we do have enemies(fanatics, not most muslims), that want to slaughter us no mater what. Heck they think their own people are expendable. They will even slaughter their own people.

They are beyond sick, and we need someone strong to lead this country. Because aside from england poland, austrailia, japan(maybe), israel and a few others) we would be the only ones that would fight.

We will probably be the country that will have to go in somewhere if there is a major conflict.

[Rooted_Dust]

It's a complicated issue, Snoop. When we see that we have enemies in the world. We should ask ourselves, why? Do you buy in to that crap, that they hate us because we are a free and democratic society? They hate us because we have been interfering in their lives for more that 50 years. We toppled the democratic leader of Iran because he wouldn't give the majority of the oil profits to Western Oil Conglomerates. We armed Bin Laden so he could fight the Soviets for us in Afghanistan, no human interests just profit and politics. When it all comes back to blow up in our face, the politicians have the arrogance to act surprised. This is why we should not involve ourselves in the inner workings of independent nations. We shouldn't be involved any more than free trade allows. If action is to be taken, as it should in Darfur, let it be by agreement of many nations, not just America.... In the gaming vein of things...I think there should be more games with political intrigue, like a game about CIA black-ops in the Middle East(Espionage/Action), or a game about a possible future second American Revolution where you must decide between two ideologies, pro-government or pro-citizen(War/Action). These would be controversial games so you would need a controversial studio like Take-Two to develop it.

[Schmitty07]

He's awesome. If I was old enough to vote, I'd vote for him. Maybe I can convince my parents...

[evee1]

Jumping on the bandwagon of a fringe candidate is a very dangerous proposition, especially when that candidate's voting record runs counter to the reasons you are citing for jumping onboard.

If you really want to know about this candidate, take a look at his voting record as a member of the House of Representatives in Texas. As a demonstrated party-line voter for the Republican House, it is very disturbing that he has the following of some people for reasons of "libertarianism." In addition, for being dubbed a "net defender", he has admittedly very limited knowledge of how it works and casts votes that would PREVENT and HINDER access to the medium (see his "Nay" vote on extending the ban on taxes to net access).

Regardless of who your preferred candidate is, please read about their candidates' actions (i.e., votes) as well as listening to his words.

[Rooted_Dust]

I think that often a Congressman's votes are missunderstood. Ron Paul has voted to overturn Roe vs Wade, not because he is anti-abortion as some would assume, but because he believes that it is not a matter for the federal government to decide, but for the States and local legislatures. I don't know why he would vote not to extend the ban on Internet taxation, but I do know that Ron Paul has never voted to increase taxes and has stated that he never intends to.

[evee1]

And I can assure you that his voting record will surprise you then. Many of the measures he has voted for have resulted in tax increases and ensure future tax increases, as lately as this past session. And as far as his votes being 'misunderstood' - they are what they are. A bill is a bill and a law is a law. Regardless of what he "really thinks" about the issue, his votes have translated into the exact things he oftentimes preaches against.

And as far as picking a candidate, how about the issues: the current ones. Do you know your candidate's stand on immigration? On defense spending and accountability in Iraq? On balancing the budget? On nuclear proliferation treaties? On school spending? If what your candidate "states" about videogames and the internet are more important, then so be it, but make sure the statements align with his/her actions. But for the future, I hope you are in agreement with your candidate's positions on those other issues as well...

[Rooted_Dust]

I have viewed his voting record, and it follows well-enough with my beliefs. He has been dubbed Dr. No by many Republicans, because of his staunch belief that if legislation doesn't fall under the rules and strictures of the constitution then it is not a federal matter, and it is left to local governments to decide, which usually results in a No vote from Ron Paul. He advocates small government, enforcement of immigration laws, non intervention, and pro liberty. May I ask who you favor in the presidential race evee1? Just curious.

[evee1]

I am undecided, but that is immaterial. What source did you use to track his voting record?

If you have honestly viewed his voting record, that's well and fine. My initial post was not meant for you then. My caution was meant for people who single out his momentum online and latch on to his singular declarations of net-friendliness and libertarianism (both of which run counter to his votes in Congress). Those folks should take a serious look at his record and decide if those actions align with their views.

For example, in the past ten years, in his handful of "aye" votes and mostly "nays", he has voted:
-against campaign finance reforms
-against funds to improve voting systems
-against giving citizens in D.C. equal representation in Congress
-against providing better access and quality of education to lower income families
-against appropriating funds to increase teacher training and quality in classrooms
-against education savings account for families
-against energy conservation bills at every level
-against restrictions on emissions and environmental and endangered species protection at every level
-against enhancements to AMBER Alert
-against background checks for purchase of firearms
-against a minimum wage increase (three times since 2000)
-against protections for "whistleblowers" who expose corruption in the federal government
-against stem cell research
-against funding appropriations for NASA
-FOR a partial border fence with Mexico
-FOR withdrawing from the United Nations
-FOR increasing the number of visas available only for certain "skilled" workers

I am not telling anyone how to vote, simply that they should take time to look at this and more before deciding, not simply on what he says. Personally, I am all for small government, but we live in a world that requires some social responsibility. To say that everything the government provides is NOT worth MY money is a very short-sighted and nihilistic view, in my opinion. You may disagree and you have every right to.

[Legionaire2005]

When Ron Paul said America has been bombing the middle east for 10 years he was correct, because it is confirm in the 9/11 commission report!!! And on cia.gov(Cia website) in their search engine type in "Operation Ajax" and read about the false flag invasion of Iran by the Cia and Mi6!!! They admitted that they overthrew Mohammad Mossadeq,( The Iranian leader in the 50s) because America and England wanted oil!!!! They manipulated the Iranian people by telling them lies about their leader!!!! Governments throughout history use false flags invasion by attacking their own nation or other nations and blaming it on their political enemies!!! Our government before and now is using this tactic as we speak!!! Remember how the Bush administration lied to us about claiming Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11 attacks!!! Now look at where our troops are in now Iraq!!!! So for all you warmonger out there claiming that if we don't fight our enemies out there they will fight us in our country. Wrong!!!! Do your own research on False Flags Invasion and google video Terrorstorm to learn about government sponsored terrorism:

http://video.google.com/vid...