The Ron Paul 08 thread! Step on in and learn about him :)
 

Well, I've volunteered for the Ron Paul campaign. But, living where I am theres only so much assistance I can render locally. So I figured why not step onto TFProject and discuss him with some intelligent hip peeps :D


I'm not sure where to start, does anyone have any questions about him? I really dont wanna just start out by yelling he wants this and he wants that.

As said, he wants the Fed to go bye bye, so he's got my positive attention. Frankly, he's the perfect libertarian constitutionalist candidate. He's pro capitalism and free market, he's anti-big government, he's anti wars of aggression (like conservatives of yor), and a slew of other real honest to goodness smart decisions.

I haven't decided whether to vote for him yet, being a lot more socialist than he, but as a die hard liberal even considering voting for someone on the republican bill should say something.

I like Ron Paul. It's refreshing (and unusual) to see a politician who generally seems to care about freedom and the Constitution. He's the only one of the current Republican and Democrat candidates I will vote for, and I think he would make a great president.

Telluride and Willravel make a GREAT point, this guy is running under the Republican ticket, but don't be fooled by the R next to his name. This guy is drawing a lot of bi-partisan support, because he's honest. Something that at this point in history both parties are sorely in need of.

I posted this on May 18th, in the last "Ron Paul" thread....I think that it is worth
reposting, because I do not think that Rep. Pau;, although I agree with his attitude towards the Federal Reserve and it's doomed fiat paper currency "scam", I don't see him being a pluralist with a grasp and a support for the concerns of those who government should be most concerned about representing and actually standing up for....the 150 million Americans who own just 2-1/2 percent of total US assets:

"I predict that too many of Ron Paul's supporters will chalk the following up as oversensitivity from the "politically correct", but I found the 11 year old examples that describe Paul's thinking....the prejudices he harbored that would disqualify him from even holding his current office....make him seem just another unprincipled opportunist, pandering to the flawed sentiments of "his base", in exchange for their politcal support:"

Jesus Christ. I forgot all about that.

Here's the thing, even bearing in mind the dangerous air of racism on several racial fronts, he's by far the best Republican candidate and he is bringing forward VERY important issues that are ignored by the puppets in the Dem and Republican parties. The fact alone that he believes in evolution puts him centuries (millennia?) ahead of many of the others.

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".

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....:
Some other "warts" on Ron Paul's ideology of strict "states rights", to consider:
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?

Interesting. I suppose coming out in public against the words would bring further attention to them, so from a political standpoint letting it die was the right idea. I prefer honesty, but w/e.
If it's a simple matter of "someone else wrote that", wouldn't that put the matter to rest? Or is there further evidence of racism or classism?
Supports don't ask don't tell, which is a step ahead of other republicans who disrespect service men and women who happen to be homosexuals. RP voted no on the constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages. RP voted against making the Patriot Act permanent. He voted no on a constitutional amendment banning flag burning. He has come out in support of non-violent civil disobedience.

But he did change his views of homosexuals when he voted yes on banning gay adoptions in DC.
I've heard both sides of the 17th argument, and while I've chosen that it should remain, I can understand why some want it gone. I only wish that instead of focusing on the 17th, they would focus on doing what they could to help keep the voter informed. That would solve the problem.

As to the race relations decisions and legislation being at a state level... I do like the idea of state's rights, but I see no reason for that to be retroactive. Racism allowed is racism committed.
Wasn't that quote intended to be an eulogy after Reagan died? If that's so, I can understand a little white-washing. If the stuff I've gotten into comes up at my funeral, my family wouldn't sleep for a week. With all the skeletons in the Reagan closet, and most people being aware of them (unless you're in a Republican presidential debate, where Reagan-love runs rampant), I would see no point in bringing them up right after he died.
Don't forget you're talking to a socialist. :thumbsup:
I love that California can pass legislation pushing for alternative fuels years before similar federal laws, but if it honestly works here and the federal government wants to move, I don't think that some backwards, oil loving idiots to stand in it's way.

I remember something Aaron Russo once said in a interview that got my attention:
Democracy is an interesting idea, but it hardly serves or protects the individual. The best form of government is a constitutional republic, like we have. My only improvement would be less reliance on corporations to make the free market run smoothly. Small businesses are what really make the free market work.

After I read that blurb he wrote, I went looking up info on it. The ghost writer argument holds water because I havent been able to find anything else that would suggest hes a racist or anything.

Host, thanks for posting the correction and additional info. I think Ron Paul is definitely one of the better candidates the Republicans are considering, though it makes it interesting to see what Libertarian candidate will run.

On the Dems side, who do you like or feel is a good candidate (if this is too much of a threadjack, maybe we should open up another thread to discuss the Democratic candidates).

The supposed front runner, McCain, has now been left in Paul's dust. He's gained this traction with his ideas and very little money. I wonder if the other candidates misjudged the public's mood with the "I'm tougher than Bush" claim.

at the moment, the 800lb gorilla appears to be bloomberg.
given that the guy is worth about 5 billion and has more money to blow than both conventional parties combined, i've decided to wait a bit and see how things shake out before actually caring too much about the jockeying for position.
not that i would vote for a conservative libertarian in any event.

Out of fairness to Ziadel, who was very clear about why he started this thread, let's talk about other candidates in other threads...

