The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2

budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
We're hearing the rumblings of Revolution!!!!!

Dr. Paul, you will go down in history along the likes of Jefferson and Lincoln.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
Dan Kone said:
What I'm saying is it would have nothing to do with Ron Paul and his beliefs. It has to do with the way lobbyists will alter any legislation he tries to get past congress in order to make that legislation favor large corporations and the ultra wealthy while hurting everyone else.

Ron Paul is not superman. He can not force congress not to amend legislation based on the recommendation of lobbyists. He has no control over that what so ever. The only way to stop that is to take the money out of political campaigns, that is something Ron Paul opposes.

"The First amendment unquestionably grants individuals and businesses the free and unfettered right to advertise, lobby, and contribute to politicians as they choose." - Ron Paul

The will of the president is irrelevant when lobbyists can just get congress to change any law based on the legal bribes they take from the wealthy and major corporations.

I know you think Obama is some evil boogie man who's primary motivation is to destroy America, but really he's doing what is possible for him to do. His proposals for legislation and the final product that congress produces have been wildly different.

If you think Ron Paul has some superpower that will stop lobbyists from manipulating legislation please explain to me how that works. You offer no reasonable explanations and just claiming Ron Paul never bends his will. Well that's extremely flawed logic when you consider the fact that Ron Paul has no control over the behavior of congress and fully supports the system that allows congress to behave that way.
Click to expand...
I don't think Obama is the boogie man. (amusingly enough, look up the origin of the boogie man) I have some respect for him as a man. He definitely has different ideas as far as how the country should be run and what role the government should have than what I have.

I don't think Ron Paul would negotiate away his ideals. He would stay Dr No, and even if nothing happened at all. I honestly think a lame duck government is better than a government with the power to implement its will. I would rather have a ineffectual and useless government than the alternative. I could never support what our government is and what it is becoming.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
newworldicon said:
Who wants access to the oil, your allies or you...it's obviously both but does it make it okay, my biggest gripe with the USA is it's arrogance as the super power of the world, it acts like the self imposed freedom fighter of all that is democratic yet the rest of the world knows it's actions are self satisfying at the sake of many innocent lives.

What country since the second world war has seen more wars than America? Those wars end and some years later the truth is revealed that the reasons at the time were nothing more than disinformation alluding to the real truth which is usually oil, money, drugs trade, power and position!

And Americans wonder why they are hated...??
Click to expand...
While I agree with your assessment of why we do things while using the guise of protector of democracy, I must point out your obvious bias. The rest of the world is not any better. France, England, Germany, Italy, ect ect all had their turn at the helm. Give me an example of a country that did better running the world? You can't. Why? What you fail to mention is that America's very success is a result of the failure of everyone else. You should perhaps work on fixing what you can fix (Yourself and your government), instead of being envious and hateful of the country who currently resides at the top of the food chain. It is at the top of the food chain because you and yours have failed, not because it has usurped you.

Hate yourself for failure, not the person who succeeds.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
Ron Paul wouldn't be meddling in the business of the rest of the world right now. So you do support him in that.

Also, be reminded that the entire rest of the world failed in this life time - it isn't like it was thousands of years ago. Europe completely fucked up the last 100 years with wars. Even after WW1 if the Allies hadn't of fucked Germany, WW2 would of never happened, and America would still be minding its own business. We would probably still be the a major super power of the world, though.
 
deprave

deprave

New Member
Ron Paul today Time Magazine:
Q&A

http://swampland.time.com/2011/06/20/qa-ron-paul/


campaigns
Q&A: Ron Paul

By Alex Altman Monday, June 20, 2011 | View Comments


  • MORE



Tweet


Patrick Semansky / AP
Republican presidential hopeful, Rep. Ron Paul, speaks at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Friday, June 17, 2011.


