Ron Paul For President
 

If you've not heard of Congressman Ron Paul, you're in for a real treat. This is the man who can make America the country we all want it to be! "Dr. No", as Paul is affectionately known, is the M.D. who votes against ANY bill he believes violates the constitution. This man is the real deal, folks! I cant stress enough how important it is that you all go to his official website at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ and see for yourselves what a bright future full of promise this man represents. Theres just no excuse for not supporting Congressman Paul's bid for the presidency. Find out what you can do to help!

Political positions of Ron Paul

Paul at the 2007 National Right to Life Convention in Kansas City, MO; June 15, 2007Ron Paul's political positions are largely in line with his stance as a libertarian, a Constitutionalist, and a non-interventionist. He is an advocate of free trade, fewer taxes, smaller government, greater individual rights, and strong national sovereignty.[16]

Paul supports reduced government spending and reduced taxes. As Congressman, he has never voted to raise taxes or to approve an unbalanced budget. He has long fought for the prohibition of federal individual income taxes by repeal of the 16th Amendment. He has also called for the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the federal income tax, while acknowledging that he could only do so as president with the backing of Congress and the American public.[17] Paul has been named "The Taxpayer's Best Friend" by the National Taxpayers Union every year he has been in Congress.[18]

Paul supports a non-interventionist foreign policy and opposes foreign aid as doing more harm than good. He is the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.[19][20] Paul voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force which resulted in the War in Afghanistan in 2001,[21] but suggested alternatives including giving the president authority to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Paul stated that the Letters "would allow Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates using non-government armed forces. The marque and reprisal approach creates an incentive for people in Afghanistan or elsewhere to turn him over to the U.S."[22] With respect to the Darfur conflict, he opposed the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004 which called for a peacekeeping mission by African, Arab and Muslim nations, and U.S. humanitarian aid for civilian victims.[23]

Paul supports strong national security that does not infringe on individual rights or privacy. In 2002 Paul also voted for the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act that would create a program where commercial airline pilots would be deputized as federal law enforcement officers and would then be permitted to carry guns aboard airlines,[24] the bill was eventually amended to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which Ron Paul voted against.[25]

Paul supports secure borders and strong American sovereignty while opposing illegal immigration. He opposes the North American Union proposition and its proposed further economic integration of Mexico, the United States, and Canada. Paul voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico. Paul opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants. He also introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution to stop giving automatic citizenship to infants born in the United States to non-citizen parents.[26]

Paul is a staunch defender of a right to self defense, a proponent of individual Second Amendment rights and is the only 2008 Presidential candidate with a voting record rated A+ by Gun Owners of America.

Paul identifies himself as strongly pro-life[27] and accordingly has introduced H.R. 776 titled "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005" which would have defined life as beginning at conception and would have prohibited the federal government from regulating or funding abortions.[28] Paul believes that this issue is in the jurisdiction of the states citing that such laws and their enforcement is not an enumerated power of the federal government.[29][30]Accordingly, he has challenged the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade.[31] He has described the "rights of unborn people" as "the greatest moral issue of our time" and called for a federal ban on abortion via constitutional amendment, and says that Pro-Life action must originate from principle.[32]

Paul considers the lack of federal jurisdiction to be an overriding factor and has thus been bound from bringing federal legislation on the matter. He has consistently relegated state and individual matters which are outside of the realm of a limited federal government as defined by the United States Constitution.[33]
He supports the U.S. converting to a free market health care system, saying in an interview on New Hampshire NPR that the present system is akin to a "corporatist-fascist" system which keeps prices high. He contends that prices decrease in industries with free markets due to technological innovation. He supports increasing competition and thus opposes centralized universal health care.[34]




Check his wiki page for more in-depth information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

He walks it like he talks it and his record reflects that. How damn cool is that? He gets my vote, how about you?

After reading this thread I do agree with much of what he has to say but not all of it. I have not heard of him before ? We do not have much to pick from on either side of the isle. I think it will be December before we can see a front runner for either party. I will be looking for this guy and what he has to say in the public forum.

I've been checking this guy out as well. listening to him talk just freaks me out, doesn't sound like any politician I've ever heard.

He likes to quote the Constitution a lot, as a basis for keeping the federal governmet OUT of a lot of issues.

He's pro-life, but believes it should be handled at the State Level, for example.

Don't really think he has a chance in hell, doesn't have the money like some of these candidates do...

Check out his website. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ they've got several interviews/videos on there.

The biggest problem with Ron Paul is that he's a lunatic and completely unfit to lead this country. Other than that, he's just super. He's the Howard Dean of the right.

Ron Paul
 

Sounds like exactly what we need.

Already with the ad hominem attacks? If you're joking, thats fine, but if you're not, I sure hope you can back it up with evidence. Just how, exactly, is the man "a lunatic and completely unfit to lead"? Support that statement with facts, if ya can.