I don't know Ron Paul personally, so I have no insight into whether or not he's a racist. But I didn't find the comments in that article particularly hateful. They seemed more like politically incorrect facts.

I'm not offended when somebody points out that most serial killers in America are white guys. In the area I live in, most home invasion robberies are committed by Asians. This fact doesn't offend me. Most of crimes against American abortionists and/or their clinics are undoubtedly committed by Christians (and most of these Christians are probably white, too). Again; doesn't offend me. So on and so forth.

The more I learn about all these closet issues everywhere, with everyone.....the better Hillary looks every day, this scares me. Oh well, at least the majority of her stinky shit is already in the open....I think?

In this interview with Stephanopoulos, Ron Paul says that taking student loans is an immoral act because it takes money from taxpayers.

He seems pretty out there, honestly. I don't see how he can ever get the nomination, which is a good thing as far as I can see.

I can understand the curiosity around Ron Paul, particularly as a result of his steadfast opposition to the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq.

But his positions on many issues are WAY out of the mainstream - from his bill in the House to overturn Roe v Wade...to his desire to further loosen the limited federal gun control provisions on registration and background checks...and his opposition to stem cell research and basically prohibiting federal "subsidy" of many areas of medical research...his desire to end federal Medicare program and totally privatize Social Security....to his comment above about the federal student loan program and numerous other issues that Americans care about (energy policy - opposing any funding of alternative energy, an abysmal environmental record........)

None of these positions will attract centrists or independents, but I hope, by some miracle, he wins the Republican nomination. It will guarantee a Democratic president...even Hillary.

He doesn't believe that the federal goverment has the right to tax income. Thats not really that far out there if you ask me.

He feels its an issue to be left up to the states. and while I am not thrilled about that, thats the way our system is supposed to work.

Again, if an individual state wants background checks/fingerprints/urine sample thats their business. The states can individually pass whatever legislation they want as long as it doesnt violate the constitution.


again, the feds have no business in this, he's not saying one way or another what should be done, he is saying leave it up to the states from what I understand.

we shall see. ;)

Ziadel...I completely understand the rationale behind his positions ( I dont agree with it) and I also understand where most Americans stand on the issues I cited, and many are diametrically opposed to his hardline radical alternatives..or leaving everything "up to the states".

But as you say, we shall see, as his positions beyond the war become well known to the voters.

DC, Ron Paul's ideas (the ones you listed) are hardly extreme or radical. I think they are very mainstream (in a broad sense). States rights is very salient and not radical at all.

Jorgelito....perhaps you have information that I have not seen, but I am not aware of any studies, polls, etc that suggest broad based support or a "states rights" movement when it comes to these issues of concern to many Americans.

Do you think most America wants to replace Roe with 50 state abortion laws or the Brady Bill with 50 different state gun control laws? The same applies to stem cell research, Medicare and Social Security reform, disaster planning and response, etc.

Do you believe most American want to see no federal role in medical, science and technology R&D...or no federal support for developing alternative energy resources...or very limited federal enviromental regulations?

Do you think most Americans support a NO vote on a National Amber Alert system for missing children...or no federal minimum wage...or less federal regulations on workplace safety?

These are all Ron Paul positions...all under the guise of "not authorized in the Constitution and should be left to the States". Yet there is no evidence that Americans want these (and many other issues) left to the states.

There is a place for folks like Ron Paul (and Dennis Kucinich) in the House of Representatives, where they are one voice among 435. It is refreshing and contributes to the debate when they vote against the mainstream Ds and Rs based on their respective understanding of the Constitution and the role of the federal government. They also know that their positions are far from the mainstream and will have no impact on passage or failure of most legislation.

However, these guys dont translate well to the Executive Branch. Assume a Ron Paul presidency and his "abolish the income tax" position. Would he veto student loans bills because they are dependent on revenue derived from income taxes....Would he veto the annual budget and appropriation bills (he votes against many of the appropriation bills). Not a chance because he knows the blowback that would come from Americans across the country who benefit from programs like student loan guarantees, getting their Social Security check, farm subsidies, community development programs, etc.

Sorry, he is WAY out of the mainstream and more people will recognize that as they become familiar with his positions beyond the sound bites of "abolish the income tax" and "get the federal government out of our lives"

Ron Paul's voting record in his 12 years in Congress...a very mixed record in many respects, but a very clear pattern on some issues.

The milestones that measured progress in the areas of racial, gender, and income equality, and the equal opportunity to vote, came as a result of weakening the "states rights" movement, during the 20th century, not by strengthening it.

I look forward to reading where the significant advocacy for strengthening states rights is coming from, and how it is measured......polling results, etc.

States Rights is an anachronism that harkens back to a dismal, intolerant time in American history. I know that advancing it's theme is part and parcel to the message, turned into reality via the current administration, that the federal government is not competent to accomplish anything. They've intentionally made it that way. It needs new, accountable management, not the dismantling that the people who advocated for and brought about it's dismal, recent performance record, intend for it.

The same folks who support states rights, proclaiming that this...or that...is best left up to each state to decide, or manage...because the federal government "can do nothing right"...are the folks who advocate for "a strong military", and national security apparatus, as if "the purpose", somehow minimizes the incompetency that they perceive permeates all other government functions. FEMA under James Lee Witt in the 90's was transformed....in reverse....by Bush, Brownie, and DHS...and the degradation that resulted, can be reversed, just as the decline in the DOJ can be reversed.