In his 12 terms in Congress, Ron Paul has waged many lonely crusades. Before he was a Tea Party standard bearer and a master of the online money bomb, the man known as “Dr. No” was a libertarian icon who regularly bucked his party’s budgets and preached isolationism when his peers were girding for war. But while he’s nurtured a devoted band of supporters, the Texas Republican has been a non-factor in his two prior bids for the White House. Paul is hoping his third bid for the presidency will be different. With the rise of the Tea Party, the center of gravity of the Republican base has shifted toward Paul, particularly on foreign policy. And while the political punditry has again written him off, his supporters believe Paul has the fund-raising might and grassroots army to make a credible challenge for the nomination in 2012.
On June 17, Paul spoke to TIME by phone from New Orleans, where he won the straw poll at the Republican Leadership Conference. A trimmed and lightly edited transcript follows:
Why do you want to be President?
To straighten out the mess that this country is in. To give this country more peace, more prosperity, a sound currency and a lot more security.
Four years ago, you demonstrated your fund-raising prowess and your appeal to a segment of fervent fans. But you weren’t a top contender for the nomination. Why do you expect to do better this time?
Because the country is a completely different country than it was four years ago. People have come to realize that you can’t continue these wars, and both sides now are putting a lot of pressure on the President to back off, especially when it comes to Libya. Also, people are now looking at the Federal Reserve as being a major contributor, if not the entire cause, of financial bubbles and these troubles we have. These are the kind of things I’ve been talking about for 20 to 30 years.
Were you surprised by the degree to which some of your Republican competitors echoed similar views on Libya and Afghanistan during the recent debate in New Hampshire?
You have to give them credit: they are listening and responding. Government is always a reflection of the people’s attitudes. So this is a demonstration of how you get people to think differently, and politicians will respond. I was a little bit surprised, but very pleased, that they were taking an attitude much closer to mine.
You voted against the budget blueprint devised by Paul Ryan and backed by nearly all House Republicans. What would you do, if anything, to reform entitlements as president?
My goal would be to get the federal government out of the entitlement business. It will be a tragedy if we continue to do what we do, because we won’t be able to finance them. If you look at Medicare and Social Secruity and Medicaid, they don’t have the money. What I propose is a transitional period. Let young people get out. Take care of the people who have become so dependent on the government. Work our way out of it. Stop spending this money running a world empire and cut some of the budget that won’t hit the poor.
I believe very sincerely that you could do this. If you change the foreign policy, you could save hundreds of billions of dollars rather quickly. You could get rid of your departments. What are we doing running the Department of Agriculture to the tune of billions of dollars? The Department of Energy, the Department of Education – we just don’t need those things. You could address that and still not have to be seen as attacking health-care for children–even though my goal would be to make the Constitution strong enough and efficient enough that you could wean people off and let young people opt out of this soon and assume responsibility for themselves.
After this “transitional” phase is over, would there be entitlements?
It depends on what the people will tolerate and understand. If they really understood how the free market works and how our Constitution is supposed to be read, that’s conceivable. We will not be able to fulfill the demands of the entitlement system, so we need a lot more people willing to go out and work and assume responsibility for themselves.
In addition to saving money abroad, what policies would you prescribe to spur economic growth here at home?
I would work real hard on the tax code. I want the Federal Reserve to quit creating money out of thin air, because that distorts the economy. That’s central economic planning by manipulating interest rates. Money should come from savings. Where are our savings? They’re overseas. A lot of our companies made money overseas and don’t want to bring it home and get taxed 30% or 40%. They’ve already been taxed overseas. Corporate taxes should be as close to zero as possible.
Then you need to have regulatory relief. The more trouble we get into, the more regulations they add on. They say the lack of regulations was why we had our crisis. Well, the regulations should be placed on the Federal Reserve, not on the businessman. You have to allow the liquidation of debt and the mal-investment. We should have allowed bankruptcies to occur rather than save weak companies.
People often call you the ‘intellectual godfather’ of the Tea Party movement. What’s your appraisal of the current state of the Tea Party?
I think it’s a mixed bag. It’s normal when new groups of people come together that the views won’t be uniform. When that all started during the last campaign, it was pretty uniform because it was based around our platform. It’s a mixed group now. The issue that brings them together – although the details are still a little murky – is they’re tired of the status quo, they’re tired of the debt, they’re tired of the failure of government.
What grade would you give the new House Republican majority for its performance so far this session?
Pretty good. The circumstances are so overwhelming. Some days I’m very happy; some days I get a little disappointed with the votes of the new members. But the sentiment against all this war going on, and bringing troops home, and not going into Libya, that’s where I give them a very strong plus.
And if you were going to give them an A to F grade?
I’d give them a pretty good grade on effort, but I’d give them a C- on their realization of what they’re really facing and not quite comprehending the whole issue. Take Paul Ryan. I didn’t vote for his [budget], but I’m the last one to jump on him. Those who didn’t want any changes, who didn’t want to cut a thing, jumped on him and said he was an evil monster for even thinking about this. Of course, my complaint was he really didn’t do anything. This year is the only thing that counts. These plans that tinker with things 10 years out are not comprehensive enough. He made an effort and people wanted to destroy him. They blamed him for losing the congressional seat [in New York]. Congress is basically filled with demagogues and power-mongers.
You said recently that fellow Texan Rick Perry represented the “status quo.” Are there any competitors for the nomination who do not represent the status quo?
I think they all pretty much represent the status quo. How many others would bring the troops home? How many others want to audit the Fed – and get rid of the Fed someday? How many others want to repeal the Patriot Act? How many are saying the war on drugs is a total failure, a waste of money? So yes, they are the status quo, some more so than others.
Have you seen any of them introduce good new ideas?
No, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t had any. Maybe I just haven’t paid enough attention. I’d be open to what they say, but none have caught my attention.
Your son, the senator from Kentucky, made some comments that suggested he was mulling jumping into the race. Did you two have conversations about your respective plans?
We did not. I think he basically knew what my plans were, even though I never talked to him about it. We don’t have many conversations about votes and things. About 99% of the time we probably agree. He did stay at my condo for awhile, but he got a place closer to the Senate. So I don’t see him all that much. I see the other children a lot more because they live in Texas. Even though he’s in Washington I probably see him the least.
Would you vote to raise the debt limit if the deal to do so contained spending reductions equal to or exceeding the $2.4 trillion it would take to raise the borrowing limit through 2012?
The promises to cut spending, which is supposed to be the temptation to vote for the debt increase, I think is a trick. Are they going to do it this year? Next year? Or is it going to be a 10-year program? There is no value to promises to make cuts in the future. In the 1980s they had a tax increase and it was agreed that for every dollar of increased taxes, there would be two dollars of spending cuts. What happened to the deficit in the 1980s? It still exploded.
You’re known for voting your ideology. Are you willing to compromise this time around to enhance your chances of winning the nomination?
That would be like crossing your fingers as you take an oath of office. Instead of compromising, I work with coalitions. Some of my best groups have been working with progressive Democrats. They understand civil liberties and they understand war, and many of them, believe it or not, think deficits are bad. They like transparency of the Fed. I think working with coalitions without sacrificing any principle is the way to go. If you say now is the time to compromise, you’re also saying your oath of office is worth about 50%.
What would a Ron Paul presidency look like?
There would be changes on Day 1. I’d do everything conceivable to trade with [foreign countries] rather than intimidating them. I’d try to relieve some of the tension. I certainly wouldn’t have warships in the Black Sea trying to stir up a new Cold War with the Russians. That’s crazy. The rest of it, you have to get a consensus, get Congress to pass laws. You could back off on regulations. The federal register is big enough. That would be a signal to the business people: Wow, he doesn’t like taxes. You could do a lot to change the atmosphere, the intimidation that Big Government places on our business community.
Click to expand...
 
