Ron Paul 2008
farfromglorified
Posts: 5,696
I'm going to use this thread to post Ron Paul related items. Mr. Paul used last night's first Republican debate to really separate himself from the crowd and put forth some very strong opinions on the direction our Federal Government is heading in. He was very impressive and a lot of the post-debate polls show him gaining wider support. However, Paul is unlikely to win the Republican nomination when faced by the big money and media-preferred candidates like Giuliani and McCain. But if Ron can end up influencing the party, and sending it back towards traditional Conservative policies, that will be a small victory in and of itself.
Here's some more info on Ron if you are unfamiliar:
BIOGRAPHY, IN BRIEF:
Ronald Ernest “Ron” Paul (born 20 August 1935) is a 10-term Congressman, medical doctor (M.D.), and a 2008 presidential candidate from the U.S. state of Texas. As a Republican, he has represented Texas's 14th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1997, and had previously served as the representative from Texas's 22nd district in 1976 and from 1979 to 1985.
POSITIONS, IN BRIEF:
- Is a strict constitutionalist, therefore believing in small federal government
- Never voted to raise taxes or congressional pay.
- Voted against the Patriot Act
- Voted against the Iraq War.
- Opposes fiat currency.
- Opposes intervention in Iran, including sanctions.
- Opposes NAFTA.
- Opposes National ID.
- Believes the 16th Amendment (income tax) should be repealed.
- Believes Roe V Wade should be repealed, and that abortion rights should determined by the states without involvement from the federal government.
- Opposes WTO
- Opposes foreign intervention (is an isolationist)
- Opposes Capital Punishment.
- Believes gay marriage is a states-right issue (though he has some contradictions here).
- Opposes the War on Drugs.
- Opposes all federal regulation of the Internet.
- Opposes entitlements for illegal immigrants.
- He has never taken a government-paid junket.
- He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
- He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
- He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
- He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
- Values exchange as the primary means of human interrelations, not force.
WIKI ENTRY FOR MR. PAUL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
WIKI ENTRY ON MR. PAUL'S POLITICAL VIEWS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Ron_Paul
YOU TUBE JUNK (more to come...)
Nice statement on Lou Dobbs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL8aV7oYJh8
Ron questions Ben Bernake's authority (and sanity)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q
Interview on New Hampshire local TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3RJVDe4oS4
Ron on Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RBBV-_Uudk
Interview on Lou Dobbs (who was apparently a girl on that day)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEJJ1GHteLM
Ron Paul encourages Congress to defund Iraq War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joJvz4R1X4Y
Statements at 5/3 debate *NEW*
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8Hfa7vT02lA
Official campaign site: (thanks jeffbr)
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
MYSPACE PAGE (thanks baraka)
http://www.myspace.com/congressmanronpaul
DONATE!!!!!!
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/forms/contribute.cfm
Here's some more info on Ron if you are unfamiliar:
BIOGRAPHY, IN BRIEF:
Ronald Ernest “Ron” Paul (born 20 August 1935) is a 10-term Congressman, medical doctor (M.D.), and a 2008 presidential candidate from the U.S. state of Texas. As a Republican, he has represented Texas's 14th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1997, and had previously served as the representative from Texas's 22nd district in 1976 and from 1979 to 1985.
POSITIONS, IN BRIEF:
- Is a strict constitutionalist, therefore believing in small federal government
- Never voted to raise taxes or congressional pay.
- Voted against the Patriot Act
- Voted against the Iraq War.
- Opposes fiat currency.
- Opposes intervention in Iran, including sanctions.
- Opposes NAFTA.
- Opposes National ID.
- Believes the 16th Amendment (income tax) should be repealed.
- Believes Roe V Wade should be repealed, and that abortion rights should determined by the states without involvement from the federal government.
- Opposes WTO
- Opposes foreign intervention (is an isolationist)
- Opposes Capital Punishment.
- Believes gay marriage is a states-right issue (though he has some contradictions here).
- Opposes the War on Drugs.
- Opposes all federal regulation of the Internet.
- Opposes entitlements for illegal immigrants.
- He has never taken a government-paid junket.