There is no going back....states rights caused a war.....it ended in 1865. It's the 21st century, and conservatism is not what raised the level of rights and protections of women, minorities, and for those working for wages, during the 20th century, and it is certainly not the solution today....
[/quote]

In my opinion, support for states' rights in the US is support for the slogan, not for what states' right would actually mean.

In that way, this issue is like most others - it enjoys broad support in general, but weak support in particular instances.

okay, so now either uber or jorgelito can provide polling results that indicate support for states rights, when folks are asked, "do you support states rights"?

No.

I'm not saying that there is broad support for states' rights. I'm saying is that there are people who support the idea, and that they are responding to a phrase that resonates more than they are to the meaning behind it. In other words, not all of those people understand the implications of the phrase they like.

Is your post a contention that there aren't people who react positively to the idea of states' rights? If you live in GA and don't know of individuals who rally behind states' rights, you need to get out. That's not an issue of poll numbers.

uber, we are in complete agreement.... jorgelito used the word "broad", not you.
I think that the majority of white southerners support "state rights", and that many of the younger ones....as well as many transplanted southern residents from other parts of the US, are not aware of the history or the former disasterous consequences of the struggle to preserve "states rights". Ironically, the blue states, where "states rights" is not a concept on the political radar screen, would benefit significantly, financially, if "states rights" were to gain traction. Those states send much more money to DC than they get back in federal subsidies, military spending, etc......

Ahem. Gentlemen, I assure you that all four states on the left coast are vociferous in defense of state's rights. Federal intrusion into our rights rarely goes unchallenged.

What's the forth state on the left coast?

I count 5 actually - AK, CA, HI, OR, WA

My map shows Alaska as the 4th left coast state; Hawaii bobs offshore. :rolleyes:

DC, no, I doubt I have any information you have not seen; thanks for the clarification on your part. I suspect the "broad" sense support is closer to what uber alludes to. Sometimes we can analyze things to death but there are intangibles like public opinion and perception that defy traditional polling or quantification.

In Ron Paul's case, I think generally, he does have broad appeal, but as you have indicated, a closer examination reveals a much more complex platform. For example, I am very much in support of states' rights to begin with, but not so much in favor of abolishing the income tax (reducing yes, abolishment no). I definitely think it should be up to the state's to decide abortion, stem cells etc. At least, we the people would have a choice.

Basically, I have yet to come across the "perfect" candidate that embodies everything I believe in or agree with. That's just life, it's about compromises. The same applies to ALL the candidates. If I could have my way, I would pick and choose the aspects I like from each and combine them into one super candidate.

Ron Paul may not be perfect etc..but in my view, he is pretty darn good and has definitely intrigued a lot of people.

I do see where you are coming from in your post DC, but I was thinking more along the lines that uber mentioned.

What do you think of Ron Paul (regardless of party affiliation, just as a candidate etc)? Is there any other potential candidate you like (any party or none of course)?

Oh yeah, thanks for the link to Ron Paul's voting record DC, I will take a look at it later when I have more time.

Host, I deliberately used the term "broad" (in the broad sense of the word) precisely because I do not know of any polls etc.

Here's my question about Ron Paul:

It's all well and good to have an exotic destination in mind, but you still have to know how to get there. How in the world would he implement his principles as policies 1) in the real political world in which the President must work with the Congress, and 2) without destabilizing the economic and political structures to the point of chaos and coup?

Jorgelito....I'll offer up an assessment of Ron Paul by the conservative pundit Armstrong Williams, with whom I agree on virtually nothing, except this:
A postiion of "its not provided for in the Constitution and should be left up to the states" is not a solution to the challenges of competing in a global economy; providing opportunities for a livable wage to those on the margin or living in poverty; protecting the environment; ensuring energy independence and developing alternative energy resources; keeping the US in the forefront of medical, science and technology R&D; providing affordable health care, working with allies on common security issues, etc.

I dont see solutions from Paul on many of these issue; all I see is anti-federal rhetoric.

And I dont see any evidence of the broad appeal you say he has. Perhaps his sound bites during the debates was appealing. But`he still barely registers in single digits in the national polls and not much better in polls in Texas, where he is more widely known.

I am currently leaning towards Bill Richardson and still intrigued by Barak Obama, who I think may ultimately have the potential to be the best hope as a "uniter, not a divider" that was falsely promised by Bush and that the country desperately needs.

It's terribly telling how alot of people see that the closer a candidate is to the constitutional law of things, the more 'out of the mainstream' they are. What does that say about people nowadays?

I would suggest that is says that the American people are generally comfortable and supportive of a federal government that most consider the best in the world and that benefits every citizen in one manner or another, even with all its warts, including most recently a more secretive government than ever, intrusions into personal lives, a growing disparity between haves and have nots.

I think most citizens believe it needs tweeking, not a complete overhaul replaced by an 18th century "strict constitutional law" approach.

Ok, is it that people are too stupid to realize that the constitution is 'the law of the land', or is it that they just don't care anymore because it's too hard to live by?

Those that don't like the way the constitution is, know how to amend the damn thing, so why torture and render it meaningless?

How condescending of you. No....they just dont agree with your interpretation.

