Ron Paul on Espionage. Scary. Looking for the funny? Joke's on all of us. pal.. My understanding is that espionage means giving secret er classifed Since Snowde ron paul espionage
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (416)
[ 416 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#19 - WhatTheJesse
Reply +236 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
I'm no liberal, but why do I get the feeling that he wouldn't be saying this if he were the president?
User avatar #28 to #19 - Mortuus
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
Even if we had a president that cared more for the state of the country and less for his own interests, they would still have to deal with the people who actually run the country -- the congress.
User avatar #100 to #19 - tiberioustyphr
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
He wouldn't have gone back on what he said several years ago and started spying on people in the ******* first place.
User avatar #103 to #19 - blasthardcheese
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
Simple. He wouldn't be allowed to.
#275 to #19 - swagbot
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
Because NWO.

All ******** aside, it is clear that there is a network of individuals throughout gov't, business, and academia who, immediately as a new president gets into office, force them to toe the line, assuming 1) The President is not part of that organization (Bush, Clinton), or the President is just a weenie (Obama).

These assholes are steering this country, and we're chasing their shadows, our 'Elected Politicians'.

Links if you want.
User avatar #330 to #19 - glasgowrangers
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
Because it wouldn't have happened if he were President
User avatar #213 to #19 - twofreegerbils
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
Because if America was wise enough to elect Ron Paul, we'd be wise enough to not have this **** going on as well. There wouldn't be any need for Ron to say something like that.
#404 to #19 - anon id: c345187b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
He wouldn't have to be saying it because he would have immediately revealed the program and dismantled it.
User avatar #37 to #19 - infiniteduress
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
I think he would have the same opinion, the reason i think so is that Ron Paul is a little bit crazy in some of his political ideals, but he is completely honest about them, he doesnt try to hide his crazy in order to be considered a better candidate. I think it is that honesty that would make him pardon Snowden for doing what he thought was right.

I also think Ron Paul would have been the worst president in history.
User avatar #58 to #37 - volleys
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
Wahh!?!?! I love Ron Paul! I think he do a good job.
User avatar #142 to #19 - ompalomper
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
because politics is no longer about what's best for your country, it's what will please the most people so you/your party gets re-elected
#144 to #19 - anonhaterrr
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
Because under his presidency Snowden would never have been indicted in the first place
#60 to #19 - volleys
Reply +21 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
Maybe because if Ron Paul were president, Snowden wouldn't have needed to leak anything.
User avatar #20 to #19 - akkere
Reply +40 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
Because once someone goes presidential, a lot of the glitter and polish they had put on during the campaigns starts to come off, something a lot of people who are stuck in "Democrat vs. Republicans" mode fail to realize and continue to fail to realize.

People refuse to put up a level of scrutiny for their own guy, which leads to people to render the candidate they support to be this ultimate messiah who'll save the nation and bless the people.
#21 to #20 - WhatTheJesse
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
Bravo. And people wonder why I don't take an interest in politics.

they don't really wonder that I just want friends
User avatar #207 to #21 - akkere
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
I wonder if most of the people who posted in this thread realize they've proven my point.
User avatar #252 to #20 - CoolStoryBrosky
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
Ron Paul has been more politically consistent in the past 30+ years than any other candidate we've had in a long time. I scrutinized him to my fullest extent and simply still found him to be our best chance.
User avatar #264 to #252 - akkere
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
Well, no offense, but your full extent must be riddled with incapability.

1. First off, Ron Paul can be considered disingenious. In February of 2007, he requested $400 Million in Earmarks he voted against. Now I don't like Fox News as much as the next guy, but -
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html

- It still stands as rather problematic, especially when part of his speec when he earned the Congressional Gold Medal Award in 2003 was "I will continue in my uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution;"

2. Second off, he claims to be Libertarian, and yet he's against abortion, to the point that he's willing to put his own beliefs to completely criminalize it, without any form of reference to scientific research regarding the matter.
www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

3. "Ending the Fed". The Fed isn't a great thing, it's not even a "good" thing, in all retrospect, but in a lot of situations, its a "necessary" thing, and making the extreme switch to the gold standard causes a number of problems, like putting a complete constraint on our money supply - which, is needed to be relatively large for a nation as large as the US (vs. a nation as small as Switzerland, which is more able to handle a gold standard) to handle the usual business affairs - all the while not presenting much of a solution of what to replace the Fed with, riding on a total assumption that the economic hell storm that would assume thereafter would somehow fix itself.

4. The fanatical push for a Free Market. Most of the people that push for a Free Market cite that the Government hasn't quite had a good track record with being involved in the economy, while ignoring that an independent economy never had a pristine one either, and all you have to do is take a basic US History course to find that out.