deprave

deprave

New Member
National Examiner


Ron Paul releases his financial and budget plans for Presidency


http://www.examiner.com/finance-exam...for-presidency
Congressman Ron Paul is making strong waves in the early Republican primary season, and on June 20th, he released his four point campagin platform for financial and budgetary plans should he win the Presidency in 2012.

The primary points of the platform include demands for a balanced budget, vetoing any bill regarding funding for Planned Parenthood, entirely stop implementation of Obamacare, and lastly, repeal through Executive Order any and all regulations that are unsound, and lead to restrictions on good business practices.

“But, there are several things that I will do right away to strengthen the fight for Constitutional government.

“First, I will veto any spending bills that contribute to an unbalanced budget.

“Second, I will veto any spending bill that contains funding for Planned Parenthood, facilities that perform abortion and all government family planning schemes.

“Third, I will direct my administration to cease any further implementation of ObamaCare.

“And fourth, I will on day one of my administration begin to repeal by Executive Order unconstitutional and burdensome regulations on American business. I will be the first President to shrink the size of the Federal Register. We must create a favorable regulatory environment for U.S. business. This cannot be stressed enough.”


Unlike most politicians, Congressman Paul has outlined specific items and methods he intends to implement once in office. There are few generic promises (no specific regulations to repeal), and mostly concrete gaurantees on how he would use the office of the Presidency to accomplish what Congress has failed to do for decades.

For voters wondering about these promises, all one needs to do is look at his Congressional voting record, and proposed legislation while in office. He has quite often been the lone advocate for fiscal responsibility by Congress, and a staunch defender for the American people against the Fed, and banking oligarchies.