Broadly, I don't see an effective stance on caring for the weaker members of society in the libertarian ideology. To me, their motto seems to be "Only the Strong Survive" which to me is counterproductive. Weaker members of society constitute the main sources of this countries' violent crime, overflowing prison populations, illegal immigration issues, welfare, substance abuse & addiction, mental health cases, on down the line. We as a society - and our government as its representative - are morally, ethically and strategically responsible for providing sustenance to them. An apathetic attitude in addressing these issues weakens the country - a proactive attitude strengthens the country. We are not now - or will ever be - a nation of self-sufficient superbeings.

I'm still speaking the truth though
How in the bloody hell do you misinterpret the following?

THIS is a legal document that specifically states how the constitution is to be amended. Why is anything else that 'tweeks' or in any other way modifies that legal document OK??????

By approving of 'tweeking' the constitution OUTSIDE of the legally documented path of amending the constitution is de facto approval for anything else that modifies the constitution, even with the current administration.

DK, if the Constitution was intended to be the ONLY law of the land, it wouldn't grant Congress the power to make laws.

dk...the amendment process resulted in the 16th amendment that Paul and other libertarians somehow still consider unconstitutional and that serve as the foundation of their postions:

and what Uber said as well (article I, section 8 - Congress shall have the power to.......)

Pardon me, I meant SUPREME law of the land. got a bit excited and misspoke myself.

The 16th is settled law and has been proven to be a legally binding amendment. The stupid difference of punctuation concerning the amendment ratification between the different states is petty bullshit. There are amendments that probably shouldn't have been made, the 16th included, but they are done and ratified, so they legally exist.

yes, they have the power to tax, but not do anything that would violate the constitution nor violate the rights of the people.

it seems ron paul would veto every bill as president

i do like his straightforward manner. he answers questions directly and is less likely to rattle off campaign talking points. this is probably a function of his low polling numbers.

it is amazing that he has raised more money than mccain in the second quarter ... and almost more than romney if romney had not loaned himself 9 million.

some ron paul video can be found here ...

http://12.170.145.161/search/basic.a...&image1=Submit

DC, thanks for the discussion. I think it's going to be an interesting election and that it is definitely not too early to start discussing the candidates and the issues. I think people like Ron Paul add some spice and color to the mix. I wonder if Nader will make an appearance too.

I live in Southern California where alot of people have been talking about Ron Paul lately (actually since the last debate, where I think he got alot of attention), and at least feel that Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air.

I guess we will just have to wait and see what the year bears out. In the meantime, there are a bunch of other candidates to discuss too. I've been waiting for Elphaba to start a McCain thread. I would love to hear your and others take on Obama. I think he is a very interesting candidate with a lot of potential. The "uniter" thing is a delicate balance though. It could easily go the other way. I know alot of African American's are wary of him and are taking a wait and see approach. They just don't trust him yet nor see him as "one of us". Yet. We will see.

Powerclown, I disagree with you about libertarian ideology not caring about "the weaker members of society". At least maybe you and I have different interpretations on it perhaps. I interpret it to be a matter of choice. I don't think libertarians are against helping others, but rather it's more about the choice of choosing to help others, to be free from coercion or being compelled to do things they don't want to.

I am very generous and charitable, but I do not want someone else dictating to me who I can help.

I get that - I wasn't trying to nitpick on mistakes. I suppose what I'm getting at is that there is more to our government than what the Constitution says, though it does get trump status. Because the power to make laws is granted, and as Hamilton argued, the power to do things to carry those laws out is implied, there is a lot of stuff that has happened in the last 200 years that bears consideration.

Out of curiosity DK, are you of the opinion that Hamilton and the Federalists were already going too far? Of course, that's a whole other can of worms which could be a great thread, but your answer may help me understand your perspective.

trickky....just for the record, Paul did not raise more funds that McCain in the second quarter. He has more cash on hand, because McCain's campaign has been pissing his funds away with a bloated staff, over priced ads, etc:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/q2.asp?cycle=2008

...and hookers.

will.....just an old rumor spread by the despicable Karl Rove and the religious right in the 2000 primary campaign, along with charges of an illegitimate dark skinned daughter and a wife who was a drug addict. :sad: (best left to another thread)
http://www.democracynow.org/article..../09/03/1457251

Understood...I see it as an obligation and the price to pay for living in a civilized, advanced society. Any society enlightened enough to allow any of its citizens the opportunity to own their own piece of land free and clear, get an advanced education, bear arms independently, run ones own business as he sees fit, should also import a certain amount of responsibility to the others in that society. A large, co-op antfarm if you will. ;)

As someone on here earlier said (I think it was here), Madison and his support for the 'sedition' laws was just the first of many examples of an overreaching federal government, not unlike exactly what Jefferson and the rest of the anti-federalists were afraid of.

Take a look at our history and you'll see example on top of example where the federal gov took more power where they weren't authorized, at least by the constitution. The years after the revolution were just the start. The civil war and the years after were a major power grab for the feds, in fact, the ONLY two good things that came out of the civil war happened to be the 13th and 14th amendments. It was a damn shame that the courts were still of the racist mindset and co-opted the one good thing to come out of the civil war and enact social engineering by judicial fiat. The FDR admin and the new deal tie with post civil war for the worst power grab by the feds.

It won't be much longer before states won't really need to elect legislative bodies anymore. Governers will be more like feudal lords than representatives of the people.

Now that Ron Paul's figures are reported, tt appears he raised as much in the second quarter as Joe Biden, a bit more than Sam Brownback and less than Chris Dodd.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/q2.asp?cycle=2008

Are any of these guys really viable candidates?

