PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul, in his own words:



Beefy
11-29-2007, 08:20 PM
Patriot Act and Domestic Spying:

The misnamed Patriot Act, presented to the public as an anti-terrorism measure, actually focuses on American citizens rather than foreign terrorists.

"Of course most governments, including our own, cannot resist the temptation to spy on their citizens when it suits government purposes. But America is supposed to be different. We have a mechanism called the Constitution that is supposed to place limits on the power of the federal government. Why does the Constitution have an enumerated powers clause, if the government can do things wildly beyond those powers-- such as establish a domestic spying program? Why have a 4th Amendment, if it does not prohibit government from eavesdropping on phone calls without telling anyone?"


America was founded by men who understood that the threat of domestic tyranny is as great as any threat from abroad. If we want to be worthy of their legacy, we must resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society. Otherwise, our own government will become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist.

The Middle East:

" The Saudis, unlike the Iraqis, have proven connections to al Qaeda. Saudi charities have funneled money to Islamic terrorist groups. Yet the administration insists on calling Saudi Arabia a “good partner in the war on terror.” Why? Because the U.S. has a longstanding relationship with the Saudi royal family, and a long history of commercial interests relating to Saudi oil."

The justification, given endlessly since September 11th, is that both support terrorism and thus pose a risk to the United States. Yet when we step back and examine the region as a whole, it’s obvious that these two impoverished countries, neither of which has any real military, pose very little threat to American national security when compared to other Middle Eastern nations. The decision to attack them, while treating some of region’s worst regimes as allies, shows the deadly hypocrisy of our foreign policy in the Middle East.

The "Conservative Revolution":

When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or “printing” new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. Like future generations and those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocation that this process causes. Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.


National ID Card:

Just as we must not allow terrorists to threaten our lives, we must not allow government to threaten our liberties. We should reject the notion of a national identification card.

The Draft:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose HR 163 in the strongest possible terms. The draft, whether for military purposes or some form of “national service,” violates the basic moral principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded. Furthermore, the military neither wants nor needs a draft

Department of Homeland Security:

Instead of a carefully-crafted product of meaningful deliberations, I fear we are once again about to pass a hastily-drafted bill in order to appear that we are "doing something." Over the past several months, Congress has passed a number of hastily crafted measures that do little, if anything, to enhance the security of the American people. Instead, these measures grow the size of the federal government, erode constitutional liberties, and endanger our economy by increasing the federal deficit and raiding the social security trust fund. The American people would be better severed if we gave the question of how to enhance security from international terrorism the serious consideration it deserves rather than blindly expanding the federal government. Congress should also consider whether our hyper-interventionist foreign policy really benefits the American people.


The War Against Terror (TWAT):

It is incumbent on a great nation to remain confident, if it wishes to remain free. We need not be ignorant to real threats to our safety, against which we must remain vigilant. We need only to banish to the ash heap of history the notion that we ought to be ruled by our fears and those who use them to enhance their own power.

There's endless gems here, check it out.

http://ronpaullibrary.org/index.php

Ron Paul '08!!!

uscitizen
11-29-2007, 09:25 PM
Words are easy. What has he done ?

Beefy
11-29-2007, 09:31 PM
Words are easy. What has he done ?

I'm not going to look that up for you. :rolleyes:

Timshel
11-29-2007, 09:32 PM
He voted against the Patriot Act and I am sure all funding for it, extensions of it and other infringements, like the new domestic terrorism that Dems supported in overwhelming majorities. WTF have dems done? Large numbers if not clear majorities vote for this crap. Most of it was advanced by Dems under Clinton. And hell, you all cheer for the Peace Prize Winner that created extraordinary rendition.

Paul has consistently vioted against such things and spoken strongly against. What else do you expect him to do?

uscitizen
11-29-2007, 09:32 PM
Aw shucks ;)

ironhead
11-29-2007, 09:33 PM
Words are easy. What has he done ?