Shall I continue?
User avatar #265 to #264 - LiamNeeson
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
I see where your points come from in a lot of the places here, but I have to say that things Ron Paul was against he also thought the American people had the right to vote on the law at hand. He was against gay marriage, which bothered me, but he also pointed out that he was but one man and the power laid in the votes of the state.

The last two are debatable, and I agree with both you and Ron Paul. A Free Market would solve many problems with banks etc but would hinder the smaller businesses now that he economy has pushed this far.

Also, the Fed could be replaced or remade to be much better, as it has many problems in its current state.
User avatar #269 to #265 - akkere
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
If Ron Paul advocates for the people to vote in the law so extremely, then why does he bother running for President? Why doesn't he just go on to become a political commentator, instead of wasting funding and putting in earmarks for bills he doesn't even support? If he truly believed in public sovereignty, why does he allow himself to have the ability to even funnel those funds to the opposition of what his platform and therefore slapping his supporters in the face, especially the ones that put in some of that money?

A Free Market economy would put smaller businesses in a hunting range of monopolization, workers under risk of unfair treatment from businesses, and even banks would be less vulnerable because now there's no government to tell them what they can and can't do, and if a stock market crash ensues, or the banks fail in an awful investment scheme, who's going to start putting in money to fix that?

Ron Paul has made no sign of initiative that he'd ever replace or reform The Fed into something different, only that he would completely remove it and swap it with the Gold Standard, which would cause a series of problems economically for a nation as large as the US.

My problem is so many of Ron Paul's supporters, like the ones in this very thread, are so fanatical over him, that they treat him like some kind of messiah, all the while having no knowledge of most of his positions or the information regarding the issues he takes a stand on. Not to mention that they ignore the potential that a politician can back down on what he says at any time once he gains the position he sought for.
User avatar #327 to #269 - CoolStoryBrosky
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
In regards to his views on abortion, they are reasonable considering he worked as an obstetrician for decades before he got into politics. Would he let these views affect his position as president? No, because the 10th amendment grants the state government power to legislate on the matter, not the federal.

On your statements regarding the Federal Reserve, he more so pushes for accountability on the Federal Reserve's part, hence the slogan "Audit the Fed." This was seen in the bill he introduced, HR 1207 -- The Federal Reserve Transparency Act.

"I rise to introduce the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95% of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy. How long will we as a Congress stand idly by while hard-working Americans see their savings eaten away by inflation? Only big-spending politicians and politically favored bankers benefit from inflation....

...The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would eliminate restrictions on GAO audits of the Federal Reserve and open Fed operations to enhanced scrutiny. We hear officials constantly lauding the benefits of transparency and especially bemoaning the opacity of the Fed, its monetary policy, and its funding facilities. By opening all Fed operations to a GAO audit and calling for such an audit to be completed by the end of 2010, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act would achieve much-needed transparency of the Federal Reserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill."

Though he hopes for the eventual (and I believe inevitable) collapse of the Federal Reserve, it's not a matter of doing so overnight. It's a matter of systematically taking measures to fix a flawed system.
User avatar #388 to #327 - akkere
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
We don't know if he would or wouldn't let his views affect his position as President. That's the thing; he's a politician, and politicians easily put on a different face once they go presidential.
He can do other things regarding his position that can add to his views, like appoint Supreme Court justices that would more likely than not support his views on creationism (he's also a creationist) and abortion, and no one would even realize until a major case would roll into the big court house. You don't need to have direct access to federal to be able to reach federal. Not to mention his power to veto.

Like I said, the Fed isn't a good thing, but it's necessary for inflation control, because inflation is a big part necessity for our exports to be more purchasable from other foreign business dealings. If you have an excessive amount of deflation; no one buys our products - and considering we're not the industrial power we used to be, (we handed that baton to third world countries and China thanks to outsourcing) that's a pretty big deal.

With that said, I agree Fed transparency is a good thing; there's a lot of things I find agreeable with Paul's policies, but there's also a lot of his policies that take a more extreme end.