I think it's too soon to tell. We have to wait it out a bit to see how the "herd thins out".

I am actually pretty surprised at McCain's struggles. Also, I don't think money necessarily = a win. Perot, Forbes all had tons of money but didn't really get anywhere. I do think Bloomberg is interesting.

When the dust settles, we will have 1 Democrat and 1 Republican candidate. I am interested to see what independent or other party candidates turn up. Lieberman? Nader?

I have been a strong Romney supporter, but lately, I've just been feeling like I need to go whole hog for Paul. I found this video this morning:

Somebody asked Dr. Paul about Big Pharma, and he, in one minute just laid out the whole debate.

Dr. Paul just gets the WTO.

Mr. Romney had better start listening, or he may lose this supporter!

Jenny Hatch


He is also an obstetrician who understands the big pharma companies inside and out. If he had been available as a doctor, I may not have given birth to my last two babies at home.

Check out this video - his supporters are rabid constitutionalists and this one too, We Become Silent, he was and is a very important voice in exposing the Big Pharma Frauds and attempted takeover of the supplement industry.

Jenny Hatch


This one was my all time favorite: Showed up on You TUBE recently and it is blasting around the internet.....FREEDOM IS POPULAR!

Jenny Hatch

I've donated quite a bit of money (for me) to his campaign. First and only time I've donated to a politician.

What I really like about him is he gives off this aura of honesty which is backed up by his voting records. He says what he will do and does it. You may not like his policies, but it's hard to find politician's who are consistant on issues and strickly follow the rule of law.

I like the fact that he left Congress, went home and worked a real job for years before throwing his hat back into the ring. He is not a career politician, and it shows in his ethics and clarity.

Jenny

I agree about the "herd thinning out" but money and organization do count..thats just the way it is until we have true campaign reform.

As for Ron Paul, even with the recent visibility, he is still not even a blip on the radar. In fact, in two recent national polls (USA Today/Gallup and Fox), his numbers have gone down in the last month to less than 1% (its a whopping 2% in CNN, Newsweek and Cook polls):

http://pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm

I will take him more seriously as a candidate if he gets anywhere near double digits.....until then, he is just a novelty candidate.

Theres a lot of speculation about why this is exactly

It could be because most of his supporters don't have landline telephones, and even those who do won't pick up the phone unless they recognize the number on the caller ID.

Why do you have to wait until he gets support from everyone else for you to support him? If his message speaks to you and you think he would be a positive leader, then why not support him?

ziadel...I am not withholding support for Ron Paul because of his miniscule polling numbers. I posted the polling numbers and his fund raising totals (same as Joe Biden) to show that he is not among the first tier candidates, despite all this talk about his having wide spread, cross-party support.

Other than his position on the war, I dont agree with his approach to government or any solutions that I have seen him propose to the problems we face as a nation....and I dont think he has the experience or leadership qualities to be president. IMO, a`mantra of "its not the government's role" does not demonstrate leadership.

I do agree with you on the problems with polling and the fact that many of his supporters might not show up in traditional polls...but that would account for a margin of error of a few percentage points at best....and would probably apply to Barak Obama as well, who also has many young, potential first-time voters. It also doesnt explain the drop to less than 1% in the last month in the USA Today and Fox polls.

This is not to demean the enthusiasm for his candidacy by you and others, but I just dont see any evidence of a groundswell of support for Paul.

The more I hear about Ron Paul, the more I like the guy.

Here's a great interview with him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

I think the real evidence is just that a vote for Ron Paul is not a vote for what (as I see it) is essentially a national referendum between "liberal" and "conservative" points of view.

Also, he's not just saying Goverment should stay out of it, he's referring to Federal Government, meaning California would be free to be California and Montana would be free to be Montana. If you don't like the way things are going where you're at, you can move.

;)

By all means....

if you dont want a national economic policy that strengthens our competitiveness in a global economy

or a national environmental policy that recognizes that the protection of our air, water and natural resources does not stop at the state borders

or a national energy policy that promotes alternative energy and lessens our dependence on foreign oil

or if you dont want to see the US remain the world's leader of medical, science and technology R&D

or if you want an isolationist rather than a president who will strengthen our bond will allies around the world to confront common defense and national security challenges

...then Vote for Ron Paul

Let the free market do its thing, when someone comes up with something cheaper than oil that they can sell cheaper than petrol, they will, we're already on to that with ethanol and biodiesel.


Ron Paul doesnt want socialized medicine, like most others do, and socialized medicine is the real enemy of medical adavances In my opinion. Nobody works for free.

I dont want to get involved in any more wars. What exactly is wrong with an isolationist policy? Unless we're attacked, we should not goto war. I for one would love to go back to 'Walk softly and carry a big stick'. And besides which, Ron Paul wants congress to be the ones making choices about who we goto war with, as it should be.

The free market isn't preventing wars over oil. I doubt it will make a turn in time to avoid a serious catastrophe with oil running out.
What has RP said about medical insurance?
I'm pretty sure that he doesn't know how to solve the problem, even though if you look at any other western nation, you can see a system light years ahead of our own and socialized. I wonder if RP would be willing to let his hard line libertarianism go for the benefit of all Americans getting health coverage.

..

Ethanol and biodiesel and other energy alternatives are being developed now, in part, because of tax incentives and other tax breaks there were major components of recent bi-partisan energy legislation.

RP voted against all these bills: the Clean Energy Act of 2007, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) Act of 2001...all of which promoted alternative energy development.

I dont want socialized medicine either, but I do federally funded medical research.

RP voted against funding for NIH in each of the last 4 years.

He pretty much voted a blanket NO on every appropriations bill for the last 10 years and I am still waiting for a RP supported to explain how that offers a positive solution and how that would translate to what he would do as President when Congress sends him those bills with bi-partisan support.

and do you know why he has voted no? because those laws would violate the constitution. why do you support violations of the constitution?

It's not unconstitutional for the federal government to spend money. Please read the constitution:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

How do they violate the constitution?

Mebbe he just doesnt agree with how they are funded (taxes)

It is absolutely not unconstitutional for Congress to appropriate money on any and all programs that provide for the general welfare of the US:

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

welfare: welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being

dk...unless there is a strict definition or enumeration of what constitutes "general welfare" somewhere in the Constitution of which I am not aware or a Supreme Court ruling that narrowly defines "general welfare" as it is applied in Art I, Sec 8, then your argument is baseless.

I understand that he doesnt agree with how most federal programs are funded.

What I want to know is how he could possibly maintain that position and govern as President. (No RP supporters seem willing or able to answer that questions, nor does RP himself.)

Would he veto every appropriations bill?....Only to have most, if not all, overridden by Congress.

Is that really the chaos you want in your federal government? Do you have any idea of the impact that would have on your life...and not in a helpful, positive way.

don't even begin to try to school me on the constitution. You're way out of your league.

spending bills alone are not in violation of the constitution, it's when there are thousands of earmarks that ARE in violation of the constitution, that the whole spending bill is in violation of the constitution.

If some of you people are going to actually require to have every damn detail spelled out for you in black and white detail, my posts are going to be longer than hosts. I'm pretty sure that most of you ignore his long ass posts because of this.

and a 250 million dollare bridge in alaska that goes to an island is 'general welfare'? This is the crap that is unconstitutional and you damn well know it. Again, if you require every minute detail about all specific arguments, you're out of your league.


so what you're really saying is that to make sure things move along smoothly, to hell with the constitution. what a fine upstanding law abiding american you are. :thumbsup: :rolleyes:

dk.....I agree that many earmarks like the bridge to nowhere are unethical and Congress should do more to control such frivolous spending. If the $250 million bridge is unconstitutional, what is the parameter....the amount? Would a $1 million bridge meet your constitutional test?

But unconstitutional? Nope, but if Ron Paul or the Libertarian Party or watchdog organization believe such acts are unconstitutional, they should challenge it in court.

You dont get to decide what is legal and what makes upstanding a law-abiding American.....until you're on the Supreme Court, :)

anyone with a shred of intelligence should realize that 'general welfare' does not mean 35 people on an island. Anyone with a decent and logical intellect should know that 'general welfare' means something that benefits the country as a whole.

I'm plainly reading the constitution, unlike alot of other people on here who's only experience and knowledge of constitutional law exists from the start of new deal socialism from 1934. This includes the courts. They've been flat wrong on damn near everything since that year. The problem lies with people like you who've either been duped in to believing that the USSC knows all that the founders were thinking 200+ years ago or have been indoctrinated by the socialist mindset.

I repeat, anyone with a shred of intelligence can read the constitution and clearly understand what powers the government has and what it does not....anyone else is willfully torturing the interpretation to suit their own wants.

Your self-righteous insistence that you know the Constitution better than many Supreme Court justices and any other citizens who disagree with you on a particular interpretation is tiresome, baseless and insulting.

dksuddeth, "if you don't agree with me you are dumb" isn't a very compelling argument.

It might be acceptable if you could ever be bothered to back up the claims you make with anything beyond, "if you don't agree with me you are dumb," but that seems to be a rarity.

Really, i'm genuinely interested in the point you're trying to make, it's just difficult really relate to it when you refuse to back it up in any sort of meaningful way.

If the ussc isn't capable of interpreting the constitution, what makes you think that you are?

whatever, i'm still right. your little diatribe you linked to showed quite plainly that any 'broad' interpretation of general welfare came during FDR's new deal and not a true reading of the constitution. The Hamilton doctrine steadfastly shows that 'general welfare' was for the country as a whole, not specified locations such as an island in alaska or wetlands in north carolina, unless the fed government bought the land.

I also noticed that the lower half of the article had a lot to explain about how the feds coerce the states with funding to bring about it's agenda. If it were truly a 'general welfare' purpose then it wouldn't need to worry about recouping funding, as it would be 'general welfare'. It's blindingly obvious to rational people that the feds bribe the states to move a socialist agenda forward and that makes it technically unconstitutional.

It isn't any different than trying to 'lead a horse to water'. If they aren't willing to drink what is plainly in front of them, who am I to force it on them?

I back it up with the plain text of the constitution, what more do you want?

The USSC is completely capable of interpreting the constitution. What people conveniently bury their heads in the sand about is that there are two political agendas in this country when it concerns the judiciary power and neither of them have the constitution in mind. Again, the plain reading of the text of the constitution is very easy to understand. It's when you get people with an agenda that does not jive with the plain text of the constitution is where you end up with tortured definitions of words like 'is'.

