Ron Paul and the REVOlution

[Irishone21]

Dear People,

The main goal of the 21st century is to cease the power of the dollar, in addition to military power. Basically as Al Gore noted, we need to advance our mentalities. With new technology, we can't have an old mentality. This is Bible wisdom applied to politics.


I believe we need a spiritual leader. It has been said, "a prophet is not accepted in his own country" I desire to prove this wrong for I do not like the idea that spiritual leaders often are powerless beings on earth, who have transient power that is most sincerely felt once they pass. If a country accepted a true leader, it would set an example and change the pace of both worldly and domestic politics. Jesus said, "desire mercy, not sacrifice," which means, for the next turning point, one must seek to fulfill divine roles desiring mercy, and hopefully surviving once they reach the top in order to make changes that are concrete, completing earlier prophesies. Love is power, power is God.

To adapt political jargon, contrary to popular belief, "soft power" can be far more powerful, and much more lasting than "hard power". We need to realize this especially, for even us, especially if our will is united, can influence, rather than bicker over, the problems that exist in the world today. Technology enables and enervates advanced democracy.

I quote I came up with the other day, which I don’t entirely believe is, “If we were all utopians, we would live in a utopia. If we were all realist, we wouldn't exist.” The problem is, currently, we are so divided, that a temporary, although righteous and enlightened, dictator, may only result in the emergence of violence and insurrection rather than a utopia.

Many realize the 2008 election is by far the most important election in the history of mankind. Not only do we have to deal with the possibility that we on the brink of the end, we have a responsibility, being the only superpower, for leadership. A commonly held belief is that if we lead by example others will follow, so long as we represent true value, aspired by God. Even people such as Fidel Castro have accented to this ideology. If we resort to condemnations, military action, and economic bullying, resent will continue to grow, and a countervailing coalition is likely to grow which may or may not lead us to World War III. As I have said before, radicalism is the origin of emerging extremes. As a result of the extremist in the Middle East, we have used the logic that, “extreme measures call for extreme action,” a mentality that pretty much implies terrorism requires fascism to abate. But are we only adding fuel to the fire? Amidst the confusion, Ron Paul may be the John Locke-like candidate we are looking for. I can phrase the question we should all be asking ourselves prior to the upcoming election in a couple of ways. Do we need gradual changes, or should we advance on the opportunity, take a risk, an attempt to pursue a radical agenda to abate extremism? I am not implying that we should merely follow the tracks of the Bush administration, into the Orwellian vision of a government that takes the place of God, isolates our planet, causing people to become drones, fooled into believing they are individuals, when they are actually products of a heartless artificial deity, ignorantly living within the narrow bounds of uniformity. Instead, I am considering transforming our government into a system of leadership that influences rather than controls behavior advancing mentalities, and placing trust in “soft power”. The question we should be asking ourselves phrased differently is this, should we swallow our pride and elect the most spiritually enlightened son of God, subjugate ourselves in fear and basically abdicate to BIGBROTHER or the antichrist, or take a step in the right direction and elect Ron Paul, as a stepping stone for the completion of the Revolution.

[Irishone21]

The complete of the Revolution is democracy, or Brotherhood. In order for the people to be harmonious, they must be told the truth. As Rousseau once said, “the people only will that which is evil when they are deceived”. In Ron Paul’s paper, “What Does Freedom Mean,” he is very honest. Ron Paul writes about some of the touchy subjects, such as the evisceration of words like democracy, freedom and justice. In Ron Paul’s paper he makes people aware of the dangers of democracy, stating “Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom”. Following this, he confesses that “America is a republic”. He also defines freedom in the simplest of forms, saying “freedom is the absence of government coercion”. He includes Ayn Rand philosophy of freedom in his paper as well including her argument that “freedom” for some is only possible when government takes freedom away from others. If not all can have freedom, whose freedom do we enervate; the governments, that of the people, or a little bit of both. I would say, a leader must be a servant to the people, and the government must comprise only leaders. Regardless, the freedom of the people is fading, and Ron Paul seeks to change this. He denounces the distorted versions of liberalism and conservatism, and really writes as if he is the middle man we have all been looking for. Is Ron Paul telling the truth, or is he using the Revolution for the attainment of his own goals and desires? Below I will briefly discuss his stances on the controversial issues our nation faces.