Umm...he votes on principle and sticks by his word. Oh, and he's running for President as an underdog but has amassed a considerable following and has forced his way in among the "top" contenders as such. He's forced the issues of limited government, non-interventionist foreign policy, and individual liberty into the debate. That's what he's done.

ib1yysguy
11-29-2007, 09:33 PM
Words are easy. What has he done ?

He's alienated about 95 percent of voters. Thats about it. Cept in Texas and the internets.

uscitizen
11-29-2007, 09:33 PM
He voted against the Patriot Act and I am sure all funding for it, extensions of it and other infringements, like the new domestic terrorism that Dems supported in overwhelming majorities. WTF have dems done? Large numbers if not clear majorities vote for this crap. Most of it was advanced by Dems under Clinton. And hell, you all cheer for the Peace Prize Winner that created extraordinary rendition.

Paul has consistently vioted against such things and spoken strongly against. What else do you expect him to do?

walk on water from what I hear.

Timshel
11-29-2007, 09:35 PM
And all while usc and other Dems who claim to support civil liberties hurl invective at him.

Timshel
11-29-2007, 09:39 PM
He's alienated about 95 percent of voters. Thats about it. Cept in Texas and the internets.

You can win elections and peace prizes with wishy-washy pansies that trample on human rights, sure. But if that is not what you want to accomplish than winning seems a little hollow.

Beefy
11-29-2007, 09:40 PM
And all while usc and other Dems who claim to support civil liberties hurl invective at him.

Yep. He's the ONLY candidate in either party that is talking about truly protecting civil liberties, and the left somehow isn't interested.

Minister of Truth
11-30-2007, 02:33 AM
I went to his website today and watched the 9 min. video on the main page. Its pretty good, and one of the pro-Paul quotes is from Reagan (and the irony that his name is Ronald Ernest Paul is not lost on me either). Considering the abundance of Reagan literature that has appeared on my university's College Republicans board, I'm thinking of putting that quote up there. :woot:

cawacko
11-30-2007, 04:15 AM
Umm...he votes on principle and sticks by his word. Oh, and he's running for President as an underdog but has amassed a considerable following and has forced his way in among the "top" contenders as such. He's forced the issues of limited government, non-interventionist foreign policy, and individual liberty into the debate. That's what he's done.

to a gentleman such as citizen partisanship for his party is what matters. party first, everything else second. So even if Ron Paul agrees with a lot of what citizen agrees with his loyalty to the Democratic party comes first, his prinicples come second. Hence citizen is a party hack and nothing else.

tinfoil
11-30-2007, 06:58 AM
He's alienated about 95 percent of voters. Thats about it. Cept in Texas and the internets.

I think your stats are rectally extricated.

blackascoal
11-30-2007, 07:04 AM
I'm not going to look that up for you. :rolleyes:

Don't worry, I already did and I've posted his record of what he's done.

What you have is an academic who doesn't understand government and who is devoid of any socio-ethical responsibility.

Nice words though.

blackascoal
11-30-2007, 07:09 AM
Umm...he votes on principle and sticks by his word. Oh, and he's running for President as an underdog but has amassed a considerable following and has forced his way in among the "top" contenders as such. He's forced the issues of limited government, non-interventionist foreign policy, and individual liberty into the debate. That's what he's done.

A presidential candidate who polls nationally under 5% can hardly be considered among the top contenders.

As was stated in a recent article, his supporters don't understand that it's not the depth of his support that counts, it's the breadth of that support.

The only one talking about non-inteventionalist foreign policy and individual liberty at the debate was him.

blackascoal
11-30-2007, 07:13 AM
Yep. He's the ONLY candidate in either party that is talking about truly protecting civil liberties, and the left somehow isn't interested.

As a member of that left, you are indeed correct. I'm not the slightest bit intrested in his perception of liberty or freedom

uscitizen
11-30-2007, 07:40 AM
And all while usc and other Dems who claim to support civil liberties hurl invective at him.