For the current, and future Republican candidates, this platform will be difficult to follow when it comes to fiscal promises made to the American people. Nearly every candidate has a history in some fashion of big government legislation, or indecisiveness in following through with their own previous campagin promises.

With Ron Paul releasing his four point financial and budgetary platform to the American people, and methods on exactly how he would implement it, the 2012 campaign just got ratcheted up for both the Republican candidates vying for office, and President Obama who seeks a second term.
Click to expand...
[video=youtube;0J2QdDbelmY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J2QdDbelmY[/video]
 
deprave

deprave

New Member
holy crap just saw a ron paul hit piece on msnbc...Laurence O'Donnell or whatever said he wants paul to stay in because of his position on gay marriage is the most common sense hes ever herd....he said "ron paul is wrong on a lot of things...he is wrong on the debt ceiling...he is wrong on the economy...but one thing he is right about is marriage equality"

Funny the pencil dick doesnt even realize Ron Paul agrees with him on the debt ceiling and also that Ron Paul is a much superior economist then he is as some news pundit douche, and hell he'd probably agree with ron paul on the economy if he understood what Ron Paul was saying...anyway....goodnite
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
deprave said:
holy crap just saw a ron paul hit piece on msnbc...Laurence O'Donnell or whatever said he wants paul to stay in because of his position on gay marriage is the most common sense hes ever herd....he said "ron paul is wrong on a lot of things...he is wrong on the debt ceiling...he is wrong on the economy...but one thing he is right about is marriage equality"

Funny the pencil dick doesnt even realize Ron Paul agrees with him on the debt ceiling and also that Ron Paul is a much superior economist then he is as some news pundit douche, and hell he'd probably agree with ron paul on the economy if he understood what Ron Paul was saying...anyway....goodnite
Click to expand...
I'm a huge proponent of Ron Paul. I do plan to vote for him. However, I do not believe his argument for the marriage laws are in defense of the constitution one bit. Our founding fathers said that we must protect the rights of the minority as well as the majority:
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. - Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...
To make gay marriage illegal, and even to make the states have an option to make it illegal is not just an oppression of sexuality, but an oppression of religious beliefs. It also violates seperation between church and state because his ideals on this matter are founded in his own religious values and do not consider any others religious views in the matter. Now, I'm all for states rights to choose, but our federal government was set up by the founding fathers to protect the life, and liberty of all of its people because all man was created equal. Thomas Jefferson is saying that just because 60% of a states population agrees with the law, it does not necessarily make it a just law and the federal government must not allow it to be enforced.

I have to say, personally RP's stance on gay marriage and abortion (i guess this matter is quite debatable) are the two issues that have tainted RP's image in my eyes. I don't understand how you can skew constitutionalism to reflect a stance that is so clearly unconstitutional. Perhaps another RP supporter might be able to steer me in the right direction. (Just to clear the air: I'm a liberitarian, atheist, who is pro-choice, and a heterosexual)
 
deprave

deprave

New Member
ummm Ron Pauls position is that the government shouldn't be involved in giving out marriage licenses, that it should be a private thing, that we shouldn't tell anyone who they can marry, seems pretty constitutional to me.

heres the video in question:
[video=youtube;E634EatKadc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E634EatKadc[/video]



abortion well RP believes in the pursuit of happiness endowed by out creator for all life so his stance on abortion is in his mind an issue of liberty, and I mean he delivered 4,000 babies, so for him he hears the heart beating of the fetus everyday....really its just love for life...for him its not about being "pro-choice"..he thinks "well what about the babies choice"....
 
newworldicon

newworldicon

Well-Known Member
Dan Kone said:
Not the only country who does that, we just have the dominant military force so we do it on a larger scale. Pretty much any country in the world would do the same if they had the dominant military force, and they have and much more brutally in most cases.

Basically what you're saying translates into "boohoo we don't have as strong an army as you". What country are you from anyways?
Click to expand...
Dan I love the way you make it sound like I am jealous, LOL how American. Let's face it pal....you are just pissed cause I said what many are thinking, Americans are idiots for the most part, not all of them but boy your nation is colluded.

Although this is not just the Americans, it's the British too, they are all a bunch of idiots at times.