First on the list is debt and taxes. In my opinion, we need to urge nations to disregard national debt and work together to abrogate the power of the dollar. Ron Paul is against taxes. He also wants to cut government spending to prevent economic disaster. Basically, he has taking the most rational approach possible to assure our economic prosperity and independence.

Next is Independence and Sovereignty. With the New World Order on many citizens’ minds, globalization has become an issue. Ron Paul stands against NAFTA’s superhighway. He fears it will create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. He also doesn’t advocate world trade organizations or free trade deals, in fear that it threatens our freedom and independence. I am with him on some of his reasons for standing against this, but I believe one way or another, we must participate and play a strong role in globalization. So long as we have strong leadership, this should not hurt as to severely.

The next issue which is detrimental to the future of the states is War and Foreign policy. Paul is very succinct on a very complex issue. While I agree with him, his plans to get out of the war still concern me. I am not aware if he has the peace-making capacity to get out of this war appropriately and safely. Nonetheless, he honestly stands against the war which is a good sign. He also promotes open trade, travel, communication and diplomacy with other nations. Basically, Ron Paul is hope.

Subsequently is Life and Liberty. Ron Paul advocates the second amendment. He has taken action to ensure we have our right to bear arms. Much of the opposition to Ron Paul’s beliefs is unconstitutional and intrusive, so the fact that he is inexorable is contenting. The bills he has introduced all work to restore the second amendment.

Social Security is also an issue concerning many Americans. Ron Paul has very logical solutions to the social security problem as well. In Congress he has introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 191), “which repeals ALL taxes on Social Security benefits, eliminate political theft of our seniors’ and raise their standard of living.” (Paul) He has also introduced the “Socials Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for social security,” and the “Social Security for Americans Only Act” (H.R. 190). He also advocates a cut in government spending to enable the government to be able to provide for senior citizens.

Next are Border Security and Immigration Reform. On his website, he provides a list of things he will all of which aim to secure borders. Some of which is visa rules, no amnesty, no welfare for illegal aliens, end birth right citizenship, and “true” immigration reform. Personally, I think we should welcome immigrants, for we ourselves are immigrants. A liberal immigration plan promotes good value.

Following this, comes Privacy and Personal Liberty. He states that “we must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters” (Paul). Considering I have experiences some of the intrusions of privacy so prevalent in America today, I stand by him on this. We must gradually relieve security in a direction towards respect for individual rights and liberty. Ron Paul voted against the “Real ID act,” which would include tracking technology on a national ID card. He also seeks to protect medical privacy and financial privacy. All in all, he is against the patriot act.

In regards to Property Rights and Eminent Domain, Ron Paul is no Marxian. He seeks to protect property rights in any way possible, in sympathy of families driving from their home, farms and ranches. He also brings up the NAFTA superhighway. Ron Paul is identical to John Locke in regards to this, providing property owners with their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. Currently, I agree.

Health Freedom is the next issues Ron Paul includes on his website. He is against government intervention and want to prevent restriction of our right to choose the means we manage our health and nutritional needs. He also seeks to ensure truthful information about supplements and natural remedies. In addition, he opposes increases in FDA’s legal power and the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which authorizes a forced vaccination of small pox for American citizens.

Last is Home Schooling. He seeks to desire tax credits through the “Family Education Freedom Act, which reduces taxes to make it easier for parents to home school by allowing them to devote more of their own fund to their children’s education. He also states, “we must have a permanency in the Department of Defense Home School Tier 1 Pilot Program, providing recruitment status parity for home school graduates. He also seeks to prevent the Department of Education from regulating home school activities. He stands for educational freedom. Like Marx, in regards to education, he would “alter its character, and rescue education (home schooling) from the influence of the ruling class” (Marx)

I do believe Ron Paul is the best candidate. However, the one thing I noticed is that he does not necessarily further the Revolution, he merely restores it. The Revolution was begun by our founding fathers’. This may be a good thing, for we may not be prepared to complete the Revolution at this point in time. However, since no change has been made in his policy to legalize marijuana, simplify law, raise minimum wage, promote peace and clemency, and other Revolutionary aims, I am skeptical of the success his leadership will yield.