I do not claim to support corporate civil liberties nearly as much as RP does.
Lets just say Your definition of civil liberties and mine differ greatly.

Jarod
11-30-2007, 07:50 AM
I really like some of Paul's ideas, but the kookie ideas disqualify him from my vote!

uscitizen
11-30-2007, 07:57 AM
Yep RP has a few good ideas, but then so did Bush....
Both are Republicans, RP votes with Bush issues the majority of the time.
Whatsa difference ?

Cypress
11-30-2007, 09:07 AM
And all while usc and other Dems who claim to support civil liberties hurl invective at him.


That's not hard to figure out. From a liberal perspective, Ron Paul actually has a very mixed record on civil right. He is indeed correct on patriot act and habeous corpus.

But, his postion on the rights of women, minorities, and gays leaves a lot to be desired.

He voted to ban gay adoption in DC. He's opposes a woman's right to choose. He opposes affirmative action. He doesn't support gays being able to openly serve in the military, etc.


RON PAUL: Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

So, it shouldn't be rocket science to figure out why liberals don't kneel at the feet of the great Ron Paul, to declare him the greatest civil liberties advocate since martin luther king.


Edit: oh, and he is supportive of the death penalty, at the State level.

Timshel
11-30-2007, 09:15 AM
I do not claim to support corporate civil liberties nearly as much as RP does.
Lets just say Your definition of civil liberties and mine differ greatly.

You are so full of shit. If Ron Paul was such a big supporter of "corporate civil liberties" then tell us why the frontrunners of your party get far more of there money from corporations? Where is his corporate media support?

I am sure you will likely back whatever corporate whore your party does, meanwhile throwing meaningless insults at the one guy who will not be bought.

Timshel
11-30-2007, 09:17 AM
Yep RP has a few good ideas, but then so did Bush....
Both are Republicans, RP votes with Bush issues the majority of the time.
Whatsa difference ?

Tell us, what are the major issue where Paul agrees with Bush?

uscitizen
11-30-2007, 09:17 AM
You are so full of shit. If Ron Paul was such a big supporter of "corporate civil liberties" then tell us why the frontrunners of your party get far more of there money from corporations? Where is his corporate media support?

I am sure you will likely back whatever corporate whore your party does, meanwhile throwing meaningless insults at the one guy who will not be bought.

Just because the dems are rented by corporate interests like the Repubs, does not mean anything as far as RP is concerned.

One does not need to buy one already inside the circle.

Diversion aborted.

Timshel
11-30-2007, 09:49 AM
But, his postion on the rights of women, minorities, and gays leaves a lot to be desired.

?


He voted to ban gay adoption in DC.

No, he did not. This is an absurd lie.

Congressman Paul's position on gay marriage is that defining and recognizing marriages is not a Federal or constitutional matter, but should be left as the States' right.[30] In 1999 he voted for H.R. 2587 which contained an amendment that sought to prevent the use of Federal funding for the promotion of adoptions of foster children being used to promote joint adoptions by unrelated, unmarried people. There was no mention of gay adoptions in the bill, but the amendment could have been construed to act negatively upon gay couples adopting children in the District of Columbia, and in any event was not present in the final bill.[31]

He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.


He's opposes a woman's right to choose.

Believes it is a state matter.


He opposes affirmative action.

Yeah? Clearly a position of one who supports civil rights.


He doesn't support gays being able to openly serve in the military, etc.

Yeah he does. Here is what he said at his Google interview.

"Don't ask, don't tell doesn't sound all that bad to me because as an employer, I've never asked them [employees] anything and I don't want them to tell me anything."

"So I would say that everyone should be treated equally, and they [gays] shouldn't be discrimated against because of that alone. Which means that even though those words aren't offensive to me, that 'Don't ask, don't tell' don't sound so bad to me, I think the way it's enforced is bad. Because, literally, if somebody is a very, very good individual working for our military--and I met one just the other day in my office, who was a translator--and he was kicked out for really no good reason at all. I would want to change that, I don't support that interpretation."


