Ron Paul's Radical Views

Good morning Ron & Budster!

Morning Deb! Gotta run, but have a nice day.

thanks for these facts, I am still trying to figure all of this president stuff out for this election. good information. I also put a link through me. I hope that is alright.

Perfectly alright, I don't worry on my political articles about ratings or comments, as the main thing is to get information out. Link all you'd like. Thanks

ok

I heard him speak in the debates, and he does have a quiet conviction about him But I believe his opposition to any government interference in business will harm consumers and workers. I am not surprised that he opposed civil rights, because he is opposed to tusing federal power even when it does good. He does not believe in social security of medicare, either.

so much information to digest and catagorize into yes's and no way's!

Interesting. I'm wavering between him and Guilliani. I think our government is out of control so in that I'm in agreement with Ron Paul, but to revamp it is my goal not do away with it. I just know that Billary is not the man or woman for the job.

Ron,

I agree that Ron Paul is too extremist for the country. His attitude toward the landmark civil rights legislation of 1964 is puzzling. I don't care that he is anti-abortion even though I am pro-choice. That train isn't going anywhere. But, when he begins talking deregulation and abolishment of the IRS I have a problem with him. We need government for these things (although I agree about the Department of Education). Ron Paul is not right for the job. He doesn't have the temperament and isn't experienced. In the end, I would put him where he belongs - at the bottom of the list.

I actually haven't paid any attention to the guy. I'm having a hard enough time learning about the candidates who might actually get the nomination...

I fail to understand why you call him a Libertarian and subscribe all of the Libertarian ideas to him and his campaign.

He has held his seat in the House for many years as a REPUBLICAN. He is one of the REPUBLICAN candidates for President.

He himself has said he espouses SOME of the Libertarian ideas not ALL.

The main thrust of his candidacy is that the United States needs to follow the Supreme Law of the Land, The Constution. He and all members of Congress swore an oath to do just that. So did the President and all of his cabinent. So I have to wonder - What is so radical about that?

The author claims he wants to do away with agencies he has never said he wanted to eliminate. One of those is the FBI. In another post I read that he wanted to get rid of the Air Force. How stupid is that?

Anti Ron Paul retoric is comming out of the woodwork. Is that because the neocons and fundies are worried that he will get elected and their gravy train will come to a screeching hault?

As to the seperation of Church and State - Ron Paul has NOT said he was against that, I fact he has said he is all for it because the Constitution mandates it.

Of course he wants us out of all of those foreign entanglements. They are UnConstitutional and have done the US more harm than good. The UN has gotten us into several "police actions" that have cost the US mega bucks and many lives of our soldiers.

NAFTA, CAFTA, and the rest of those "free trade" deals have cost our working people their jobs and have moved a lot of companies out of the country. Why wouldn't he be against them?

NAFTA wants to build a super coorodor right through the middle of the US and have it owned by a Spanish Company as a toll road. See my article on that subject. Splitting our country into pieces is not my idea of a good program. He is against the SPP and their plans for a North American Union that would essencially erace the borders between the US, Canada, and Mexico. In other words he would like to see the United States remain the United States.

Now I ask what is radical or kooky about all of that?

VOTE RON PAUL REPUBLICAN AND PUT AMERICA BACK ON TRACK. BRING BACK OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

Well... I would never even entertain the notion of voting for any Republican for public office, so it makes no difference to me what Ron Paul says...

In 1988 Ron Paul ran for president as the Libertarian Party Candidate Colonel, and placed a distant third. He didn't renounce his republican ties, but he WAS their candidate, and seems, even today, to espouse many libertarian values. You can call yourself whatever you want, but if it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and runs for president as the Duck party candidate once, it's highly likely you've at least got webbed feet, sorry.

The orthodoxy calls anybody that is different a kook ... and orthodoxy has become quite corrupted and polluted, both in secular government and many religious institutions, orthodoxy loves their power and will do anything and say anything to maintain their status quo.

I am not necessarily promoting anyone, let alone Ron Paul, but some of his ideas could be very usefull for this country, some may not be, and others may be fabrications of his detractors.

It is for absolute certain that this nations government needs a complete overhaul and Ron Pauls ideas are no worse than "staying the course" ... IMnsHO.

I think the fact that so many are gravitating towards Dr Paul shows just how disenchanted the voting public has become with the current crop of 'Status Quo' candidates.
No one candidate really stands out as different from the rest of the pack, or as some one who will listen to the will of the people as opposed to the Corporate Elite and the Lobbyists on K Street. Dr Paul's campaign is seen as an alternative that many consider more palatable.
Unfortunately they haven't really thought it through to the inevitable conclusion... Dr Paul may genuinely want to effect change but the likelihood of him being able to get some of his more radical ideas past Congress or the Senate is pretty poor.