Sincerely,

Zachary Scott McBride

[Truth-Bringer]

Is Ron Paul the real deal?

By Dana D. Kelley

October 26, 2007

It’s long been contended that none of the brilliant statesmen who crafted our founding documents could be elected to high public office today because they wouldn’t pass muster with any of the special-interest groups or, more particularly, the media those groups influence. Well, we might just have a test to that theory in this presidential contest. Item: Dr. Ron Paul. Not heard much about him? If you’re a network news junkie, no wonder. Any television coverage would only be a sound-bite, probably derogatory. The media excuse for ignoring him is that Paul consistently does poorly in the normal political polls conducted through telephone surveys. If he were truly a fringe candidate, lack of polling numbers might justify a cold news shoulder. But he has consistently finished high in party straw polls and debates. He came in first in seven of nine straw polls held in the past month, and took either first or second place in 23 of the total 37 straw polls taken since June. He has participated in seven Republican debates and, by whatever measuring method the sponsors chose, won five of them, sometimes by staggering margins.

In the first debate on May 3, Paul won MSNBC’s on-line poll. On May 15, Paul came in second in Fox News text messaging voting by the audience. On June 5, he won the on-line CNN poll in all but two categories, “Snappiest Dresser” (Mitt Romney ) and “Most Disappointing Performance” (Rudy Giuliani ). On Aug. 5, he won the on-line ABC News poll by getting 63 percent of the vote, eight times more than runner-up Romney. On Sept. 5, he won the FOX News public text messaging poll. On Sept. 17, he finished second in an immediate straw poll of 340 delegates after the “Value Voters” debate. (Mike Huckabee was first. ) On Oct. 9, on the question “Who won the debate ?” Paul received 74 percent of the votes on the on-line CNBC poll. And on Oct. 21, he won the FOX News viewer text voting.

A debate record like that ought to garner big headlines. Instead, all Paul gets is discounts and disclaimers.

Rest of article here (http://www.nwarktimes.com/adg/Editorial/205632)

Starting to get some positive coverage from mainstream media outlets. Me likey.

[USMC the Almighty]

So Paul has supporters that are willing to spam online and text message polls? Not very impressive.

Tell us when he wins a poll worth noting.

[Irishone21]

US, who do you support???

[Truth-Bringer]

So Paul has supporters that are willing to spam online and text message polls? Not very impressive.


Yeah, but they can redub Star Wars - which is very impressive - and hilarious:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MW-9LtpYVcs&feature=related

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Wxm6CxpndBE&feature=related

[Coyote]

Ron Paul has some interesting ideas, such as his stance on Iraq. But he also has some disturbing skeletons in his closet regarding some rather racist views he's expressed in a series of newsletter articles, and the fact that a leading figure in the American neo-Nazi / White-Supremacist movement has provided financial support his 2008 Presidential campaign.

[Truth-Bringer]

But he also has some disturbing skeletons in his closet regarding some rather racist views he's expressed in a series of newsletter articles,

Ron Paul is not a racist. It's a deception put forth by his political opponents.

If you're really interested in Ron Paul's views on Racism, read this article written by the good doctor. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html)

And here's a longer article that totally refutes the allegations made against him:


http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

Ron Paul Race Smear Erased?

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

Internet information claiming that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) is a racist – and made derogatory comments about African Americans - has been making the rounds within the blogosphere. But sources close to the editorial group that published the newsletter (or newsletters) that supposedly carried the comments claim that Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasn’t even aware of them.

These sources say that editorial operation in question was a fairly large one, and profitable for its time - focused in large part on measures that one could take to generate a lifestyle independent of government influence and intervention.

The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics. He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.

“This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”

This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.

Says one source, “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”

Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken "moral" responsibility for them.

An excerpt from an apparent interview with Texas Monthly as quoted on the blog Everything2.com clarifies the above information as follows:

"In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.' He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

"When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, 'I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.' ...