- He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
- He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
- He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
- He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
- Values exchange as the primary means of human interrelations, not force.
WIKI ENTRY FOR MR. PAUL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
WIKI ENTRY ON MR. PAUL'S POLITICAL VIEWS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Ron_Paul
YOU TUBE JUNK (more to come...)
Nice statement on Lou Dobbs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL8aV7oYJh8
Ron questions Ben Bernake's authority (and sanity)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q
Interview on New Hampshire local TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3RJVDe4oS4
Ron on Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RBBV-_Uudk
Interview on Lou Dobbs (who was apparently a girl on that day)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEJJ1GHteLM
Ron Paul encourages Congress to defund Iraq War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joJvz4R1X4Y
Statements at 5/3 debate *NEW*
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8Hfa7vT02lA
Official campaign site: (thanks jeffbr)
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
MYSPACE PAGE (thanks baraka)
http://www.myspace.com/congressmanronpaul
DONATE!!!!!!
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/forms/contribute.cfm
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Paul has run for president on the Libertarian ticket in the past. The problem is that when runs on that ticket, one has to resign oneself to defeat immediately. You get no exposure, and you don't get to participate in forums like last night's. I think Mr. Paul wants to run as a Republican here in order to try to influence the party and bring it back towards its Libertarian roots.
A dumb question, I sure, but why is that exactly?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Q: Modify Constitution to allow foreign-born citizens to run for President
Paul: I'm a no, because I am a strong supporter of the original intent.
Moderator: Oh, God.
Moderator: Congressman Paul, you voted against the war. Why are all your fellow Republicans up here wrong?
Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas): That's a very good question. And you might ask the question, why are 70 percent of the American people now wanting us out of there, and why did the Republicans do so poorly last year?
So I would suggest that we should look at foreign policy. I'm suggesting very strongly that we should have a foreign policy of non- intervention, the traditional American foreign policy and the Republican foreign policy.
Throughout the 20th century, the Republican Party benefited from a non-interventionist foreign policy. Think of how Eisenhower came in to stop the Korean War. Think of how Nixon was elected to stop the mess in Vietnam.
How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don't police the world. That's conservative, it's Republican, it's pro-American -- it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution.
I tried very hard to solve this problem before we went to war by saying, "Declare war if you want to go to war. Go to war, fight it and win it, but don't get into it for political reasons or to enforce U.N. resolutions or pretend the Iraqis were a national threat to us
Moderator: Congressman Paul, Pete from Rochester Hills, Michigan wants to ask you this. If you were president, would you work to phase out the IRS?
(Laughter)
Paul: Immediately.
(Laughter)
Moderator: That's what they call a softball.
Paul: And you can only do that if you change our ideas about what the role of government ought to be.
If you think that government has to take care of us, from cradle to grave, and if you think our government should police the world and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a foreign policy that we cannot manage, you can't (ph) get rid of the IRS; but, if you want to lower taxes and if you want the government to quit printing the money to come up with shortfall and cause all the inflation, you have to change policy.
Moderator: OK, let me go to -- Dr. Paul, how do you reconcile this moral, moral leadership kind of role of conservatism with the very libertarian strain of conservatism -- the Barry Goldwater conservatism that you represent? How do you put together what he just said with what you believe in a unified national purpose?
Paul: Well, you do it by understanding of what the goal of government ought to be. If the goal of government is to be the policeman of the world, you lose liberty. And if the goal is to promote liberty, you can unify all segments. The freedom message brings us together; it doesn't divide us.
I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood up to the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now we're fretting day in and day and night about third-world countries that have no army, navy or air force, and we're getting ready to go to war.
But the principle, the moral principle, is that of defending liberty and minimizing the scope of government.
Moderator: Congressman Paul, Bob Hussay (ph) from Minnesota writes that perhaps the most important skill a good president must have is the ability to make good, sound decisions, often in a crisis situation.
Please cite an example when you had to make a decision in crisis.
Paul: I wonder if he's referring to a political decision like running for office, or something like that.
(Laughter)
I guess, in medicine, I made a lot of critical decisions.