His push for the Gold standard would require him to end the Fed completely by eliminating any purpose of having it all. The gold standard means inflation and deflation can't be controlled through the money supply, and at the same time we might have a limited money supply because there isn't a whole lot of gold in the world that can represent a nation as big as the US' cash flow. That's why at one point while we had the Gold standard, it was illegal to hoard non-jewelry gold (such as gold bars and nuggets) because it was believed that the hoarders were killing our economy.
#97 - coonseth
Reply +173 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
The media made him look crazy. I love that man! RON PAUL FOREVER!
#351 to #97 - doubledisme
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
If I was old enough to vote then he has mine!
#364 to #351 - anon id: a8232ef8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
that pretty much sums up the average Ron Paul voter...
#365 to #364 - doubledisme
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
no just because im young or vote third party doesn't mean I vote for the "Cool different guy"
if I was I would be praising oboma
just kidding
I agree with him politically thats all so why you gotta hate?
User avatar #208 to #97 - strooz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
YES, I'm glad others see how intelligent he is verses the average politician. We need more people to help back up Ron Paul!
User avatar #227 to #208 - shoryuken
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
He's not going to run for prez again
2012 was his last chance
shame really
#308 to #227 - aceonfire
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
yeah, but his kid is running this upcoming election. I haven't heard much about his politically views, but I plan on researching them to see if he is anything like his father.
#399 to #308 - coonseth
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
I think we need to keep an eye on him because he endorsed Mitt Romney a bit back but no one seems to remember that. I was more for him before that, he's still way better than any of the other guys (except daddy) but he could have ulterior motives.
I think we need to keep an eye on him because he endorsed Mitt Romney a bit back but no one seems to remember that. I was more for him before that, he's still way better than any of the other guys (except daddy) but he could have ulterior motives.
User avatar #32 - ivoryhammer
Reply -142 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
**** Ron Paul. Old man is insane.
User avatar #46 to #32 - pompladouche
Reply -10 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
Its hard for me to think of anything I have ever agreed with more in my life. Filter out the extreme crazy and you may find some words of wisdom, but not in the context in which he said them
#47 to #32 - anon id: 8495d1ad
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
na dude, na
User avatar #151 to #32 - ompalomper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
you are one short-sighted, naive twit aren't you?
User avatar #154 to #151 - ivoryhammer
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
For seeing the insanity of a senile old man?
User avatar #159 to #154 - ompalomper
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
for ignoring the fact that it's the truth.
User avatar #189 to #159 - ivoryhammer
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
The truth that he's insane? He wants to bring back the gold standard, the same thing that ruined England adter WW2
#202 to #189 - yeorey
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
A gold standard would help limit government spending, which allow for more responsible spending. Not war machine and nation building.
#45 to #32 - possiblydominator
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #42 to #32 - thewowpimp
Reply +111 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
he's the only sane man left in a world gone mad.
#99 to #42 - unikornking
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
#106 to #99 - amuro
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
#94 - imonaboatman
Reply +98 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
The problem is, Ron Paul will never be President because almost all Americans blindly follow either the Republican or Democratic Party because their families/friends/media told them to, with little to no knowledge of what they actually stand for. And it's not just Obama like people seem to think. This sort of stuff has been going on for decades. The whole government is corrupt. It's purpose is not to serve and protect the American people. It's simply an instrument for people to gain power and wealth at the expense of other people's misfortune.   
   
   
inb4 "2edgy4me"
The problem is, Ron Paul will never be President because almost all Americans blindly follow either the Republican or Democratic Party because their families/friends/media told them to, with little to no knowledge of what they actually stand for. And it's not just Obama like people seem to think. This sort of stuff has been going on for decades. The whole government is corrupt. It's purpose is not to serve and protect the American people. It's simply an instrument for people to gain power and wealth at the expense of other people's misfortune.


inb4 "2edgy4me"
User avatar #124 to #94 - jrondeau **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
Bro it's so ingrained in society that they taught me that **** in Senior year history class. Good luck trying to get people to see things your way.
User avatar #212 to #94 - Wazzy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
I liked Ron Paul until I heard his views on Federal Financial Aid for students. How will cutting loans for students who have no other way of paying for college going to help our nation?

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/23/ron-paul-student-loans_n_1027276.html
#238 to #212 - anon id: a9ee31f0
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
I think he's saying that we'll never be able to have an independent president in general
#235 to #94 - anon id: 2666fd27
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
2edgy4me
#282 to #94 - anon id: 5d475367
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
first part is true
second part is kind of true but also a very pessimistic perception
#286 to #282 - anon id: a9ee31f0
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
It may be pessimistic, but it's realistic.
#293 to #286 - anon id: 5d475367
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
in many cases it is, but I honestly think most people seem to bash what they have little knowledge of.
I'm not directing this at you or anyone here, but I've found a lot of the public's views on politics and the process is really just what popular media tells them, which strongly highlights the negativities in politics
User avatar #190 to #94 - Ruspanic
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
Ron Paul has mostly the right principles, but he's too much of an idealogue to make a good President. Paul would probably be idealistic and unyielding in his decision-making.
#119 to #94 - Dakafal
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
Your purple text is burning my retinas.
User avatar #128 to #119 - turnonthenews [OP]
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
Heh heh heh. Select text to make it easier to read.
Like the graphic, dude.
#257 to #94 - stepsword
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
3edgy5me
(dats mor then 2edgy4me)
User avatar #147 to #94 - ompalomper
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
you are 100% correct and sadder yet is the fact that it will never end, not with how it looks right now. the best we can hope for is a corruption that is beneficial for the common people too
#22 - spacedunk
Reply +61 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
How about when Snowden took 4 harddrives of NSA info with him to China and then Russia?
#348 to #22 - anon id: f31efc66
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
First of all Hong Kong isn't China, second, it doesn't mean he is sharing it with him. It just means he wants to have the information. DERP.
#383 to #22 - anon id: 8a2d0487
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
If you knew you were gonna piss of the US goverment, wouldnt you want to bring some bargaining chips along JUST in case?
#416 to #383 - spacedunk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/17/2013) [-]
Maybe, but it still adds legitimacy to the accusations of espionage beyond Snowden just charing information with the US people.

Of all the places in the world the US does not want its' secret information to go, Russia and China has to be near the top.
User avatar #25 to #22 - zafara
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
He sold something to China, we know that much.
User avatar #374 to #25 - itsmewaffle
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
probably meth
User avatar #408 to #374 - zafara
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/17/2013) [-]
Well, as spacedunk says above, he did take some NSA Hard drives with him.
#67 - azinfoo
Reply +59 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
#156 to #67 - srskate
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
#236 to #67 - anon id: b8a4da41
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
"hurr we r legun"

I consider myself free. In this world at least. You think other countries are any better?
User avatar #272 to #236 - rockamekishiko
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
yes
#285 to #272 - jakols
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
Bragging up some Norway up in this bitch!
User avatar #385 to #285 - dlman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
Successbreedsjealousy.jpg
User avatar #326 to #236 - skaffanl
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
Ugh, we'll never be truly free. Freedom for me is to be able to do what I want as long as it is not harmful for others. Well, just watch the police when I light up a joint in the center of town.
#356 to #67 - anon id: 90f4bbc4
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
How does the first half have anything to do with freedom?
#18 - vanoreo
Reply +57 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
#30 - doctoryou
Reply +54 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
20 Bucks says he gets arrested for thought crimes in the next five years
User avatar #34 to #30 - wtsheals
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
sometimes you have to believe 2+2=5
#35 to #34 - doctoryou
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
if everybody believes it, does that make it true?
User avatar #36 to #35 - wtsheals
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
he who controls the past, controls the future
#39 to #36 - doctoryou
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
He who controls the present controls the past.
User avatar #40 to #39 - wtsheals
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
a lunatic is simply a minority of one
#237 to #40 - anon id: 2666fd27
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
We're all going to Room 101 for this
#297 to #237 - anon id: 00521fa8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
i ******* love you guys for this. Best book ever.
#77 - yeorey
Reply +53 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
#245 to #77 - anon id: b8a4da41
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
"Military-style occupation."

You mean closing off the streets to prevent people from walking on the same streets as explosive-throwing, gun-wielding terrorists? You forgot that little tidbit of information. My brother lives in Watertown. He said the cops there were calmly knocking on people's doors and simply asking if they were okay.

******* christ you people exaggerate **** too much.
User avatar #250 to #245 - emrakul
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
Yes. Closing off all the streets unilaterally without any indication of danger. That's called martial law, and it is frowned upon in most societies.
#270 to #250 - anon id: 64380ba5
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
There was no such "martial law"
People were advised to stay indoors, not forced.
#281 to #270 - swagbot
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
Shut up, you ignorant, idiot Anon:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8

There was a curfew. Curfew means 'Stay inside or we shoot you'.
#405 to #270 - anon id: c345187b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
They were forced to abide by the police and were subject to illegal searches. Did you not see the militarized vehicles the police now have? It's very scary.
User avatar #249 to #245 - yeorey
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
You seem to be forgetting the tidbit of info how the suspects were shot to **** without standard procedure and saying "Drop your weapons and come out with your and up." After being shot to ****, they were found unarmed. Even if they were "just knocking on doors" (which they weren't), they still searched peoples homes without warrants. People like you just want to justify the wronging of government Boston Lock-Down door-to-door police raids
#31 - lordbrutaleddie
Reply +24 123456789123345869
(07/15/2013) [-]
#78 to #31 - yeorey
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
Obligatory dumping.
#80 to #78 - yeorey
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
#81 to #80 - yeorey
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
#82 to #81 - yeorey
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
#84 to #82 - yeorey
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#85 to #84 - yeorey
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#86 to #85 - yeorey
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
#87 to #86 - yeorey
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
#88 to #87 - yeorey
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
#89 to #88 - yeorey
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
#90 to #89 - yeorey
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
#92 to #90 - yeorey
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
#278 to #90 - swagbot
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
We could've saved ourselves.

Just disobey insane laws. Easy.
#279 to #278 - yeorey
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]
I agree.
#315 to #279 - omgwtfwhoami
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/16/2013) [-]