So, it shouldn't be rocket science to figure out why liberals don't kneel at the feet of the great Ron Paul, to declare him the greatest civil liberties advocate since martin luther king..

I implied it is odd that you spend your time hurling vicious insults at him and, as you do here, lying about him. I did not say you needed to praise him.



Edit: oh, and he is supportive of the death penalty, at the State level.

He is not. Is it a states rights issue? Yes, of course, there is no doubt from any serious person that it is.

This betrays your duplicity. Because he argues that abortion is a state matter while feeling the states should ban it, you argue he is against a woman's choice or opposed to abortion. Because he argues that the death penalty is a state matter while feeling the states should ban it, you argue he supports the death penalty.

Why not argue he supports the war on drugs, liar!

Timshel
11-30-2007, 09:52 AM
Just because the dems are rented by corporate interests like the Repubs, does not mean anything as far as RP is concerned.

One does not need to buy one already inside the circle.

Diversion aborted.

Lol, that's pathetic.

No it means nothing about RP. It means something about you and whether this is your actual concern.

Be honest, you guys hate Paul because he advocates smaller government.

uscitizen
11-30-2007, 09:54 AM
I do not hate RP. I do not even fear him since he is a political blip.
I agree with him on homeland security and the war. However i think most of the rest of his positions would scare me if he was a serious contender.

Timshel
11-30-2007, 10:16 AM
I do not hate RP. I do not even fear him since he is a political blip.
I agree with him on homeland security and the war. However i think most of the rest of his positions would scare me if he was a serious contender.

That's fine. Yet you pretend he is no different than Bush and you have repeated that over and over again. To do so demonstrates that you don't believe civil liberties or issues of war are important.

ironhead
11-30-2007, 10:25 AM
As a member of that left, you are indeed correct. I'm not the slightest bit intrested in his perception of liberty or freedom

Oh, I see. Your version of liberty is inclusive of such legislation as the Patriot Act, 2007 Defense Authorization Act, (lack of) legislation against eminent domain abuse, Dept. Of Homeland Security, Real I.D. Act, McCain-Feingold, etc. Christ, the leadership in the Democratic Party (especially in the debates) has barely spoken out against Bush's gutting of habeas corpus.

You know, the stuff most of the Democratic candidates support, which you'll be happy to vote for to ensure civil liberties. Give me a fucking break.

Damocles
11-30-2007, 10:31 AM
I don't think BAC is voting Democrat.

uscitizen
11-30-2007, 10:34 AM
That's fine. Yet you pretend he is no different than Bush and you have repeated that over and over again. To do so demonstrates that you don't believe civil liberties or issues of war are important.

He is no different from bush where Businesses are concerned.
RP's definition of civil liberties and my definition differ quite a bit.

Damocles
11-30-2007, 10:40 AM
He is no different from bush where Businesses are concerned.
RP's definition of civil liberties and my definition differ quite a bit.
This is also untrue. If he supported NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. I'd agree, but this just shows an ignorance of his positions.

uscitizen
11-30-2007, 10:41 AM
Close enough for me Damo.
At least I did not vote for Bush. Even once.

Timshel
11-30-2007, 10:57 AM
He is no different from bush where Businesses are concerned.
RP's definition of civil liberties and my definition differ quite a bit.

Sure he is. Damo already mentioned the trade agreements. There are many other issues of protectionism and subsidy where they differ. I have never heard Bush (or any of the Dems either) talk about how banks rip us off.

So what do we have left? Lower taxes and regulations and there is plenty of differences in details there. Like I said, your real concern is that Paul supports limited government.

ironhead
11-30-2007, 10:59 AM
Dr. Paul opposes corporate welfare and wants to return to the gold standard. He also wants to slash the defense budget and begin a truly defensive foreign policy; that's something the big military contractors will not like. Those are three massive reasons why most of the corporate lobby is not interested in his candidacy.

uscitizen
11-30-2007, 11:00 AM
Yeah and Bush was against nation building too.
My point is that talk is cheap and political ads/speeches are specifically exempt from the truth in advertising laws.

ironhead
11-30-2007, 11:04 AM
Yeah and Bush was against nation building too.
My point is that talk is cheap and political ads/speeches are specifically exempt from the truth in advertising laws.

Give me a fucking break. Ron Paul votes on what he stands for. He voted against the war, the Patriot Act, all of the destructive shit which Bush has done. What else do you want? He has vociferously been anti-war during the debates. There's nothing else to do but elect the man and let him get on with dismantling our world-cop, daddy-government, Pax Romana leviathan empire morass.

uscitizen
11-30-2007, 11:07 AM
umm not sure on this, but did RP vote against dereglulating the banking industry to allow the current debacle to happen ?

This was pre Bush I believe.

Timshel
11-30-2007, 11:41 AM
umm not sure on this, but did RP vote against dereglulating the banking industry to allow the current debacle to happen ?

This was pre Bush I believe.

Dude, you support politicians that permit banks to commit FRAUD as a standard part of their business practice. What sort of regulation do you think will prevent disruptions when this is allowed? Forcing taxpayers to bail them out every time they fuck things up?

You are such an idiot. You have no clue about how you are TYRULY being fucked by the rich and how your glorious regulators are providing the vaseline.

uscitizen
11-30-2007, 11:48 AM
And which politicians do I support that permit banks to commit fraud ?

Timshel
11-30-2007, 12:22 PM
Who have you voted for? If none of those are libertarians, then probably every one of them.

Battleborne
11-30-2007, 04:55 PM
Is no Andrew Jackson...the only thing comparable is that RP also wants the Federal Reserve dismantled and our monetary system returned to the Gold Standard...he is no populist or nationalist...he wants us to become like Switzerland...Neutral...this is no Andrew Jackson..who also believed in fighting all enemies within as well as without...!


You guys need a new man....RP is limp wristed and will put us all in jepardy!

Beefy
11-30-2007, 05:01 PM
Is no Andrew Jackson...the only thing comparable is that RP also wants the Federal Reserve dismantled and our monetary system returned to the Gold Standard...he is no populist or nationalist...he wants us to become like Switzerland...Neutral...this is no Andrew Jackson..who also believed in fighting all enemies within as well as without...!


You guys need a new man....RP is limp wristed and will put us all in jepardy!

You have it backwards. Andrew Jackson was no Ron Paul.

blackascoal
11-30-2007, 06:39 PM
You are so full of shit. If Ron Paul was such a big supporter of "corporate civil liberties" then tell us why the frontrunners of your party get far more of there money from corporations? Where is his corporate media support?

I am sure you will likely back whatever corporate whore your party does, meanwhile throwing meaningless insults at the one guy who will not be bought.

My hope is to offer this opinion without offending you.

Ron Paul wants to remove all restrictions, limits, and regulations from corporations. One cannot claim to be anti-corporatist and have that view.

He believes that the "free market" can police itself, but there is a long history that demonstrates that is not true. Corporations will abuse whenever they can in the interest of the bottom line.

He doesn't believe in campaign finance limitations .. which will only allow corporations to buy more politicians .. which will only lead to more corporate wars like the invasion of Iraq.

These and other opinions and policies of Paul lead people to believe that he is not the answer to corporate control of America.

Minister of Truth
11-30-2007, 09:06 PM
You have it backwards. Andrew Jackson was no Ron Paul.

Exactly. Old Hickory (from whom we got the Dem Jackass - someone made the correct assertion that he was one) was a shitty president.