I am from South Africa but I live in the UK because my line of work demands that I am in London for various reasons. Growing up in SA I always looked at you guys and thought how cool life would be being in your shoes, I envied you... education was supposedly high, living standards high etc. the world was your oyster compared to suppressive SA, but then when I grew up and moved to a first world country (UK) and did plenty travelling across the US, Canada, most of Europe I began to realise that the "first world" part was a myth, a lie. Most people I spoke to had not even heard of my country, the ones who did wondered if we had planes yet or did I take an elephant taxi to the steam ship which brought me here, what sort off clothes did I wear in the wild.....this sort of absolute ignorance....it has not stopped and it has never stopped amazing me how beligerant most Americans and British people are. Now I am not saying ALL people are like this but I have witnessed with my own two eyes that there are many many like this which frankly is astounding by any account and may I make it clear that this was not experienced in small one horse towns but in cities!!

How can an adult not know where a country is on a map or a capital city etc.....these little things imply a lot, a lot more than at first glance....it underpins the reality that most westerners from the moment they are born are fed a daily diet of disinformation, propaganda and more importantly are systematically dumbed down for the purposes of mass control by the corporate/government collusion. Any way you slice it this is the only reality.

And before you say what about South Africa...well they are not exempt, trust me!! The only difference was that when I was growing up the western way was not as mainstream as it is now.

Look into "race specific biological weapons development" and you will see the true nature of a racist SA.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
sync0s said:
I'm a huge proponent of Ron Paul. I do plan to vote for him. However, I do not believe his argument for the marriage laws are in defense of the constitution one bit. Our founding fathers said that we must protect the rights of the minority as well as the majority:

To make gay marriage illegal, and even to make the states have an option to make it illegal is not just an oppression of sexuality, but an oppression of religious beliefs. It also violates seperation between church and state because his ideals on this matter are founded in his own religious values and do not consider any others religious views in the matter. Now, I'm all for states rights to choose, but our federal government was set up by the founding fathers to protect the life, and liberty of all of its people because all man was created equal. Thomas Jefferson is saying that just because 60% of a states population agrees with the law, it does not necessarily make it a just law and the federal government must not allow it to be enforced.

I have to say, personally RP's stance on gay marriage and abortion (i guess this matter is quite debatable) are the two issues that have tainted RP's image in my eyes. I don't understand how you can skew constitutionalism to reflect a stance that is so clearly unconstitutional. Perhaps another RP supporter might be able to steer me in the right direction. (Just to clear the air: I'm a liberitarian, atheist, who is pro-choice, and a heterosexual)
Click to expand...
Ron Paul is for gay equality, he is for equality for everyone. First, he would make it so everyone payed the same tax. Gay married, straight married, single, old and young. He would work to make sure every person is treated the same by the federal government. That is what equality is about. Why should the government have any say in marriage? They shouldn't. Marriage is a religious thing. This is Ron Pauls view on it.

[video=youtube;N9yMxIldwCc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9yMxIldwCc[/video]

Unfortunately, what most people don't catch is that if you give the federal government the right to regulate marriage whether it be for or against gay people is that in the future the peoples ideas will change again and maybe they will decide marriage is bad altogether and ban it, or so on. Some people might mock me for saying that could ever happen, but it could. Look at what the Soviet Union did to religion in their reign. Sure, I think people who go to church two or three times a week, knock on my door on Saturday morning, and tell me that the world is only a couple thousand years old are slow at best, but rounding up thousands of priests and bishops and murdering them and taking over all church property and bulldozing major churches is a bit of a stretch.

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are great examples of authoritarian governments. The more laws we add, and the more things we outlaw, the closer to that we get. How many laws does the federal government make a year? How many do they get rid of? It is easy to see which direction we are headed. Does anyone really see our government getting rid of laws and not making any more about things they shouldn't be involved in? Between the fed and the state governments you don't have the right to buy unprocessed milk or change your door without a permit and inspection. Yet, they keep 'raising standards' and making more laws. When will the day come when the people have absolutely no power over their own lives? No one really knows. We could change this, and stop what is happening. Ron Paul is the captain who could steer this ship around the storm we are headed towards.

Sometimes I realize I support things I would never allow in my own life and that I find disgusting. I can't imagine ever wanting a guy to ram my ass full of cock, and I can't imagine wanting my wife to have my child scraped out of her inside. That is my personal belief. However, I know my beliefs should not be forced on others and I would never want those rights taken from other people. Ron Paul has a war waging inside of him about abortion, because of his personal beliefs. However, if you look at his voting record he votes against bills he might morally agree with because they are against the constitution. While you might not agree with his beliefs, his actions speak more clearly. Ron Paul is uncompromised and votes against his beliefs if it is the right thing to do for liberty. He has a 30 year record of voting for liberty, who else can say that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top