Paul: I mean, you're called upon all the time to make critical, life-saving decisions. But I can't think of any one particular event where I made a critical decision that affected a lot of other people. But I think all our decisions we make in politics are critical.
My major decision, political decision, which was a constitutional decision, was to urge for 5 years that this country not go to war in Iraq.
Moderator: That's a yes. Dr. Paul, yes or no on federal funding [for stem cell research]?
Paul: Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution.
The trouble with issues like this is, in Washington we either prohibit it or subsidize it. And the market should deal with it, and the states should deal with it.
Q: As president, taxes you would cut
Paul: Well, in my first week, I already got rid of the income tax.
In my second week, I would get rid of the inflation tax. It's a tax that nobody talks about.
We live way beyond our means, with a foreign policy we can't afford, and an entitlement system that we have encouraged. We print money for it. The value of the money goes down, and poor people pay higher prices.
That is a tax. That's a transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to Wall Street. Wall Street's doing quite well, but the inflation tax is eating away at the middle class of this country. We need to get rid of the inflation tax with sound money.
Moderator: Congressman Paul, Carrie from Connecticut asks: Do you trust the mainstream media?
(Laughter)
Paul: Some of them.
(Laughter)
But I trust the Internet a lot more, and I trust the freedom of expression. And that's why we should never interfere with the Internet. That's why I've never voted to regulate the Internet. Even when there's the temptation to put bad things on the Internet, regulation of bad and good on the Internet should be done differently.
But, no, there's every reason to believe that we have enough freedom in this country to have freedom of expression. And that's what is important. And whether or not we trust the mainstream or not, I think you pick and choose. There are some friends, and some aren't so friendly.
Paul: I am absolutely opposed to a national ID card. This is a total contradiction of what a free society is all about.
Paul: The purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and the privacy of all individuals, not the secrecy of government. We don't need a national ID card.
Moderator: OK. Dr. Paul, do you want to pardon [scooter libby]?
Paul: No. He doesn't need a pardon. But he doesn't need it because he was instrumental in the misinformation that led the Congress and the people to support a war that we didn't need to be in.
Moderator: I want to get to the next question. I'm sorry, because you can expand on your thought as part of this answer.
I asked about raising taxes. It was almost like the Reagan round here. Everybody wanted to do that. I'm sure he was listening to that good thought.
(Laughter)
But let me ask you about something else that might be a negative in the upcoming campaign. Seriously.
Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?
Paul: I am known for sticking to principle and not flip- flopping. I voted to impeach him, so...
(Laughter)
Moderator: Let me start with a question. In all seriousness, if you want to pass, please pass it. We don't have much time.
Every president, if you look back to Ike, was elected to fill the problem of the previous president. We are, of course, correcting all the time in this country; it's how democracy works.
How will you be different, in any way, from President George W. Bush?
Paul: I certainly would continue on my earlier theme that foreign policy needs to be changed -- Mr. Republican, Robert Taft, we have a statue of him in Washington.
He advocated the same foreign policy that I advocate.
I would work very hard to protect the privacy of American citizens, being very, very cautious about warrantless searches. And I would guarantee that I would never abuse habeas corpus.
Well, it's a lot of reasons. First, there are no Libertarian debates that would be covered by mainstream media. Second, the Libertarian Party is a small, fringe operation that can't raise the hundreds of millions of dollars like Democrats and Republicans can. Third, the media doesn't know how to position these candidates since they don't have the built-in appeal of representing the dominant sects in politics.
The Libertarian Party is terribly run, and it is really dominated by a schism between anarchists and American constructionalists. They've never really been able to put forth a consistent, marketable message that has any broad-based appeal as a political platform.
It's not a dumb question at all, really. It's terribly broad, however!
"But in a debate featuring 10 candidates—seven of whom are barely known to the American public—the lack of combat didn’t do much to help clarify voters’ choices.
On Iraq, all of the candidates, with the exception of libertarian Texas Congressman Ron Paul, stuck with the president on the war to some degree."