Annie
11-30-2007, 09:14 PM
You have it backwards. Andrew Jackson was no Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is no Andrew Jackson, at least for the good reasons. Certainly he'd be against the Bank, but on other actions, no contest.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-01-2007, 12:28 AM
Patriot Act and Domestic Spying:

The misnamed Patriot Act, presented to the public as an anti-terrorism measure, actually focuses on American citizens rather than foreign terrorists.

"Of course most governments, including our own, cannot resist the temptation to spy on their citizens when it suits government purposes. But America is supposed to be different. We have a mechanism called the Constitution that is supposed to place limits on the power of the federal government. Why does the Constitution have an enumerated powers clause, if the government can do things wildly beyond those powers-- such as establish a domestic spying program? Why have a 4th Amendment, if it does not prohibit government from eavesdropping on phone calls without telling anyone?"


America was founded by men who understood that the threat of domestic tyranny is as great as any threat from abroad. If we want to be worthy of their legacy, we must resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society. Otherwise, our own government will become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist.

The Middle East:

" The Saudis, unlike the Iraqis, have proven connections to al Qaeda. Saudi charities have funneled money to Islamic terrorist groups. Yet the administration insists on calling Saudi Arabia a “good partner in the war on terror.” Why? Because the U.S. has a longstanding relationship with the Saudi royal family, and a long history of commercial interests relating to Saudi oil."

The justification, given endlessly since September 11th, is that both support terrorism and thus pose a risk to the United States. Yet when we step back and examine the region as a whole, it’s obvious that these two impoverished countries, neither of which has any real military, pose very little threat to American national security when compared to other Middle Eastern nations. The decision to attack them, while treating some of region’s worst regimes as allies, shows the deadly hypocrisy of our foreign policy in the Middle East.

The "Conservative Revolution":

When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or “printing” new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. Like future generations and those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocation that this process causes. Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.


National ID Card:

Just as we must not allow terrorists to threaten our lives, we must not allow government to threaten our liberties. We should reject the notion of a national identification card.

The Draft:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose HR 163 in the strongest possible terms. The draft, whether for military purposes or some form of “national service,” violates the basic moral principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded. Furthermore, the military neither wants nor needs a draft

Department of Homeland Security:

Instead of a carefully-crafted product of meaningful deliberations, I fear we are once again about to pass a hastily-drafted bill in order to appear that we are "doing something." Over the past several months, Congress has passed a number of hastily crafted measures that do little, if anything, to enhance the security of the American people. Instead, these measures grow the size of the federal government, erode constitutional liberties, and endanger our economy by increasing the federal deficit and raiding the social security trust fund. The American people would be better severed if we gave the question of how to enhance security from international terrorism the serious consideration it deserves rather than blindly expanding the federal government. Congress should also consider whether our hyper-interventionist foreign policy really benefits the American people.


The War Against Terror (TWAT):

It is incumbent on a great nation to remain confident, if it wishes to remain free. We need not be ignorant to real threats to our safety, against which we must remain vigilant. We need only to banish to the ash heap of history the notion that we ought to be ruled by our fears and those who use them to enhance their own power.

There's endless gems here, check it out.

http://ronpaullibrary.org/index.php

Ron Paul '08!!!

ZOMG WORDS FROM THE MASTER!!!

Hermes Thoth
12-01-2007, 07:11 AM
ZOMG WORDS FROM THE MASTER!!!

What do you disagree with, punkass, one-line fool?

Battleborne
12-01-2007, 12:55 PM
Ron Paul is no Andrew Jackson, at least for the good reasons. Certainly he'd be against the Bank, but on other actions, no contest.


Andrew Jackson was a conservative Democrat...he was attacked by the Federal Reserve Bank...of old...he however had America as a first priorty...he and his wife were defamed by Historical BS!

Battleborne
12-01-2007, 12:58 PM
You have it backwards. Andrew Jackson was no Ron Paul.


Andrew Jackson was a soldier...RP a limp wristed Dean-Dean the scream machine...:cof1: