|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
I don't see what the big deal is with him. He's essentially the right's answer to kucinich. I'm not a libertarian, so it's difficult for me to get excited about him.
|
willravel...in fairness to Ron Paul, after my last post, I checked on the points from the 1996 article and I found that Ron Paul said that they were the work of a "ghostwriter", but that Ron Paul accepted that the words were published in literature that displayed Paul's signature, and it was too complicated to deny or to explain to the public, so he accepted responsibility for their distribution, while emphasizing that he was not a racist.....
It's not 1996 now, and if Ron Paul wants to appeal to enough voters to win primaries and the general election in 2008, he'll have to explain better than that, and he'll have to explain how his entire philosophy will benefit the "least of us".....because it's been the other way already, for the last six years, and for 18 years out of the last 26....
If you're an upper middle class, or wealthier....white male with no concern for women's reproductive rights, civil rights, or an accurate assessment of "the Reagan years"....I guess Ron Paul is "yer guy". The poor, the women without resources to travel to blue states where affordable, legal, medically safe and antiseptic abortion is obtainable, as well as minorities with no access to the "legacy appointments" of Ivy league schools, as Bush enjoyed, or the networking opportunities that are the "bennys" of attending good schools, fraternities, civic organizations, professional groups, social clubs, or to job opportunities via referrals of friends already employed by that business, or that state or city agency....if Ron Paul is able to implement his agenda, I guess you would all be shit outta luck.
Ron Paul would roll back the 17th amendment, the one that took the selection of US senators out of the
hands of state legislators and into the hands of individual voters....In Paul's view, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education, SCOTUS decision, and even Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, would be "states rights", not any of our federal government's business. Paul's ideology would allow for segregation as official state law or policy, and I would enjoy reading a post that persuades that a slavery law passed by an individual state would be counter to Ron Paul's political "vision".
Quote:
http://www.goupstate.com/article/200...040337/-1/LIFE
Government can't create moral society, Paul says
Published July 4, 2007
.....SHJ: You're against abortion. How do you counter the view that's the government telling a woman what she can or can't do with her body, infringing on personal freedom?
PAUL: There are two lives. You have a right to privacy in your home - I don't want any cameras or any invasion in the home. Your home is your castle in a free society. That doesn't give you the right to kill a baby in the bed. If there is another life involved, and that crib happens to be the uterus, the issue is not telling the woman what to do. The issue is whether there's another life. I tell my libertarian friends that if you have a live fetus, and it's 4, 5, 6, 7 pounds, and it has a heartbeat, and brainwaves, moves and sucks its thumb, and you kill him, you're committing an act of violence. So, it's a little more complicated than saying a woman can do what she wants with her body, and that's why it's been difficult for a lot of people to sort this out. The one thing I say is that we should repeal Roe v. Wade, and it should be a state issue........
|
Ron Paul's selective memories of Ronald Reagan....no $1,500,000,000,000 deficit, added to an existing Treasury debt in 1980, accumulated over 200 years, that was just $998,000,000,000 before Reagan's inauguration. No mention of Iran/Contra crimes and obstruction, or Reagan's dismal civil rights record and message, either...or Reagan's "non response" to the AIDS epedemic....:
Quote:
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2004/pr061004.htm
Remembering Ronald Reagan
(Representative Ron Paul in the congressional record, Wednesday June 9th)
Mr. Speaker, all Americans mourn the death of President Ronald Reagan, but those of us who had the opportunity to know him are especially saddened. I got to know President Reagan in 1976 when, as a freshman congressman, I was one of only four members of that body to endorse then-Governor Reagan’s primary challenge to President Gerald Ford. I had the privilege of serving as the leader of President Reagan’s Texas delegation at the Republican convention of 1976, where Ronald Reagan almost defeated an incumbent president for his party’s nomination.
I was one of the millions attracted to Ronald Reagan by his strong support for limited government and the free-market. I felt affinity for a politician who based his conservative philosophy on “… a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom…” I wish more of today’s conservative leaders based their philosophy on a desire for less government and more freedom.
Ronald Reagan was one of the most eloquent exponents of the freedom philosophy in modern American politics. One of his greatest achievements was converting millions of Americans to the freedom philosophy; many he inspired became active in the freedom movement. One of the best examples of President Reagan’s rhetorical powers was his first major national political address, “A Time for Choosing.” Delivered in 1964 in support of the Goldwater presidential campaign, this speech launched Ronald Reagan’s career as both a politician and a leader of the conservative movement. The following excerpt from that speech illustrates the power of Ronald Reagan’s words and message. Unfortunately, these words are as relevant to our current situation as they were when he delivered them in 1964:
It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, "We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government."
This idea - that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power - is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream - the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.
Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."
The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government set out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.
One of the most direct expressions of Ronald Reagan’s disdain for big government came during a private conversation I shared with him when flying from the White House to Andrews Air Force Base. As the helicopter passed over the monuments, we looked down and he said, “Isn’t that beautiful? It’s amazing how much terrible stuff comes out of this city when it’s that beautiful.”
While many associate Ronald Reagan with unbridled militarism, he was a lifelong opponent of the draft. It is hardly surprising that many of the most persuasive and powerful arguments against conscription came from President Reagan. One of my favorite Reagan quotes comes from a 1979 article he wrote for the conservative publication Human Events regarding the draft and related “national service” proposals:
“...it [conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state- not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers- to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.”
I extend my deepest sympathies to Ronald Reagan’s family and friends, especially his beloved wife Nancy and his children. I also urge my colleagues and all Americans to honor Ronald Reagan by dedicating themselves to the principles of limited government and individual liberty.
|
Quote:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
The Trouble With Forced Integration
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
July 3, 2004
|
Some other "warts" on Ron Paul's ideology of strict "states rights", to consider:
Quote:
http://yuriybilokonsky.newsvine.com/...wsvine#c788067
......Hm, I've haven't been particularly clear in the scope of this discussion, but I don't think the federal government does everything best, and I don't think we should rely on the federal government before we take any sort of action. Northern states outlawed slavery and segregation before the South, yes, and Oregon entered the Union allowing Women's Suffrage decades before the 19th amendment. But it took federal policy to ensure that being a citizen of the United States meant you enjoy civil rights no matter what state you reside in.
Yes the states *can* protect minority rights and they *should* act responsibly. but you seem to take for granted the fact that they will. I hate to keep harping on gay marraige, but it's the most recent and visible violation of civil rights currently existing. 18 states made gay marraige constitutionally illegal, many in 2004 through voter referrendum. That's over a third of the country. I refuse to give up federal oversight over civil rights because, when it comes to discrimination states' rights are NOT inviolable.
A lot of things handled federally right now would probably be far better handled locally but the point I will not move from is small government is not the solution in every scenario.......
|
America waited 101 years after the Emancipation Proclamation for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. By 1964, some states had advanced to a point where the 1964 Act mandated little significant change. In other states, implementation of the ACT changed the face and "the pecking order" of the social landscape. In those states, the ACT was needed. Economic and social pressure from other states, and the world, did not influence TPTB in those states to budge from their racist, segregationist traditions. Ron Paul would have left those states to their own devices.....no problem for him if he had cause to venture into those ignorant, backward places. This was not the case for minority travelers of the American continent....they had to "watch themsleves"......treading carefully through, or avoiding entirely.....the shorter route that might have taken them through Georgia or Alabama.... But you're not a woman, and your not black.....so that part of Paul's political ideology is not your problem, do I have that right?
Last edited by host; 07-07-2007 at 08:19 PM..
|