WTF??? Seems pretty clear to me Newsweek
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Also, and I probably just haven't researched it well, what is the 'plan' once we end this failure of a war? Do we blow Iraq a kiss, shrug our shoulders and wish them the best of luck?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Defunding the war brings them home, yes. War requires capital, and if you cutoff the capital, you cutoff the conflict.
Effectively, yes. Paul supports a complete end to American involvement in Iraq:
Ron Paul Before the U.S. House of Representatives, April 17, 2007
"All the reasons given to justify a preemptive strike against Iraq were wrong. Congress and the American people were misled.
Support for the war came from various special interests that had agitated for an invasion of Iraq since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, stated that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was official U.S. policy. This policy was carried out in 2003.
Congress failed miserably in meeting its crucial obligations as the branch of government charged with deciding whether to declare war. It wrongly and unconstitutionally transferred this power to the president, and the president did not hesitate to use it.
Although it is clear there was no cause for war, we just marched in. Our leaders deceived themselves and the public with assurances that the war was righteous and would be over quickly. Their justifications were false, and they failed to grasp even basic facts about the chaotic political and religious history of the region.
Congress bears the greater blame for this fiasco. It reneged on its responsibility to declare or not declare war. It transferred this decision-making power to the executive branch, and gave open sanction to anything the president did. In fact the founders diligently tried to prevent the executive from possessing this power, granting it to Congress alone in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
Today just about everyone acknowledges the war has gone badly, and 70% of the American people want it to end. Our national defense is weakened, the financial costs continue to drain us, our allies have deserted us, and our enemies are multiplying – not to mention the tragic toll of death and injury suffered by American forces.
Iraq is a mess, and we urgently need a new direction – but our leaders offer only hand-wringing and platitudes. They have no clear-cut ideas to end the suffering and war. Even the most ardent war hawks cannot begin to define victory in Iraq.
As an Air Force officer serving from 1963–1968, I heard the same agonizing pleas from the American people. These pleas were met with the same excuses about why we could not change a deeply flawed policy and rethink the war in Vietnam. That bloody conflict, also undeclared and unconstitutional, seems to have taught us little despite the horrific costs.
Once again, though everyone now accepts that the original justifications for invading Iraq were not legitimate, we are given excuses for not leaving. We flaunt our power by building permanent military bases and an enormous billion-dollar embassy, yet claim we have no plans to stay in Iraq permanently. Assurances that our presence in Iraq has nothing to do with oil are not believed in the Middle East.
The argument for staying – to prevent civil war and bring stability to the region – logically falls on deaf ears.
If the justifications for war were wrong;
If the war is going badly;
If we can’t afford the costs, both human and economic;
If civil war and chaos have resulted from our occupation;
If the reasons for staying are no more credible than the reasons for going;
THEN…..
Why the dilemma? The American people have spoken, and continue to speak out, against this war. So why not end it? How do we end it? Why not exactly the way we went in? We just marched in, and we can just march out.
More good things may come of it than anyone can imagine. Consider our relationship with Vietnam, now our friendly trading partner. Certainly we are doing better with her than when we tried to impose our will by force. It is time to march out of Iraq and march home."
It isn't as simple as it sounds. We aren't just up and leaving (if a troop withdrawal were affected). We would "simply" be de-militarizing the current military role while downsizing the force. Our troops would cease being aggressors, and basically hang out at the developing US bases as a presence, rather than an occupying militia.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
The more the merrier.
I see, thanks for clarifying gue.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Oops. forgot this was the Ron Paul thread. Paul would probably defund the US bases being built.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Ron Paul on Drugs
Republican Representative (TX-14)
Legalize industrial hemp
Paul believes in the legalization of industrial hemp. Paul supported HR 3037 to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana. This bill would have given the states the power to regulate farming of hemp. The measure would be a first since the national prohibition of industrial hemp farming in the United States. He favors the legalization of marijuana.
Source: SourceWatch.org Jan 22, 2007
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism.
Amendment to set up a task force on counter-terrorism and drug interdiction and allow military personnel to help patrol U.S. borders.
Bill HR 2586 ; vote number 2001-356 on Sep 25, 2001
Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests.