Now, Ron is running on the republican ticket, as he stands a much better chance of getting elected than when he ran on the libertarian ticket back in the late 80's. Many of us believe that this is the guy who can unite everyone with his no-nonsense, common sense style and cure the balkanization of America.

Oh joe is just pissed that HE is not running for president... :D (ducking)

Ron Paul does have some good ideas. But, like Ross Perot and Steve Forbes, is just a little too strange for "mass consumption". I haven't made up my mind about him just yet. The pickin's will be slim again this election cycle, but we better be smart about who we back up. Someone may have to beat hillary, and that will be mud-slinging like we've never seen.

"Too strange for mass consumption"? How so. Again people, lets give the ad hominem attacks a rest. If you're gonna level accusations like this, it'd be nice if you could cite examples.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Is this not about the man (ish) ? We have a long way to go and many names to be called before election day then the recount oh the recount. That is what lawyers live for the dreaded hanging chad.

Thanks for the clarification on this Isaac! Clearly Al is a little touchy on this-I haven't attacked Ron Paul. Also, the strangeness cited earlier is clearly an opinion, not an accusation, and I don't need to give examples-make up your own mind.

An ad hominem attack would be if we discredited Ron Paul by talking about you.

I would be interested to hear, what some of you all don't like about Ron Paul ? To me, just sounded like some of his ideas were very refreshing. But honestly I don't know much about him.

:peace:

Ron Paul ????
 

Against the war in Iraq

Voted against the Patriot Act of 2001 & 2005

Strongly supported by Liberal Democrats after 9/11 due to his viwes on the Iraq war (Austin Chronicle - Liberal weekly newspaper) has a favorable view of Paul by praising him for his strong, principaled opposition to the Patriot Act and the Iraq war.

He is one of only two congressmen who voted against the Rothman-Kirk Resolution which calls on UN to charge Iranian President Mahmond Ahmadinejad with violating the genocide convention and UN charter.

Wants to re-open the 9/11 investigation.

Advocates a "Moral Statement" rather than intervention in humanitarian missions such as Darfur or the Rwandan Genocide.

Endorses Defederalization of the health care system.

Was the only dissenting vote against giving Pope John Paul II, Rosa Parks and Mother Tersa the Congressional Gold Medal.

Critized giving Tony Blair a Gold Medal of Honor - Texas Monthly Awarded him the "Bum Steer" award for voting against a congressional honor for cartoonist Charles Schulz.

Lone member out of 415 voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on Slavery and Reconstruction as an unauthorized use of taxpayer money.

Opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 - proposed amendment to the US Constitution to define marriage in the United States as a union of one man and one woman.

This man is all over the map with his political views and voting record - why would you vote for him as the next President of the United States??????

Austin Chronicle - Liberal weekly newspaper) has a favorable view of Paul by praising him for his strong, principaled opposition to the Patriot Act and the Iraq war.
This alone would make me question him. This is why in my other post I said that I did not agree with with everything he said. We will know who the front runners are by Jan 08 then I will look even closer at who is running.

hmmm, I'm almost conservative enough to like this guy Ron Paul!

You can lead a horse to water, as they say. I just feel like, if he doesnt get elected, then everyone who votes against him deserves whatever the hell they get. Ya deserve big government, the abolishment of the Second Amendment, the income tax and the IRS in general, weak porous borders, the non-producing service economy, unfair/unfree foreign trade, meddling in other nation's affairs at enormous financial expense and loss of life, Mexico's poor livin here, the North American Union and everything thats wrong with America that Paul wants to fix, so you just go right on ahead and make that bed, then you sleep in it and enjoy the bed-wettin and the snoorin and nocturnal fartin cuz thats damn well what ya wanted! Trouble is, the rest of us have to sleep in that bed with ya.

Wanting to fix something and being able to are two completely different things. Hilary Clinton wanted to fix healthcare.

No schit, Joe? Obviously the man cant do it all alone. He needs the congress and the American public behind him to effect these changes.

Oh, and I just thought of something else ya deserve...you deserve to be scammed and lied to. Over and over again. All the damn time...about everything. You deserve government beholden to special interest and big business. You deserve intrusive government, the kind that regulates every facet of your personal lives. You deserve to get effed in the A without the benefit of KY or even a reach-around by the goverment that YOU demanded.

And then...we all know what happens next. Thats right, you'll all sit around whining about how sore your fat asses are and beggin the corrupt self-servin incompetent government that YOU chose, that YOU elected, to provide you with some soothing ointment from the socialized medical system. Especially Joe and the newbie, who'll probably be crying the loudest about "ow my ass hurts, where's my free government subsidized inflatable donut, my free Preperation H, and my free Depends diapers cuz I am now anally incontinent from all the reamings Uncle Sam gave me?" And guess what Joe? There wont BE any of those freebies for your sore ass cuz the healthcare system'll be bankrupt! But you'll be there at the clinic regardless, asking the illegal alien behind the counter in your best broken high-school spanish for crackcream and she'll be sayin in her best broken english "I'm so sorry, Senor Hole, scuse me, Pole, but we just gave the last one to Senor Vix. Come back manana!" And that'll be a sad day indeed for America, wont it Joe?

Sounds to me,Al, that your more than a little confused. All the stuff your ranting about is a part of the Liberal agenda, I thought we were talking about Ron Paul? How effective would he be? If Socialized Health care is your concern, complain to the Libs- it's not MY agenda. You seem pretty excited, Is your mind made up about paul? maybe you should give it some time-

Thats right, Pilgrim. If anything, its you thats confused. Who the hell do you think Obama and Hitlery and Edwards are? They are liberals. Just what the hell kind of agenda do ya think they have? Yes, we're talking about Ron Paul, and if you'd read ANYTHING about the man, you'd know that he is against all of those things I was on a "rant" about.

I agree with a lot of the things he says. I disagree with some of the things he says. Even if I agreed 100% with what he believes ought to be the way the country is, he is absolutely not the man that can make it happen. He would not make a very good President, which is fine because he has absolutely no chance of ever becoming President.

Extremists are worthless, and he is the worst kind of extremist: an idealist.

"Absolutely not the man that can make it happen"? You got that right...long as there are short-sighted sheeple who're afraid of progress and positive change, it'll never happen. "He would not make a very good president"? As compared to who, exactly? Clinton? Bush Sr. or Jr.? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Nixon? LBJ? JFK? You're joking, right? Define what constitutes "a very good president". Would that be somebody who'll make the needs of the country and his constituents top priority? Somebody with honor and integrity? Somebody who understands that he governs by consent of the governed? Somebody who has never abused his office or used his position to enrich himself? Somebody who says what he does and does what he says? Somebody who's voting record refects that? Somebody who's actions are governed by strict adherence to the Constitution? Somebody who believes government should be as small and transparent and unintrusive as possible? Somebody who believes that your money is yours? Somebody who believes that America is truly "The Land of The Free", and should forever remain that way? Well guess what, Ron Paul is that somebody. Check it out for yourself, you'll see that its a true. But maybe all of these qualities dont add up to your idea of a good president. Maybe you're satisfied with the status quo. Well I'm not. The status quo sucks ass, Joe, and I'm sick to death of it. Show me a better, more qualified candidate and we'll talk. Till then, I cant take anything you say seriously, because you dont have any answers. Hell, you dont even have the questions. All you've got are trite witticisms and baseless criticisms.

Tell us Al, Since your his boy, why does Paul oppose the war in Iraq? Why does he want to re-investigate 911? Why does he oppose the patriot act? Does he think Bush knew about 911 and didn't stop it? Does he think Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism? He sounds like a wacko- no matter what you say.

I would like to know what he has to say on these same questions. :confused:

To know Ron Paul's answer to either of those questions, one simply needs to look to the Constitution.

You trust politicians that much :crazy: Well now I will want to hear him debate and see his web site. All politicians lay claim to the Constitution and yet they never agree with each other. :rolleyes:
Attachment 1115
This will place a face with the name (Ron Paul) Kind of sounds like a Pope ;)

No I don't trust politicians of any sort. But Ron Paul sounds like no politician I've ever heard.

I bet you Isaac, that other than the war in Iraq, you would be hard pressed to disagree with anything else he has to say, on any issue.

The war in Iraq is a key issue because this is one of the major breeding grounds for terrorist. This is the same as the people that bashed Vietnam and did not support our troops. The troops know there doing the right thing and lucky for us we have a President that does not care about the bleeding hearts and does the right thing no matter the political damage. :clap: I will keep a eye on Paul and time will tell if he will even matter at all. If he does then I will spend even more time reading about him. I do not think any president can do much with the spineless bastards we have in Congress. That is on both sides of the isle.

Yes or a drag queen! Meet RuPaul!
Attachment 1118
Sorry guys just thought I'd lighten the mood. I'll let y'all get back to debating!

I would be all for apposing the war in Iraq IF the President had made the following stand on 9/12:

"Hit us again and we will nuke you. Now hit us again, I dare you. I double dare you. Ok, America now back to work being normal Americans. Carry on, I've got your backs."

But of course we could never nuke someone, even if they hit us like Pearl Harbor. That would not be politicly correct. I know this because we did not nuke Osama bin Ladin in Toro Boro when we had him holed up. We did not nuke Hussein when he put a hit on George Senior. And we won't nuke Iran while they build their own nukes to distroy Israel and general terrorism.

My question is this. Does Ron Paul have what it takes to nuke Iran first if they build nukes and threaten Israel, England, or America?

I hope you do not get any splinters on that fence rhertz :laugh:
Attachment 1121