Yeah that was a zinger.

oliver stone would vote for RP over BO?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/206057-oliver-stone-would-vote-for-ron-paul-over-president-obama?utm_campaign=briefingroom&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterfeed

the most interesting read is in the comments, imo. i tend to agree with how this one dude voiced it:

"It's about the issues, like it always is. Clearly Oliver Stone is anti-war, and anti-police-state. Clearly this and our debt are his top issues. He may be in the camp with most liberals who seem to believe war spending is the only thing that needs to be cut to balance our budget, but the fact remains that the two issues he cares most about are two things Obama promised. Obama promised to end the wars, and thus drastically reduce overseas spending. Bush increased spending substantially, especially overseas on Wars. McCain promised more of the same. It makes perfect sense for someone like Stone to support Obama in that matchup.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that could beat Obama, because when it comes to a general election, people will vote their values. They will vote for the candidate that agrees with them on whatever they deem the most important issues. For MANY liberals, the most important issues are:

1. End to the wars and Team America, World Police
2. End to the drug wars
3. The government out of the personal lives (more civil liberties)

Ron Paul beats Obama on those issues. Even if they want more government involvement in the economy, they'll vote for Ron Paul because Obama has failed for 3.5 years to even attempt to deliver on the MOST important issues to them.

More importantly, the number of Republicans that would rather not vote or vote for Obama than for Ron Paul is incredibly small compared to the number of Paul supporters that would vote for Obama, not vote, or write Paul in. Most polls show that 20% of voters would vote for Paul in a general election under a libertarian ticket. Ignoring him and ridiculing him and his followers is not a winning strategy. It will in fact insure Obama's second term."

(would like to hear from jpc/veta about those 3 points that the dude listed... im sort of out of touch with the mainstream liberal movement, are those 3 pillars of the liberal supporters? i would guess that, as GOP ppl would brand it, a welfare-state is one of the main pillars as well?)

(honest question, dont mean to ask a biased one!)

Those are all pretty broad things that I agree with in general. The key there though is "in general." I mean the whole civil-liberties thing can be used by either-side.

For instance - I'm probably way more moderate/conservative on gun control than most Democrats, but I see nothing wrong with an assault rifle ban in DC. However, that's certainly something that could be an attack on our "liberty."

I couldn't really care less about the war on drugs aside from marijuana. Pretty much any other drug can kill you on the spot - if they want to regulate that or not, I don't really care. (Though it's obviously hypocritical that booze is legal...).

Foreign policy, wars or otherwise, is too complicated case-by-case to really agree with anything sweeping on one side or the other. Obviously was against the Iraq war - not so much against the Afghanistan one. Plenty of bad and plenty of good has come from our involvement in other countries in recent decades IMO, I don't think I could really define my stance on it, but it's somewhere in the middle and definitely not "we shouldn't be involving ourselves in the affairs of other countries."

That all being said, RP has far too many things that are too conservative for me to support him. Mainly his stance on abortion, Church/State separation, discrimination policies, and labor rights.

Is he anti-gay rights too? I'd have to look that up. I'm pretty sure he doesn't "believe" in evolution or man-made global warming, so yeah that's too wacko for me.

Okay, to sum up my thoughts that may or may not represent more liberals: He's got some left leaning appeal in a few areas but it doesn't make up for his other views.

makes sense. he is a funny old kook. theres something admirable about him sticking to his beliefs (not saying i agree with all of them). but i cant even fathom the strength of belief he must have in order not to think to himself, you know what, if i retreat a little from my crazy-ass stance on foreign policy, i could get a shit-ton more votes. but thats the reason a lot more people (youth i guess?) respect the guy, cus he was saying some crazy shit ten years ago, and there are so many house votes that went 400-something for to 1 against, where he turned out to be the 1 that seemed to have the correct stance (economy or invasion of middle east).

i just wish he were only like 60 years old, so that in 4 years we could see another cycle. no way he can do this again at 80.

oh, and i really wish the media (esp foxnews) would give him a "fair and balanced" portion of time to express his kooky shit. its very odd seeing how much insane support he gets on the ground wherever he campaigns as compared to the mitt gingorum, and yet, none of that is reflected in the conservative news. le sigh.

ive said this before, but because of the RP media coverage, my entire approach to media has changed for good. i used to just go to the mainstream sites, but you really cant find much anything about RP, they avoid him like the plague.

basically, you do what all his campaign signs say: "google ron paul". then you find the (more-biased) nonmainstream news sites/blogs, and you have to sift through dozens of them, and you can get a decent grasp of who the man is and what he stands for (and how he is the 2nd coming of jesus christ, or the devil incarnate)

srsly fuck the media.

yep I agree.

I admire his perseverance and dedication to his ideals - and I think he's a free-thinker and not a pawn for his party.

And I too wish the media game him a fair share, but I wish a lot of evil things would change...

Being crazy is a deal breaker for some Americans...

caught Sean Penn on Piers Morgan last night. In brief, beautifully summarized some extremely key issues. Shows a strong understanding as to the incessant problems associated with "language" conditioning. Sane, reasonable, and as always, congruent in his communication. I've admired the guys keen insight to the larger and critical issues for awhile now. It's that sort of character that's not only desperately needed but horribly absent in any of the current choice of candidates.

lol foxnews. yet another blatant attempt to smear RP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkWzECoYMaw

they later apologized, but defended the error, and never showed the real clip.