Drug Demand Reduction Act: Vote on an amendment to require that anyone hired by the Federal Government is subject to random, unannounced drug testing.
Reference: Amendment by Taylor, D-MS; bill by Portman, R-OH.; Bill HR 4550 ; vote number 1998-443 on Sep 16, 1998
War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights .
Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:
As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.
WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:
While recognizing the harm that drug abuse causes society, we also recognize that government drug policy has been ineffective and has led to frightening abuses of the Bill of Rights which could affect the personal freedom of any American. We, therefore, support alternatives to the War on Drugs.
Per the tenth amendment to the US Constitution, matters such as drugs should be handled at the state or personal level.
All laws which give license to violate the Bill of Rights should be repealed.
Source: Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement 00-RLC13 on Dec 8, 2000
Legalize medical marijuana.
Paul sponsored the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act:
Title: To provide for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various States. Summary: Transfers marijuana from schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act to schedule II of such Act. Declares that, in a State in which marijuana may be prescribed or recommended by a physician for medical use under applicable State law, no provision of the Controlled Substances Act shall prohibit or otherwise restrict:
the prescription or recommendation of marijuana by a physician for medical use;
an individual from obtaining and using marijuana from a physician's prescription or recommendation of marijuana for medical use; or
a pharmacy from obtaining and holding marijuana for the prescription or recommendation of marijuana by a physician for medical use under applicable State law.
Prohibits any provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act from prohibiting or restricting a State entity from producing or distributing marijuana for the purpose of its distribution for prescription or recommendation by a physician in a State in which marijuana may be prescribed by a physician for medical use.
Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HR2592 on Jul 23, 2001
Rated A by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record.
Paul scores A by VOTE-HEMP on pro-hemp legalization policies
VOTE HEMP is a non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and free market for Industrial Hemp. Industrial Hemp is non-psychoactive low THC varieties of the cannabis sativa plant. Currently, it is illegal for U.S. farmers to grow Industrial Hemp because it is improperly classified as a "drug" under the Controlled Substances Act. Since changes in law require shifts in thinking and this requires education in the facts, our primary goal is the education of legislators and regulators, farmers and businesses, students and other concerned citizens.
This would not be Ron Paul's position. Ron Paul believes less in war than he does in nation-building, but not by much.
EDIT: just noticed the caveat you posted above....nevermind.
I like how his stances are very clear. However, I know that if he were to assume the Presidency, the reality of compromise is something he would be dealing with in almost every issue he brings to the table.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
And I'm cool with that as long as the cuts are made AFTER the troops come home.
I agree with 99% of what was said here, but for some reason, I don't think it is as easy as 'just marching out'. How long did it take for Vietnam to recover from our occupation/war there? Again, this is NOT my forte at all, but is there some kind of 'reconstruction' plan, to somewhat clean up the mess we have made? I'm looking for ideas from these candidates, something along the line of, 'this war is a failure, we shouldn't have been there in the first place, let's end this war now, bring our troops home, and begin the process of cleaning up our mess'.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Most definitely. But reality also says he isn't going to assume the presidency
I am uncomfortable with just leaving this country in shambles to possibly invite a bigger threat than what was there before. I think we have some accountability here.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Most certainly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#South_Vietnam_stands_alone.2C_1974.E2.80.931975
Ron Paul would not support active American involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq. Financial concessions would likely be made, begrudgingly.
Yeah. But that he would have an influence on the rest of the Republicans? I don't see it.
Unless...
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
If he makes a noticeable impact on Conservative voters, he certainly has a chance to influence the Republican establishment. But will the Republican party go Libertarian overnight? Of course not.
I think there's a big difference between Libertarianism and Ron Paul's Constitutionalism.
I do dig the dude.
lol.
I dig Ron Paul.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
There certainly can be. Libertarianism encompasses a number of views, starting at the pure anarchist and extending to the corporatist or even the corporatist-statist in some scenarios. Paul's Constitutionalism accepts the existence of the state as a necessity and believes upholding the core intent of the founding fathers is very consistent with Libertarianism.
I'm with you on getting this guy as much attention as possible over the months preceding the election.
I'll leave it at that.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein