I have been pushing for Ron Paul's presidential bid quite a bit. Why? Well the statement below was taken directly for his web site Ronpaul.com and only a few of the reasons.
I think we NEED this kind of man in the White House.
Congressman Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the “one exception to the Gang of 535” on Capitol Hill.
Congressman Paul’s consistent voting record prompted one of his congressional colleagues to say, “Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers’ ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are.” Another colleague observed, “There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few.”
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
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.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 86
I would've never guessed that you were a Ron Paul supporter, Colonel.
We (obviously) have disagreed on a few other things on this forum, but on this most important issue, I'm glad we see eye to eye.
Maybe what we might not agree on is how vitally important and indeed crucial to the survival of our free and sovereign Constitutional Republic it is the Dr. Paul and ONLY Dr. Paul get the nomination and win the election in '08.
Any other presently-declared candidate right now spells doom for te Republic, and that's the truth.
Popularity of a candidate is dictated by the media. Do you want the media to control another election?
Steve - "Maybe what we might not agree on is how vitally important and indeed crucial to the survival of our free and sovereign Constitutional Republic it is the Dr. Paul and ONLY Dr. Paul get the nomination and win the election in '08."
You are not going to get me to disagree on that one bit. Better find somethin else if you want to disagree with me.
What you wrote was the absolute truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
If you have any doubts as to Ron Paul's popularity, try checking out his YouTube site, or any of his many supporter blog-sites, or any independent (read: NOT mainstream media-oriented) polls.
The corporate media is ignoring him and sometimes trivializing his massive grassroots support base (implying that he has only a few, computer-savvy tinfoil-hat kook supporters, who "spam" on-line polls and such).
This is because the corporate media is afraid of him. They fear for what would happen if Paul were elected, and the U.S. actually returned to a true free market economic policy, and shut down the central-banking cartel monopoly (Federal Reserve) and all its corporate-cartel hangers-on (the Military-Industrial Complex comes to mind).
They fully expect people to think in terms of "I don't want to 'waste my vote' on somebody who 'can't win'."
Don't buy it. If you like the idea of limited Constitutional government, free markets and sound, inflation-proof currency, American sovereignty and guaranteed, God-given individual liberty; then you need to register Republican (if you're not already), and vote Ron Paul in your state primary. Then you need to become a delegate in your state Republican Convention, so you have a shot at representing your state at the National Republican Convention in Minnesota in 2008. this is the only way we can circumvent the rigged system and get Dr. Paul nominated; otherwise we will end up with the corporate-sponsored, shadow government's choice for President from both party's in November '08.
Oh yeah, and if you care enough to follow through with what needs to be done to save and restore the Republic (as prescribed above), the key is you must NEVER LET ON that you support Ron Paul.
Swallow hard, put on a straight face, cross your fingers and swear allegiance to Rudy McRomney. Get elected as a GOP delegate, and then start promoting Ron Paul.
Otherwise, the GOP establishment lackey's will never let you represent them.
You and I will disagree on Socialized Medicine. I would rather have quality healthcare and Medical costs for me are not high I am a member of AARP hand have medigap insurance through United Health. Costs me a lot less than most folks and our medical expenses are high. I pay nothing but Medicare and the small premium for United Health. That's about as much socialized medicine as I want.
I suggest you set aside your Democratic mindset and ask yourself "Am I satisfied with the way the main stream politicians have handled things?"
I know I'm not. I'm tired of our nation playing big brother or daddy to the rest of the world. I see absolutely NO need to have military bases of one kind or another in 130 different countries around the world. I see NO reason why we have an illegal immigration problem. I see NO reason to have NAFTA or their highways that will be controled by a foreign corporation. I see NO reason to have a six lane bridge across the border at Nogales just for trucks coming into the US with little or no inspection for contriband of some kind.
What I do see is Hope and that Hope is in Ron Paul.
As to corporations and corruption. You can bet your booties Ron Paul would put a stop to that BS in a hurry. He will start by getting rid of that highway and that SPP organization. Check that one out SPP.com but read carefully they are saying a lot and spinning it their way, it's their site. It's what they don't say that is the tell. Their refference to Canada, the US, and Mexico and the "mutual economy" They want the three merged. Economy? Mexico? They don't have one or their citizens would not be leaving in droves for crappy jobs in the US
What's to stop the b.s. the insurance companies and the drug comapnies are pulling?
I'll take a shot at that:
The reason they get away with gouging and profiteering at the expense of our health is basically becasue we do NOT have a free market economy; despite whatever the media propaganda and DC politicians say.
These HMO's and health-industry pirates are the beneficiaries of Big Government enforcement of corporate-cartel-oriented "regulations" and political favoritism, that also comes in the form of backing and favoritism from the Federal Reserve cartel.
The Fed is just a priavete cartel backed and enforced by the ceorcive power of government. Same goes for all the other corporate cartels that feed off the system.
Free market competition is effectivley stifled by ridiculous "regulations," and the fact that nearly all big companies are almost always forced to rely on Federal Reserve-affiliated bank loans just to get started up. The only way to avoid this is to rely on private-capital investments, the markets for which were mostly all bought up in the mid-90's when the corporate media insidiously began referring to private-capital investment bonds as "junk bonds," and a few small investment firms that were making huge dividends off of them on the West Coast eventually stopped growing because of the media propaganda campaign. (You see, small firms dealing with private-capital were taking business away from the Federal Reserve cartel, and that just couldn;t be allowed.) So, after a few weeks of "junk bonds" propaganda, the market dried up, and Federal-Reserve affiliated investmenbt houses moved in and bought up the market. See how it works?
Shut down the corporate cartels, and open up the markets to true free enterprise and dynamic comptetiveness, and you will almost immediately see prices dropping in the health-care industry, and the pharma industry, and thus the prices of doctor's visits would also decrease dramatically.
When you have a real free market, instead of a Fascist corporate-cartel dominated market, individuals will have more choices, competition will be encouraged instead of stifled, and the result would be that businesses would have to compete for customers as well as employees, driving up wages and down prices at the same time. Not only that, but we would not be forced to deal in worthless paper fiat dollars subject to devaluation through inflation -- we would instead have sound, Constitutional, gold and silver-backed currency; and that benefit alone would be a veritable GODSEND for the poor and middle class.
The ONLY politician who is even considering standing up to the corrupt corporate cartels and the Federal Reserve thieves is Ron Paul.
I don't have the problem you describe with health insurance at all. I had a car insurance company screw me over ONE time. That's been over 30 years ago and I still would not have their insurance if they paid me to have it.
You implied that Dr Paul is a libertarian. He's served for years as a Republican but yes his views and those of the libertarian party do parallel a lot.
Law officer? You have my gratitude and respect. You don't have an easy job. The agencies under scrutiny are things like NAFTA and agencies that have outlived their purpose, some duplicate other agencies. Freeing up the $$$ spent on unneeded and useless agencies will have the effect of putting $$ into agencies like the FBI. Programs like NCIC, AFIS would be better funded. While a electronic id for every liiving soul in the US would help law enforcement I think it would be wrong in a free society.
Now that last part. DOJ, states and personal property etc. Again - TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT. Why in the hell you sould be waisting your time ticketing some joker for not wearing a seat belt or smoking a cigeratte is beyoun me. Not wearing a seat belt - who's it going to hurt? The idiot that was dumb enough not to hook it up. Smoking, say in a restaurant - Who has the right to deny the smoker the right? Not the state - the owner of the establishment. Laws we DON'T NEED. State, city, county and even federal laws take the place of parents and good sense all too often. Some kid gets in your yard and fall into your pool. You get the blame for not having a people proof fence. Not the kid who trespassed, Not the parent who didn't watch their kid. YEAH I GET YOUR DRIFT.
YOU OUTLINED A LOT OF VERY GOOD REASONS TO VOTE FOR Dr. RON PAUL, thank you.
One more good reason to vote Dr. Ron Paul
Paul even commented on the supposed athleticism of African American street criminals: ""If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
Ron Paul lingers surprisingly close to the discredited and offensive ideas of "9/11 Truthers," who believe that the September 11 attacks were orchestrated by someone other than Al-Qaeda -- perhaps even by the U.S. government. On multiple occasions, Paul has appeared on the radio program of 9/11 conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Moreover, he met with the Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a meeting that was captured on video.
In the Republican debates, he implied that our enemies abroad are justified in hating us because we have been over there....
Ron Paul is styling himself as the straight talker in the GOP primaries, but his web fans are engaging in some pretty crooked dealings with online polls. A number of political sites have been forced to pull Paul's name from their polls because his campaign is encouraging his supporters to flood the polls with pro-Paul votes. In mid-May, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs caught Paul's spammers at work:
I'm going to be removing Ron Paul's name from any further LGF straw polls, because his supporters are deliberately spamming our polls to make it appear as if Paul has more support than he does. . . . They aren't "cheating," as in voting multiple times, but they have sent out emails and posted the link to our poll at several spots on the web, urging people to go vote for Paul. The end result is the same -- the poll results are skewed, and it's not an accurate measure.
Is this the kind of man that America wants in the top job? I think not!!
What? LGF is going to take him off their straw polls because a bunch of people heard about the poll on a web site and voted? Sounds more to me like Charles Johnson was taken off guard when his favorite didn't get the votes. Sour Grapes.
Appearing on a show, meeting with a group. Neither one says he endorses the group or their ideas.
In the debates I woulld be willing to bet he said that our enemies abroad FELT justified etc. What is said and what is quoted are different all too often.
LGF should know - - - If you are going to have a poll - - - you just might get some results you don't like.
These "racist" quotes have been used in congressional campaign after campaign for Ron Paul. They have been researched and found to be false claims every year. Please provide your source. Ron Paul has never said anything like that and not even his worst enemies can find any verifiable instance where he has ever made any racist comments. You sir, are spreading lies. Again, where is your source for such a slanderous lie?
Yes, the 9-11 Truth Movement, of which I am a part, supports Ron Paul. Unfortunately, Ron Paul does not really support us. Of course he will take free press where he can, and he knows we support him. But Ron Paul DOES NOT believe in a conspiracy of direct government involvement in 9-11. He has only ever gone so far as to ask for another INDEPENDENT investigation. Which is the same position of nearly every 9-11 victim family group and according to Zogby polls is also what 60-80% of Americans want (depending on the poll).
In the Republican Debates, Dr Paul said the motivation for the attacks was the fact that the US has occupied and bombed Islamic countries for the past couple decades. This was also the conclusion of the CIA in their official report AND the 9-11 Commission. It is sad to see you and the Guliani camp try to bend his words into what you wish he had said, but this argument of yours is tired and an poor deception that makes it transparent what a hack you and anyone else who tries to make these claims is.
"because his campaign is encouraging his supporters to flood the polls with pro-Paul votes" - Are you freaking kidding me? He is cheating because his campaign is encouraging his supporters to vote for him? What other strategy would you propose in a democracy? Perhaps Ron Paul should be buy the election like the rest of the field? How dare he try to raise popular support by common people!! If you think the support we've brought to bear on the online polls was surprising, wait until the primary! THIS IS WHAT A DEMOCRACY IS YOU FOOL!
I'm that "avowed atheist" the colonel mentioned. I don't like to be identified by the term atheist because I don't believe in a lot of other silly things either, like the tooth fairy, but I'm not identified by my lack of belief in those things. I will happily wear the label "Anti-theist" in that I am against all forms of superstitious belief, and I especially hate all forms of religion, which has historically and currently is the cause directly or indirectly of most of the pain and suffering that men have inflicted on each other. But enough about me and the things I hate.
I support Ron Paul because he supports the constitution. And the constitution is very clear that the government has no business legislating religion. Now one might think that as an anti-theist I would be all for a law banning religion, but that is the sort of heavy handed measure only needed to enforce a nonsensical system of belief, such as religion. No, I am confident that in a society where people are free to believe what they will and to discuss religion and the nature of the world, that in the end reason will slowly but surely win out and religion will go away on its own. Much like so many other misconceptions about the world for which man has believed before, like a flat earth or the sun revolving around the earth.
As for Ron Paul's stance on abortion. People always try to paint this debate in religious terms, but religion is such a poor standard for morality. If you have any doubt of that, open your Bible and read Leviticus. Do these punishments fit these crimes? And when you find that no, you believe they are a bit severe, ask yourself if God is the source of morality, then how do you know that what is written there is not moral? Given that the entire Bible is the word of God. Now, I know you Christians will be quick to point out that Jesus said not to do that stuff anymore, but these words were the word of God for thousands of years. Was God mistaken? Something to chew on.
So now that we've dispensed with the argument based on scripture, we're back to discussing the morality of abortion on purely secular terms. I think we can postulate without too much discussion that it is immoral to kill another person without just cause, "just cause" being things such as self-defense against lethal force being employed against you or as punishment imposed on an individual by society for severe crimes such as killing another without just cause. We could argue the finer points of what constitutes just cause, but I just include the phrase here to make as non-restrictive a postulate as possible in order to gain a consensus on the statement's validity.
I think that it can be assumed that there is nothing that an unborn child can do to demonstrate just cause for killing it - except perhaps for threatening the life of its mother. And then it is really the mother's choice if she is willing to lay down her life for her child or sacrifice the child to save herself. To try to legislate such a horrible choice is no better than passing a law saying that given the choice every individual must sacrifice his own life for that of another. Which leads to some mind-bending paradoxes. No, in the end, each person much choose to be a hero or not.
So, the other side of the statement that is the common point of debate is at what point does a cluster of cells become a person with legal rights. And I don't think this is a thing that politicians, judges or the priesthood should decide. We have a science for this and it's called medicine.
And THAT is why I can support Ron Paul's stance on Abortion. Not because of his libertarian world view, not because of his years of defending our constitution. It is because of his years of bringing life into this world. His years of caring for expectant mothers, studying the development of the unborn. It is his medical opinion that matters. And his medical opinion is that THERE IS NO CLEAR ANSWER. Yes, he believes that a fetus is a person before they are born, but he has repeatedly said "just before" they are born. But the question of how long before they are born is subject to debate and can never really be resolved.
Ron Paul has thus said he believes that this issue is a matter that cannot be decided absolutely across the nation and must be decided at the local level. And I think this is the best compromise. We've tried the law both ways for several decades each, and we cannot reach consensus on the morality of the issue. This is precisely the sort of decisive issue that should be handled at the state level.
"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action." And, "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system', I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." ... [although] "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
A 1996 article in the Houston Chronicle[29] alleges that Ron Paul made comments about race in a 1992 edition of his Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985), including disparaging remarks about fellow congressperson Barbara Jordan. The article quoted the newsletter as stating that government should lower the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults, saying:
"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action." And, "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system', I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." ... [although] "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but said that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility to stand by the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking:
"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them...I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"
He further stated:
"I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady... we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."[17]
Texas Monthly wrote at the time they printed the denial, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this." They state that it would have been easier for him to deny the accusations at the time, because the controversy would have destroyed most politicians.[17] Paul has separately criticized racism as a form of collectivism.[30]
The fact the 'Ron Paul Survival Report' is still touted by various white supremacist groups lends credence to the fact many of Paul's views dovetailed with such groups.
You can see here that Paul is held in high regard by some truly wacky folks.
From what I have read I think maybe Dr. Paul had a traitor working on his "Ron Paul Survival Report" staff. Someone was not working for Ron Paul that is for sure. To publish something like that during a campaign? If true Ron Paul would never get elected for anything.
Smear campaign begins. Someone or some people must be very afraid of Dr. Ron Paul to start the smear campaign this early before the primaries.
No need for anyone to smear him...just let him open his bigoted mouth and he self destructs on his own!
Again...you can call a weed a rose...but it's still a weed!!
This is all bad because????
Funny - I've had a dozen or so posters tell me this is Bush's war and Congress never voted to go to war. Now that the war is unpopular you can't find many who voted for it either or if they did the didn't mean it.
Again...you can call a weed a rose...but it's still a weed!!
Nice observation but do you know what a weed is? Its a plant out of place. You can call a rose a weed if it is not where it belongs.
PJ (Be Careful How You Address The Queen) L
Thank you for this graphic self description.
I was 65 when I moved to Montana but the air and the water is so good here that I have been getting younger every year. Now I am 59 Whoopee. Next year I get to be 58.
"Dead farmers got $1.1B from USDA"
You all lost me. I don't happen to agree politically with PJ, but she has my respect at least. You guys are just arrogant and rude, and even if I happen to agree with your viewpoint, you lost my respect completely. You want it your way or no way. Too bad.
I read that Ron Paul made some racist remarks in a newsletter some years ago. I don't know if I could support a racist. I saw it in sss.sldfj@ojru.com"
When one speaks with a soft tongue one gets his/her point across and might even learn something.
Did the poster that mention Dr. Paul introducing the legislation to go to war with Iraq come out and say. That &*^%( is a liar, you are a liar? He was for the war in Iraq.? No he went about it better and even gave his own answer. Ron Paul said If you are going to do it do it acording to the constitution but I will not vote for it.
Publish half of the story or taking remarks out of context is a favorite ploy of some folks. It's up to those who are knowledgeable to correct their false leading remarks. i.e. Ron Paul said 9-11 happened because we were bombing them etc. Not quite true but just enough to make it sound that way. He actually said they felt justified because we have been bombing them. Just exactly what the CIA and the 9-11 commission report said.
If you ask and read what she says, I'd bet Pj is a Democrat. Of course a Dem would want to put a wrench in the works of the one candidate that could beat her party in the race for the Presidency.
I for one do not want to force you to agree with me. Hate me if you wish but give this man a chance. Listen to his message. Log onto You Tube, search politics and then click on Ron Paul. There is a ton of information dircetly from the man's mouth. You can make up your own mind. Please set aside and political prejudices you have and listen to him with an open mind as you should with ALL candidates.
Prety flower, what is it?
katie s.
I can go you one better Katie - Stay away from all politicians Democrat or Republican that take special interest, pac, etc money to run for office. The man who gets elected only works for those who paid for him to get into office, NOT the people he is supposed to represent.
Somebody's smoking something that's illegal.
Ever notice that when a Repugs gets cornered--the conspiracy theories start coming fast and furious?
MSNBC report
Vote on the South Carolins Republican Debate
RESULTS
Who stood out from th pack? RON PAUL 64%
Who showed the most leadership qualitiies? RON PAUL 61%
Who was the most convincing candicate? RON PAUL 63%
Who had the most rehearsed answers? RUDY GIULIANI 37% Ron Paul 7.9%
Who avoided the questions? RUDY GIULIANI 48% Ron Paul 6.7%
Who had the best one-liner" RON PAUL 46% Mike Huckabee 13% Rudy Giuliani 13%
I know some YABUT is going to say Ron Paul's backers skewered these results. Well if true and I doubt it at least they CARE. None of the other candidates had their people try to skewer the results?
I do hope that your candidate doesn't jump on the disgusting bandwagon that all politicians seem to jump on lately, and that is of vicious and hateful mudslinging. There are certainly many, many reasons for me to mistrust and disrespect politicians, but resorting to such a very childish tactic just infuriates me with them all. If a candidate has an issue to put before us, then let him/her stick to what they have to offer and not try to cut down the others to make him/herself look better. Are we voters so stupid that we don't see through that cheap move? It would be so nice to find an actually intelligent and honest politician for once, but I dream...
The flower is a dwarf dogwood (cornus) that grows on the termperate rainforest floor in south central Alaska, amongst the ferns and devil's clubs. The flowers are perfectly like those of the tree (which doesn't grow in Alaska naturally), except somewhat smaller, maybe half as big. The leaves grow in whorls around the blossom, no more than about 4" high. I dearly loved those flowers whenever I would hike in the woods south of Anchorage. (See my 10 Childhood Memories #4) I wonder if I could get them to grown here in the midwest if I could het 'hold of seeds or plants...
Well, I find you to be an accepting an open person despite my reprimand to you. Thank you for being so big. :-)
Blessings.
Besides, I'm NOT a Republican I have NO political affiliation. I back Dr Paul because I think he has the best chance of swinging our nation into the right direction and will not be influenced by the big $ people.
judith t.,
Unfortunately that is the type of candidate we have had to put up with and we have been asked to pick the lesser evil. This time I feel we have a chance to elect an honest man.
The answer is obvious.
So Ron Paul sounds interesting to me and I am keeping my eye on him as potentially the next person I might vote for ... because though he runs on the Republican ticket, he is NOT one, being a Libertarian which I can actually admire some things about.
But I believe that too many people look at all of this far too simplistically, as if the candidate upon being elected actually did all of the thinking and work himself ... we all know that the 'buck stops' with him (supposedly) ... and he signs papers.
But there are vast other peoples that make up the 'machine' and represent him (supposedly) via his cabinet etc ... but who are these people behind him going to be ? Where will they come from ? What will they really stand for ? Will they really be working for him ... or as so often is the case, will he be working for them ???
When you get right down to it ... the front man is just a puppet really, the person we are meant to focus on, to love or hate, but above all, never look into the shadows behind him for the puppet masters, or even their masters ... no one really knows at 'our' level who these people are and what they represent ... but some of us few have some pretty good ideas about that ... and their interests are NOT the same as we the people no matter what they say.
I would suspect that RP is as good as any candidate running, maybe heads and shoulders above all of them. It is for sure that a bunch of them had best pack up and slink off into their shadows IF the good of we the people is to be served.
It would really be something if we had the opportunity to work with someone that told the truth as he saw it ... wow, too much to hope for I suspect. (it is pretty obvious that this pj person here does not deal in truth).
IMnsHO.
White House I suspect a lot of Senitors and Representitives will get their act together because if they don't there is a good chance they will get replaced as they come up for election again. Once the American People (US) get the ball rolling we are not prone to stop it.
Incidently he actually IS a Republican but he agrees with most of the Libertarian ideas. I call him a "A REPUBLICAN WITH A BRAIN".
Back in history, U.S. Grant (I was taught in school) was the country's worst President. What made him so bad? He gathered around himself bad advisors. He trusted people that were not trustworthy. Remind you of anyone?
I think the office of the president has become "puppet" just in the last 30 or 40 years. We the people have been given a choice of the lesser of two evils when it comes to our vote. This year is the first time since I have been of a age to vote that I feel I don't have to make that choice. I think I can vote for an honest man this time. The fact that Dr. Paul is NOT a lawyer and has no aparent ties with big business is encouraging to me.
I think Paul will break the "puppet" mold. Electing him will start a voter revolution that will eventually clense the House and Senate of the "party liners". I noticed a dramatic change in politics with the first campaign of Clinton. partisnship was much more visable and cooperation between the Ds and Rs became almost nil. The two controlling political parties fought each other over legislation without regard to the people they were supposed to be representing.
I want to put a stop to that. Electing a president that bows to neither party just might wake up a bunch of politicians to who it is that hired them.
However, as you know, I am no conservative.
I don't get how any American can still tlak in favour of free market medicine. These are the simple facts: of all industrialized nations America is the one with the most free market based health care system, the least socialized; America has by far the highest cost per capita of health care services amongst these nations; America has the most people and the highest percentage of its population not covered out of all these nations.
With those facts how can you continue to promote the for-profit system over the public health care system.
It is non-sensical.
A lot of those who are supposedly not covered by health insurance are that way because they chose to be not covered. They just did not see the risk and felt they needed their $$ for other purposes.
People pay for health insurance one way or another. You pay with taxes we pay out of pocket. Don't even try to discuss which is cheaper because I don't know. Being a Sr Citizen I am on Medicare which I paid for when I worked in the form of a payroll deduction (tax). There is a gap between what the hospital or doctor charges and what Medicare pays. I have Medigap insurance that covers that and it has been well worth the money.
A public health system could be paid for and then some just from the savings this country would get from bringing ALL our military personell home from the 130 bases all over the world. Something to think about. I don't think ANY other country has their forces so scattered all over the place. I see no reason for us to do it.
Jerry K - That is why so many of us want Dr Ron Paul elected.
After looking at the poll results I posted earlier someone please tell me, What is Newsweak talking about? Dr Ron Paul clearly won that debate yet Newsweek does not even mention his name. Why is that?
Your whole argument for socialized medicine falls apart before it gets going.
If the entire argument in favor of socialized healthcare is that "our current "free market" medicine system isn't working," then there is no argument at all. The reason is because WE DO NOT HAVE A "FREE MARKET" SYSTEM!!!
We have a system dominated by corporate cartels which are nurtured, protected, and supported by the coercive power of BIG GOVERNMENT.
THis system may be called "corporatist," or just as accurately "Fascist", but it most certainly is NOT "free market."
Free markets means no political favoritism or government-sanctioning of corporations through "regulations" designed to stifle competition from free enterprise. It means small business has more potential to grow, and compete for customers and employees, which has the effect of down prices and up wages at the same time.
It means instead of government-enforced corporate monopoly, we would have a dynamic marketplace where consumers have OPTIONS.
Wanting the government to take total control of such an important aspect of life as healthcare is what strikes me as not only "non-sensical," but dangerous.
just because the fascist system sucks, doesn't mean we should turn to socialism.
How about just telling Big Brother to butt out, and let the people handle their business by themselves?
That would be a bit dangerous would it not, considering the propensity for cheating, lying, stealing, thuggery and what have you in today's climate ?
What happens if the value of our dollar shrinks in comparison to another country that has values going the 'other' direction ... would I still be able to buy my milk ... or would it all be sold freely to the 'other' country because they had the cash ???
Don't get me wrong, I'm not asserting that government has no role to play in the marketplace, that there should be "free-for-all" with absolutely no rules and regulations.
What I believe is that goovernment's role in the marketplace should be exactly what its only legitimate role in anything else is according to our Constitution: To protect life, liberty, and property of individuals.
Right off the bat we should establish that there ought be no such thing as "corporate personhood." Individuals have "personhood," not groups or conglomerates. Individuals have rights and liberties, not groups.
Individuals have the right to not have to breathe clean air and drink clean water. Therefore, government-enforced regulations prohibiting pollution by businesses are totally legitimate.
Individuals have the right not to be fleeced or be the victims of fraud; therefore government-enforced regulations prohibiting fraudulent practices is legitimate.
Catch my drift?
The main reason so many industries (such as the pharmaceutical, insurance, energy, and media) are riddled with corruption, profiteering, and such is simply because they are permitted to get away with it because consumers don't have options. We don't have options because those industries have been monopolized by corporate cartels.
They have been monopolized because they benefit from political favoritism, in the form of laws and regulations which are literally written by lobbyists for the corporate cartels themselves!
The regulations usually serve two main purposes; one is to ensure carte blanche for the cartels (they can get away with anything they want), but mostly they serve to ensure that the little guy can never threaten the monopoly with competition.
The biggest cartel of all is the Federal Reserve Corporation. The Fed is just a banking cartel, which the people are forced to deal with by "legal tender" laws; we simply have no choice but to accept the worthless paper printed by the Fed as our only currency. We have to do business with them -- which means we are responsible for paying the debt that is attached to every dollar they print in the form of "interest."
We are forced into debt-enslavement to the Federal Reserve banking cartel -- and forced to pay the cost of the chains that enslave us -- by the coercive power of government.
But the Fed plays a big role in consolidating power for the other corporate cartels, as well.
Small business competition almost always requires a loan from a Federal Reserve-affiliated bank or investment house just to get started.
This way, the Fed can effectively enforce the power of corporate monopoly simply by denying loans, or toying with interest rates.
This is the root of how we get screwed by insurance and pharma corporations; through government over-stepping its bounds in order to enforce corporate monopoly.
We have the problem of Big Bucks Corporate interests in both of our major political parties. We who support Dr Paul feel he will help us get rid of that invasion into the political process.
"If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no NAFTA, GATT, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; no income tax . We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited." Congressman Ron Paul (1998)
Well I can't agree with all of this statement but I certainly would not think of it as anti-American and certianly not advocating the overthrow of the government. Most of it I would say was good thinking. He is just stating a fact. IF WE STUCK WITH THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN. He mentions states-rights. A lot of the social programs of today should be handled by the seperate States - like welfare for the poor. i.e. A poor person living in California has a whole different set of problems than one say, living in Kansas.
This statement was made nearly 10 years ago and as far as I can tell he has not changed his position a lot. No waffleing here
I think Arlen Specter, Chuck Hagel, and Jim Webb are a few who I consider being very close to Ron Paul's status of proper statesman.
But no one in politics today has shown the consistent honesty, integrity, dedication to Constitutional principles, common sense, and genuine concern for the American people as Ron Paul has.
No one in politics has shown the courage or willingness to speak truth to power and to soeak openly and honestly to the American people about the REAL troubling issues facing our nation, as Ron Paul has.
He is the embodiment of the citizen-statesman envisioned by the Founding Fathers when they created the system of government.
He is the only hope for America in 2008 if we are to return to the true Constitutional republic this nation was intended to be.
If we had only followed the Constitution all along, and we had locally-controlled public schools and a real free press and independent media (that was actually concerned with truly informing the people as opposed to regurgitating elitist-conceived propaganda and tabloid news), then I firmly believe that most Americans would be able to clearly perceive that Ron Paul is the only candidate that stands for true patriotic American principles, such as liberty, independent sovereignty, equal justice, and power to the People.
I only wish that todays soldiers, airmen, and seamen where being asked to fight and give their lives for the right reasons.
I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that foreign nation-building, control of Middle-Eastern oil, and "Pax Americana" imperialism are very good reasons to send our sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters off to war. Its all a bunch of ulterior motives and profiteering being dressed up as "spreading democracy" and even "fighting to defend our way of life" (how the hell does anybody buy that one is beyond me!).
Neither George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, or Condi Rice ever spent one single moment in combat. G.W. actually found it more important that he spend time helping a family friend campaign for Congress than he finish serving his obligation to the Texas Air National Guard.
And these people are allowed to send other people's young kids off to war.... OVER LIES?!?!
And not be impeached?
Screw that! I say put 'em all on trial for war crimes!
When the Japaneese bombed Peral Harbor the Admiral of their fleet said something along the lines "We have awakened a sleeping dragon". In other words he knew it was a big mistake. That is what I want, to go back to sleep. It is one thing to be the most powerful nation and quite another to be an agressive most powerful nation.
Now that our intentions have so changed, so will that help be withdrawn ... I pity our future.
It may be "cliche" by now -- many things become cliche because they are true -- but I reiterate the phrase: "We need to stop acting like God is on our side, and start acting like we are on God's side."
I never knew our Constitution made provisions for just this kind of thing.
You can read Ron Paul's statements, legislation and everything a voter needs to make up his/her mind about this man going back a very long time (at least 7 years). What he claims in his campaign statements is what he has ALWAYS stood for. No one can say that about any other candidate.
I suggest a hard look at the page and browsing through his proposals and speaches. The guy makes sense.
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml.
I think the proof in the pudding is in the ingredients not the topping
Thanks for the reference/url.
The fact that Clinton started and Bush continued the NAFTA highway project shows who's pocket both parties are in.
I was raised a Democrat, have voted Republican, and really wanted to see Ross P. in office all those years and mistakes ago. What I witnessed in those clips with Dr. Paul reminds me of how his ideas were discounted as nuts, then thrown out of context, and the man himself impugned until he was politically destroyed. Dr. Paul's opponents seem to be trying to make him have a heart attack instead of giving consideration to his message.
Yet naïve as I was when joining the Naval Service, that was the message I put my life on the line for… it was not to participate 'as a patriot bully in the hallway' of the world doing whatever without regard to consequences to 'myself/my own, except monetary profit.
Now here's the question; as Dr. Paul himself has pointed out, G.W. Bush ran on a 'humble "no empire building" (to me inferring a 'no dictator building') policy, and then in office he changed his mind, lol, and 'we my fellow Americans' swallowed it hook, line and sinker… and still gulping it down. Will we do differently this time if it happens again? Thanks for the email bringing me here, and 'turning me on' to Dr. Ron Paul!
... of course I'm probably a little late coming in... lol
Don't worry about voting for a "Republican from Texas again" The Party has ignored and shunned Dr. Ron Paul. As far as I am concerned he is not a part of the Republican party any more. We have, in effect, a third party the RON PAUL REPUBLICAN Party. That would be a whole different party than the one in the White House.
interesting
Thank you for looking back on this one Tina. I still believe the nation made a big mistake by not electing him.
However a very large movement called the Campaign for Liberty came out of it. The people have shown that the media and pain stream political parties are not representing the majority of voters or the majority of States.