Jerry,
They certainly aren't better either, when you look at all of them. Be careful what you wish for.

"No one candidate really stands out as different from the rest of the pack, or as some one who will listen to the will of the people as opposed to the Corporate Elite and the Lobbyists on K Street."

Kathleen, I differ with you on this point, strongly. There are two on the democratic side, and one especially, at least. Perhaps you haven't investigated John Edwards very well, but if you get past the attempts to belittle him, and listen to the man speak, John Edwards, who has made a pledge NOT to accept money from lobbyists, and K street, has been listening to the middle class and poor. Take this clip without the spin, and it's got a powerful message, and it's just the tip of the iceberg.

http://johnedwards.com/watch/nevada-debate/

John's been accused of negative campaigning, and to some extent that's true, but the system is railroading Hillary through, and someone needs to bring her blatant pandering to light. She has taken both sides of so many issues, when she doesn't just avoid them, depending on who she is talking to, it almost seems that there are two of her campaigning. Makes my head swim, sometimes, how she thinks she can get away with it, but the press and the DNC are giving her a solid gold pass. John's "negative" campaigning, is more a service to the nation, than a black mark, in my book. Mudslinging is only mudslinging, if it's not true. This is true.

My problem with Edwards, which I stated once before on some one else's article, is the fact that he may have grown up poor but he is so far removed from that now that I don't think he really does have a true understanding of the nuts and bolts of living as 'working poor' in today's world.
So much has changed in the last two decades. When we grew up there really was a light at the end of the tunnel. If you worked hard, got a good education you could get out of the poverty trap and into a middle or even upper class existence. These days the likelihood of anybody on the low end of the scale being able to pull themselves up and out is slim to none.
Look at your own situation, you worked hard to make a life for yourself. Have your own home, family maybe even save some money for a rainy day and then oops! You get injured on the job and now between medical costs and the lack of support from workman's comp etc. you find yourself in a situation where half the time you can't even afford the meds you need to be able to physically function.
What happened to your savings, your retirement funds etc?
My sweetie had an excellent pension program, then he retired and invested it in ENRON an we all know what happened there. I don't see the wealthier investors suffering after the collapse, just those in the middle income sector that were sold the ENRON dream, invested and lost everything! How many pension funds dried up because of that. The corporate types still have their homes and a working cash flow... not so the little people.
Now, he and thousands more like him are struggling to recover enough to have a possibility of a home in their senior years. He's 58 and has cervical spine issues as well as needing knee replacements due to Arthritis and hard wear when he was working in construction in his younger years. The only thing that saved him from total poverty is the fact that he's eligible for health care through the VA and has been able to work a little doing odd plumbing or electrical jobs on the side to pay his bills.
I don't see how Edwards could even begin to undersand these types of problems on a day to day basis from the Ivory tower his wealth has secured for him.

Kathleen, I believe he does, and I believe it because I've watched the videos of small group meetings, in town after town, in garages and greasy spoons, seen him reach and touch, and be touched, by so many. I realize that we are played, time and again by politicians, and I get really tired of having to be skeptical, as one after another betrays our trust, but I do know one thing, I'd rather vote for someone who says they'll try to help, forgoes lobbyist contributions (the thing I feel is at the root of the corruption today) and has it on record, to have to live down, or up to, than one who defends lobbyist money, says two things at once, depending on the audience, and shows no deference at all when faced with a question about NAFTA, that her "experience" helped pass. I don't think John has forgotten where he came from, it is possible to succeed and still have a conscience, look at Warren Buffet.

And if you are thinking of Ron Paul, be aware that he's only against NAFTA because it doesn't go far enough, he believes that a completely open market should be in place. That's the next step to world wide government, the next priority. Fine for corporations, but the American worker will be reduced to third world conditions, or not be able to compete. No one can compete with slaves and indentured servants, and we shouldn't allow them to even be in the race. It's immoral, and degrading, if not suicidal.

Dr. Paul Looks good but he's not my cup of tea. Some one suggested I look at Dodd, but he's so far down in the pack he has gotten totally lost in the shuffle. It's a moot point anyway as I won't be eligible to vote until 2010 anyway. On the other hand I do have friends who are able to vote and maybe I can give them a nudge in one direction or another... or not.

Well, it's great that you are interested at all, if that's the case, Kathleen. You are officially a better citizen than most, already, I'd say.