I agree with your overall premise but am concerned with the limitations of your list of things being allowed by our enlightened society. Even so your point about our responsibilty to others is a good one.

"Own piece of land free and clear"
Until some polititian wants it for their brother in law to build a shopping center. Also many people who think they own their property are foreclosed on because they cannot afford the taxes.

"Bear arms"
Only stripped down weapons that fire one shot at a time and do not look nasty. It seems like every year they are trying to take away even these.

"Run one's business as he sees fit"
No way can we do this. We can't hire and fire at will and in many cases can't even choose who we want to do business with. Not to mention the numerous regulations some designed to limit competition and protect polititians campaign contributors, etc..

Amazing guy.

Whoa, whoa, slow down. You've going a mile a minute!

I'd heard about Ron Paul before this thread, but didn't really know much about him. Anyway, after taking the time to read up on him and watch a few of his videos on YouTube, I only have one thing to say...

If Ron Paul doesn't win, then it just goes to show that this country is full of morons/people who care more about lining their own pockets with money instead of the general welfare of the public. I'm not looking forward to living in an America where I have to live in astute poverty because this generation's leaders (Like that idiot in office) were more interested in protecting big business/the rich than they were than upholding the principles that this country was founded on.

It's a sad day in America when someone is called a fool for wanting to uphold the Constitution... :orly:

IL....can you explain Ron Paul's position that the income tax is unconstitutional?

Perhaps before the 16th amendment was proposed by Congress in 1909 and ratified by the states in 1913:
His rhetoric on taxes and spending may be popular with some (2% of Repubs in latest polls), but it has no basis in Constitutional law (despite dk's "whatever...I'm right" argument).

Characterizing those who dont support him as`"morons/people who care more about lining their own pockets with money instead of the general welfare of the public" still doesnt explain how we would govern based on his position of opposing nearly all spending.

Your criticisms seem to amount to, "people who think like me are the only people capable of seeing the common sense logic of the constitution for what it is. Everyone else is corrupt."

So, i know you think that the constitution is plain as day, but just because you think it, does not make it so.

I'll explain it as I understand. An income tax means that the people work for the government when, in fact, the government works for the people. The government can't take a portion of our pay simple because it believes it can, as it doesn't 'own' anything 'we' work for.

*Shrugs*

It makes sense to me.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the 'scientific' polls, as they are done solely by land line phone. Most people-- Well, I'll just speak for myself here-- Almost use cell/internet phones exclusively. Still, just look at the internet polls. While they might not be 'scientific', they seem to indicate that the Ron Paul has garnered an absolutely HUGE following. I hate to use Wikipedia as a source, but I'll make an exception in this case.

Link

Just go to YouTube and type in 'Ron Paul'. You get about 40K returns. That's more than any other presidential candidate by a mile. I tend to believe that people are genuinely interested in Ron Paul and, besides what the biased media has to say, I think he has a real shot at winning the GOP.

What Ron Paul opposes is channeling billions upon billions of dollars into useless/ineffective government agencies. It's a waste of money which could be effectively put towards other endeavors-- Such as correcting the national debt (Which, in my opinion, should be of paramount importance. The US can't even finance it's own activities anymore and is relies heavily on foreign investors to buy government issued bonds. While such a strategy might have worked in the past, it doesn't seem to be working now as evidenced by the fact that you see more and more foreign investors taking more and more dollars out of their reserves-- Thus causing the dollar to lose any kind of value it has left-- And switching to more stable currencies, such as the British pound or Euro.).

Care to guess how much money is wasted on programs such as "Art Behind Bars"?

It may sense to you, but the income tax is still not unconstitutional, as RP claims.


You dont put stock in scientific polls (I agree with you about landlines), but you put stock in online polls and You Tube clicks?

Not nearly as much as the $1/2 trillion for the Iraq invasion/occupation. The one issue where I agree with RP>

After a lot of researching about Ron Paul, I was very interested, and was planing on voting for him. Actually, I'm not sure yet, so I may after all (though I'm leaning towards Kucinich) - but I have one huge concern: Free-market.

I don't believe a "truly free market" amounts to anything positive for the average person. Free-markets = the possibilities for monopolies, and if there's one thing Rockefeller taught us, with price rising and price dropping to destroy competition, is that monopolies are neigh-impossible to topple. The result? Consumers are royally screwed.

My other critique of Dr. Paul is that, while I know his position on constitutionality, I also know what he thinks of abortion (human life begins at conception), meaning that it may be his only hypocritical move (in my opinion - I'm pro-choice).

Those of you who support Dr. Paul may benefit from researching Mike Gravel or Kucinich.

In any case, the more I think about what an unregulated free market would result in, the more I can't help but lose support for Dr. Paul.

Ron Paul is a rare creature, an honest man in politics. I respect him, but I usually disagree with him and would NEVER vote for him for President. I mostly agree with the posters who likened him to a Republican Kucinich - a good man, but out there. And I'm not talking about electability; I'm talking about policy. I'm pretty moderate and would be likely to vote for someone closer to the "center" (though, really, I prefer not to speak in political categories).

Also - I forget where I first heard this, but it always comes to mind when I hear these debates about the Constitution - The Constitution is not a suicide pact. What that means is that the Constitution, a great and wise document though it is, was not handed down by God. Its purpose was to create a nation of laws, for men. How did it do that? By the clever use of language.

What does this mean? It means that just like language, the Constitution can be interpreted. This is why the slippery-slope argument with regards to constitutionality usually doesn't hold water. Most - though not all, mind you - ways in which the Constitution has been interpreted fit pretty well within the paradigms of the interpretation of language. Anyone who has ever tried to discern meaning from a cryptic phrase knows that the are a number of possibly valid interpretations; the same applies to the Constitution (and most legal matters). Furthermore, the Constitution is vague deliberately. If it weren't vague, nobody would ever have agreed to it, and the framers understood that. So, they left a lot up in the air, figuring that future generations would sort it out. As their disagreements make plain, they had some pretty different ideas of how it should be interpreted, too.

And sort it out we have, albeit tragically at times. Generally speaking, in terms of federal powers, the Hamiltonian doctrine has won out. You may disagree with this outcome, and have some very good reasons why. Lots of very intelligent, well-informed people, believe federal powers have been interpreted too broadly (I tend to disagree with this view, though there are some notable exceptions). The key word there, though, is interpreted. You don't know what the Constitution means because the Constitution is open to interpretation and it was always meant to be that way. If people could read the Constitution and know its exact implications for everything, there would be no lawyers or judges.

He is pro-life, but he does not want the federal government to be in control of that. He believes the states should individually decide.

I find Ron Paul's position on earmarks to be just a tad hypocritical and dishonest.

He claims earmarks are unconstitutional on the grounds that they do not support the "general welfare", yet in the fiscal 08 appropriation bills, he submitted 65 requests for earmarks for projects in his district (last year the average was under 60).

So he submits earmark requests from constitutents with barely a review of their merit; then votes against the appropriation bills on principle, knowing full well that the bills will pass with his earmarks included.

If he truly believes earmarks are unconstitutional, then he should reject them all. But turning down funding requests from constitutents for projects like marketing wild shrimp, renovation of an old theater, bridge repair, hospital research, etc...might hurt his reelection.

I do give him credit, along with Barak Obama, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, for making their earmark requests public. The other candidates have not.

But Is he really that much different?

I think he's just caught between a rock and a hard place. Is it really fair for his constituents to get screwed over? Ideally his district would be able to spend their money how they see fit, but for some reason the Feds think they have to micro manage state affairs. I guess he just feels they should get some of that money back.

I highly doubt any of this will hurt his re-election at all, especially with all the support his been getting nationally. His house seat isn't going anywhere.

You play by the rules of the game as they are, even if you seek to change those rules. You might want to see earmarks halted, but so long as they are part of the fabric of our politics, you have to work within that framework or your own constituents end up getting the shaft. You might be in favor of publicly funded elections, but until it comes about you have to fund your campaign by the current system. You might be in favor of alternative energy programs, but it doesn't mean you don't own a car.

I like seeing people make some moves to show their convictions, but I don't expect them to go so far as to be incapable of succeeding within the current framework.

josh....the distinction I would make is that Ron Paul does not only want the change the rules on earmarks, he says without reservation that they are unconstitutional.

If he believe that strongly in his constitutional interpretation, he should stand by it all the way and not act in what he believes is an illegal manner. He is trying to play it both ways that IMO is counter to his conviction. He should tell his constituents right up front that he will not submit earmarks and stand or fall on that position...or back off from the constitution argument.

John McCain believes earmarks are fiscally irresponsible and will not request any on behalf of his constitutents. His constituents know that and accept it.

Well you are very correct about that all, I think in this instance, and depending on the earmarks in question, one could definitely make the argument that Paul's public pronouncements, due to their strong nature, would require a requisite show of action to back them up. And it is also true that there are more than just McCain that do in fact avoid earmarks and yet successfully retain their seat.

My statement was really more of a general commentary on the general concept of how much one should be expected to go against the system in demonstration of their desire to change the system. As for Paul in particular, I have to admit I've not closely analyzed him as he is not a candidate in an election I'll be voting in.

It looks like he did very well in this last debate. He won the ABC post debate poll, the MSNBC poll and the Drudge Report poll. I have also heard that he has spent only $600,000 of his $3 million raised so far.

He as accomplished quite a lot with nothing but a strong message and little money. If he had a 90% household name recognition like guliani and mccain instead of <10% he'd probably be in first place for the nomination.

Here's a great clip from the recent debate

Love how romney tries to pull the "..but.....but..but 9/11" and gets shut up. Paul makes so many great points in that clip.

I just checked the ABC poll. It shows Ron Paul as winning the poll with 30,000 votes. The next in line is Romney with 3,861....

I think that a lot of that is poll voters self-selecting. I'd be shocked and awed if those figures were in any way representative of the voting public.

I agree they probably aren't very representative of the public, but I do think they are representative of people who follow the debates which may only be 5-10% of the public if that.

I find it so odd that I may actually vote Republican for once in my life if he runs.

The energy around this guy is incredible so I hear. He usually has more supporters than any other candidates at debates and events.

The last couple minutes of this clip is really awesome imo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ#h

He managed to beat out some very recognized candidates in the Iowa straw poll coming in at Fifth.

FIFTH. Tommy Thompson dropped out after coming in sixth.

Look, Ron Paul may be super great, but people need to get past the idea that internet support is any kind of important. The vast majority of voting Americans are not frequenting the tubes. Ron Paul has zero chance. Get over it, move on.