"His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: 'They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. "It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it." ' It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Ron%20Paul

The operative sentence in the above would seem to be: “What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.” The remarks may well have been seen as out of character because they were not written by Ron Paul, and he had no knowledge of them and no input into their composition, even though he eventually took responsibility for them.

Adds a source aware of the current tempest over these remarks, “Anybody who claims that Ron Paul made the comments in question is deliberately mis-stating what occurred to make political points. It is a measure of [his opponents] desperation that they are dredging this up again. Anybody who reads all that he has written – and there’s lots of it – could see that right away.”



and the fact that a leading figure in the American neo-Nazi / White-Supremacist movement has provided financial support his 2008 Presidential campaign.

A candidate cannot control who contributes to him or her. Hillary has accepted donations from convicted drug dealers. (http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/hillary_clintons_greatest_hits_things_you_should_k now_before_2008) Does this make her a drug dealer in your opinion? She later returned the money, but only after it became public.

And every indication would say Klan members voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

The KKK didn't officially come out and endorse George Bush, for the reason given in the following inverview with the KKK's grand wizard:

Liberator: Quite some time age, David Duke was into politics. But I haven't heard The Klan rally behind a party or endorse a candidate since.

Berry (KKK Wizard): Say The Klan liked George W. Bush. If we came out and supported him, don't you think that would hurt him?

Liberator: Yea...it may be perceived as the kiss of death.

Berry: If we wanted George W. Bush to win, we would make an announcement that we support his opponent because people hate the Klan so much. Just because we support a candidate, the media is going to find something racist about him and make him loose the election.

Link (http://www.liberator.net/articles/KKKJeffBerry.html)

So is there any evidence that George Bush is a member of the KKK? I don't think so.

John Kerry was endorsed by the American Communist Party and some of their members contributed to him. Do you believe John Kerry is a Communist?

Again, candidates cannot control who donates money to them.

[Coyote]

The point is - Ron Paul's politics are attractive to White Supremicists and Neo-Nazi's and they've donated money to his campaign. I'm willing to bet if this were Hillary you wouldn't be quite so charitable. Certainly - there was a lot of hoopla over Hillary's dirty money. At least she gave it back.

In addition, those types of comments were made in multiple articles over a period of years. He certainly had to have been aware of them and he certainly could have printed a retraction.

[Truth-Bringer]

The point is - Ron Paul's politics are attractive to White Supremicists and Neo-Nazi's and they've donated money to his campaign.

I have no idea why his politics might be considered attractive to racists. He is a strict Constitutionalist. He is honest and his voting record reflects his speeches. Racist groups may feel threatened by an imperial federal government, but the truth is they would be threatened by a smaller, more focused federal government under Ron Paul. If they used force, fraud or coercion against people of other races, they would be prosecuted under a Ron Paul administration.

I just think these racists are stupid and confused. There is no logical reason for them to support Ron Paul.

I'm willing to bet if this were Hillary you wouldn't be quite so charitable.

Ron Paul has stated that he's not a racist and has written detailed articles on his position on the matter of race.

If a racist group were to give to a Democrat candidate, and the Democrat candidate had previously written material proving they were not racist - and verbally stated in an interview that they were not racist, then I would see it as a ridiculous non-issue.

The candidate's word stands - unless you can prove multiple lies, or unless their actions do not match their words.


Certainly - there was a lot of hoopla over Hillary's dirty money.
At least she gave it back.

Only after it went public. I do not believe she would have given it back otherwise. The Clintons have violated numerous campaign finance laws. They really don't care where they get the money...just as long as they get it.


In addition, those types of comments were made in multiple articles over a period of years. He certainly had to have been aware of them and he certainly could have printed a retraction.

He said he was not aware of the comments. Now, with Bill Clinton, we can prove multiple lies. Can you prove Ron Paul lied about a similar issue?

He made a verbal retraction and said that he didn't write the material. He then stated that he wasn't a racist, which was later printed.

Unless you can prove he lied in a similar situation, he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

You certainly give such benefit to Clinton, even when he's convicted for lying in a court of law...

[Popeye]

Ron Paul is not a racist. It's a deception put forth by his political opponents.

If you're really interested in Ron Paul's views on Racism, read this article written by the good doctor. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html)

And here's a longer article that totally refutes the allegations made against him:


http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

Ron Paul Race Smear Erased?

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

Internet information claiming that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) is a racist – and made derogatory comments about African Americans - has been making the rounds within the blogosphere. But sources close to the editorial group that published the newsletter (or newsletters) that supposedly carried the comments claim that Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasn’t even aware of them.

These sources say that editorial operation in question was a fairly large one, and profitable for its time - focused in large part on measures that one could take to generate a lifestyle independent of government influence and intervention.

The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics. He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.

“This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”

This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.

Says one source, “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”

Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken "moral" responsibility for them.

An excerpt from an apparent interview with Texas Monthly as quoted on the blog Everything2.com clarifies the above information as follows:

"In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.' He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

"When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, 'I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.' ...

"His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: 'They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. "It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it." ' It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Ron%20Paul

The operative sentence in the above would seem to be: “What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.” The remarks may well have been seen as out of character because they were not written by Ron Paul, and he had no knowledge of them and no input into their composition, even though he eventually took responsibility for them.

Adds a source aware of the current tempest over these remarks, “Anybody who claims that Ron Paul made the comments in question is deliberately mis-stating what occurred to make political points. It is a measure of [his opponents] desperation that they are dredging this up again. Anybody who reads all that he has written – and there’s lots of it – could see that right away.”




A candidate cannot control who contributes to him or her. Hillary has accepted donations from convicted drug dealers. (http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/hillary_clintons_greatest_hits_things_you_should_k now_before_2008) Does this make her a drug dealer in your opinion? She later returned the money, but only after it became public.

And every indication would say Klan members voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

The KKK didn't officially come out and endorse George Bush, for the reason given in the following inverview with the KKK's grand wizard:

Liberator: Quite some time age, David Duke was into politics. But I haven't heard The Klan rally behind a party or endorse a candidate since.

Berry (KKK Wizard): Say The Klan liked George W. Bush. If we came out and supported him, don't you think that would hurt him?

Liberator: Yea...it may be perceived as the kiss of death.

Berry: If we wanted George W. Bush to win, we would make an announcement that we support his opponent because people hate the Klan so much. Just because we support a candidate, the media is going to find something racist about him and make him loose the election.

Link (http://www.liberator.net/articles/KKKJeffBerry.html)

So is there any evidence that George Bush is a member of the KKK? I don't think so.

John Kerry was endorsed by the American Communist Party and some of their members contributed to him. Do you believe John Kerry is a Communist?

Again, candidates cannot control who donates money to them.
Ron Paul may, or may not, be a racist, but he appears to be the favorite of white supremacists.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/dark-side-of-paul-phenomenon.html

[Truth-Bringer]

Ron Paul may, or may not, be a racist, but he appears to be the favorite of white supremacists.

Again, I have no clue why. They're totally stupid and totally irrational. Ron Paul would also work for the decriminalization of marijuana. That would allow the government to reallocate the money going towards arresting over 700,000 non-violent pot smokers per year towards arresting murderers, rapists, thugs and thieves.

They would be far less able to start any violence against other races.

[vyo476]

Think of the difference between Ron Paul and Strom Thurmond. Strom attracted racists and bigots because he himself was a racist and a bigot. Ron Paul attracts racists and bigots because even racists and bigots have political opinions. Ron Paul's social views seem classically liberal - "what you do and who you are is your own business and quite frankly the government and I don't care." What were Strom's social views? "Let's bring back segregation! Let's filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1967!" When Strom ran for President his platform was based far more on his proposals for legislating social inequality than on anything that had to do with size of government, which is what Paul's campaign is based on.

[Coyote]

Only after it went public. I do not believe she would have given it back otherwise. The Clintons have violated numerous campaign finance laws. They really don't care where they get the money...just as long as they get it.


Most of the major candidates have violated numerous campaign finance laws for the very reasons you gave. It would be nice to see some serious campaign finance reform.

Has Ron Paul given back the money?


He made a verbal retraction and said that he didn't write the material.


When? After it became public?




You certainly give such benefit to Clinton, even when he's convicted for lying in a court of law...


What benefit of the doubt? It depends on the context, the situation and it depends on the facts.

You certainly hate Clinton.

[Truth-Bringer]

Most of the major candidates have violated numerous campaign finance laws for the very reasons you gave.

Here we go again... Appeal to the majority fallacy. If most major candidates robbed a bank, should Hillary not be held responsible if she robbed one too?

It would be nice to see some serious campaign finance reform.

It would be nice to see a government that had no power over the peaceful, honest, voluntary actions of its citizens. Then campaign finance would be irrelevant, since the government would be no threat to such actions.


Has Ron Paul given back the money?

I don't know, and I really don't care. I would prefer to see him take the fool's money, win the election and then repeal the income tax so that every African American will be free of it. That will give them lots of extra money to spend on their families and improve the lives of their children in whatever ways they see fit.



When? After it became public?

After he was asked about it directly and it was brought to his attention.


What benefit of the doubt?

Work on your reading comprehension


You certainly hate Clinton.

Again, I hate no one. You perceive it as hate because of your great love for Clinton.

[Truth-Bringer]

Think of the difference between Ron Paul and Strom Thurmond. Strom attracted racists and bigots because he himself was a racist and a bigot. Ron Paul attracts racists and bigots because even racists and bigots have political opinions. Ron Paul's social views seem classically liberal - "what you do and who you are is your own business and quite frankly the government and I don't care." What were Strom's social views? "Let's bring back segregation! Let's filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1967!" When Strom ran for President his platform was based far more on his proposals for legislating social inequality than on anything that had to do with size of government, which is what Paul's campaign is based on.

And vyo476 seals the debate... Thanks. You may be a collectivist vyo, but at least you have common sense and are honest - unlike Coyote. And I can respect that.

[USMC the Almighty]

Think of the difference between Ron Paul and Strom Thurmond. Strom attracted racists and bigots because he himself was a racist and a bigot. Ron Paul attracts racists and bigots because even racists and bigots have political opinions. Ron Paul's social views seem classically liberal - "what you do and who you are is your own business and quite frankly the government and I don't care." What were Strom's social views? "Let's bring back segregation! Let's filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1967!" When Strom ran for President his platform was based far more on his proposals for legislating social inequality than on anything that had to do with size of government, which is what Paul's campaign is based on.

To be honest, I'm not a big civil rights history buff but I don't think they're was any Civil Rights Act of 1967. You're probably thinking of the 1964 one.

[Irishone21]

Finally we got a role model, and the game tries to oust him. We can let this happen... This is not a game anymore.

[Irishone21]

u guys would probably give up the internet if you were me... they trying to make me give up... america is a crazy place in dire need of a reawkening, and not a mock-conspiracy theory blinding, but an actualy reawakening, plus a merging and a bridging.

[vyo476]

To be honest, I'm not a big civil rights history buff but I don't think they're was any Civil Rights Act of 1967. You're probably thinking of the 1964 one.

Actually, it was 1957. I must have hit the wrong key. It was the longest filibuster by a single person in the Senate's history - 24 hours and 18 minutes. I remember reading somewhere that he actually spent the entire day before in a sauna to dehydrate himself so that he wouldn't have to urinate during the filibuster.

[vyo476]

And vyo476 seals the debate... Thanks. You may be a collectivist vyo, but at least you have common sense and are honest - unlike Coyote. And I can respect that.

I think that's one of the more interesting compliments I've ever recieved. Thanks.

[USMC the Almighty]

Actually, it was 1957. I must have hit the wrong key. It was the longest filibuster by a single person in the Senate's history - 24 hours and 18 minutes. I remember reading somewhere that he actually spent the entire day before in a sauna to dehydrate himself so that he wouldn't have to urinate during the filibuster.

Like I said, I'm not Civil Rights historian but 1967 just didn't look right. That kind of reminds of the old Mike Gravel videos during the Vietnam War.

[Gulden]

I may vote for him

[heyjude]

I have one major disagreement with Paul. He is in favor of getting the government out of everyone's lives except pregnant womens. While he has said that he is opposed to an amendment to the Constitution, he will do everything he can, including introduce laws, to make abortion illegal. I will not vote for any man who refuses to support a woman's fundamental right to control her body and her own life.

[vyo476]

That kind of reminds of the old Mike Gravel videos during the Vietnam War.

Recently I noticed a ton of Mike Gravel signs going up around southern New Hampshire. I noted with some satisfaction that they're bigger than all the Mitt Romney signs (no - I know that doesn't mean anything - I'm just petty sometimes).

[Coyote]

I have one major disagreement with Paul. He is in favor of getting the government out of everyone's lives except pregnant womens. While he has said that he is opposed to an amendment to the Constitution, he will do everything he can, including introduce laws, to make abortion illegal. I will not vote for any man who refuses to support a woman's fundamental right to control her body and her own life.



He also supports the government (via Congress) defining marriage as only heterosexual doesn't he? Didn't he sponsor the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313? Sounds to me like he only wants to limit government in certain areas but not in others.

[vyo476]

He also supports the government (via Congress) defining marriage as only heterosexual doesn't he? Didn't he sponsor the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313? Sounds to me like he only wants to limit government in certain areas but not in others.

Actually, the bills he supported were to keep the federal government from defining (or redefining) marriage - he wanted the matter left to the states. He didn't support legislation that was meant to define marriage as heterosexual-only.

I don't necessarily agree with him on this, but your comment about his conflicting desires to limit government in some areas isn't fair.

[Coyote]

Actually, the bills he supported were to keep the federal government from defining (or redefining) marriage - he wanted the matter left to the states. He didn't support legislation that was meant to define marriage as heterosexual-only.

I don't necessarily agree with him on this, but your comment about his conflicting desires to limit government in some areas isn't fair.


You're right - I was reading his positions on issues rather than his actual voting record, which is more interesting: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929

[vyo476]

You're right - I was reading his positions on issues rather than his actual voting record, which is more interesting: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929

You'll notice on that list that he voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Resolution, which would have defined marriage across the whole US as being between a man and a woman (or at least as not being between members of the same gender).

He's hardly a crusader for homosexual rights but he's not a homophobe, either.

[Coyote]

You'll notice on that list that he voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Resolution, which would have defined marriage across the whole US as being between a man and a woman (or at least as not being between members of the same gender).

He's hardly a crusader for homosexual rights but he's not a homophobe, either.

Yes, he has an interesting voting record.

I actually agree with some of his stances - but they are outweighed by others, such as environment.

[Truth-Bringer]

Ron Paul getting a surge in Iowa? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chase-martyn/new-report-ron-paul-thir_b_75756.html)

[Popeye]

Ron Paul getting a surge in Iowa? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chase-martyn/new-report-ron-paul-thir_b_75756.html)

Ron Paul is going nowhere, except back to whatever hole he crawled out of in Texas.

[Popeye]

Ron Paul getting a surge in Iowa? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chase-martyn/new-report-ron-paul-thir_b_75756.html)

Your link still has him in third place in Iowa, it's only a caucus, and it's all speculation.

Nationally, Ron Paul hovers in the vicinity of 5%. He, for better or worse, is not going to be the GOP nominee.

[Truth-Bringer]

Your link still has him in third place in Iowa, it's only a caucus, and it's all speculation.

Nationally, Ron Paul hovers in the vicinity of 5%. He, for better or worse, is not going to be the GOP nominee.

As I've always said, he's a long shot, but with traditionally low turnout during primaries, if his supporters get out and vote in higher percentages, anything can happen.

[Truth-Bringer]

Tea Party '07 style (http://www.teaparty07.com) is going strong.

Paul has $3.7 million as of 4:15.

CHA - CHING!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Med926aDBoc&feature=related

[top gun]

Ron Paul is a unique phenomenon. The whole cut back the Federal Government to just about nothing except just enough military to protect us from an invasion sounds "thrifty" and of course Federal taxes would go down.

But the problem is then State taxes would just go through the roof and there would still be a lot less programs... many that do a lot of good for society as a whole.

The other thing is you'd have even bigger pockets of poverty. Where now let's say Harlem is a pocket of poverty you'd quite likely have say the whole State of Mississippi as a pocket of poverty.

Don't get me wrong I like some of the things Ron Paul says a lot. But on a national level I think you need a Federal Government to even the playing field a little across all State lines. Plus he's not Pro-Choice and he wouldn't care to fund Social Security or Medicare.

It would be sort of a wild west Ben Cartwright Bonanza for some and the lonesome homeless drifter for a lot more than we have now.

He is from Texas isn't he?:) He's a good man... but Dennis Kucinich is a good man. Neither are going to get elected to anything more than what they already have in my opinion.

[Truth-Bringer]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Ron Paul is a unique phenomenon.

Now at over $5.4 million for the day. He broke his last record. Hopefully he'll make it to over $6 million by the end of the day.

[top gun]

Now at over $5.4 million for the day. He broke his last record. Hopefully he'll make it to over $6 million by the end of the day.

Hey I have to say he has some loyal supporters.

And although I don't agree with a lot of his positions some of his positions are the only good & rational positions on he Republican side.

I was watching a show on the "Revolution" and it came across that it was as much about wanting to influence the Republican Party down the road as anything else. I don't think there's a real belief that Ron Paul is going to win.

Hey anything that moves the Republican Party away from the church hijacked neo-cons they've become is an improvement in my book.

[Truth-Bringer]

Ron Paul now owns the record for single day fundraising.


Ron Paul Raises Over $6 Million in 24-Hour Effort

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TJ04TG0&show_article=1

[Popeye]

Ron Paul now owns the record for single day fundraising.


Ron Paul Raises Over $6 Million in 24-Hour Effort

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TJ04TG0&show_article=1

Though I like some of his views, this can't be defended.



Ron Paul, Hunter, Tancredo Slick With Crude Oil On Offshore Drilling

In 2006, Republican Congressman Adam Putnam offered an amendment to appropriations bill HR 5386. Putnam’s amendment countered language in the original bill that would have ended the moratorium on offshore drilling for fossil fuels close to shore. If the amendment had failed, drilling platforms would have now been under construction as close to shore as just three miles. In the wake of the massive oil spills in San Francisco Bay, the Black Sea and on the coast of South Korea, anyone can see what folly that would have been. That’s why enough Republicans broke party ranks to join the Democrats in voting to preserve the moratorium.

Yet, all of the three Republicans in the House of Representatives who are now running for President voted in favor of killing the amendment. Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo voted no to protecting America’s coastlines from drilling for fossil fuels close to shore. We can safely presume any one of these three would support the same pro-drilling agenda on behalf of big oil companies again if elected President.

Dennis Kucinich defied Tancredo, Hunter and Paul. Kucinich voted for the Putnam amendment.

Just one month later, the three House Republicans now running for President voted to undo the coastal protection enabled by the Putnam amendment. Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo voted in favor of H.R. 4761, a bill that allowed for expanded drilling for natural gas and crude oil as close as three miles from American shorelines.
The environment has got to be protected. I don't want a president who allows the fossil fuel industry to run rampant. Ron Paul is not for me.
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2007/12/17/paul-tancredo-hunter-drilling/

[DavidHenry]

The point is - Ron Paul's politics are attractive to White Supremicists n.

What colour are you?

[Truth-Bringer]

The environment has got to be protected. I don't want a president who allows the fossil fuel industry to run rampant.

Fearmongering - just like the Neocons - "American freedom has got to be protected with the war on terror!" - the exact same reasoning.

Yet you and your party supported Al Gore - the ultimate environmental hypocrite - as this article from a liberal website proves. (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468) At least Ron Paul's motives aren't for his own personal profit. I don't know if you saw his recent interview on the Glen Beck show, but he stated that he wants to even out the market and allow alternative fuels to compete with oil. He mentioned hydrogen power and electric cars. We have the technology, but the oil companies are using government to destroy their competition, as you can see here. (http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com) Ron Paul will stop that and we will end up with a cleaner environment, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WILL DEMAND IN A TRULY FREE MARKETPLACE.

[Popeye]

Fearmongering - just like the Neocons - "American freedom has got to be protected with the war on terror!" - the exact same reasoning.

Yet you and your party supported Al Gore - the ultimate environmental hypocrite - as this article from a liberal website proves. (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468) At least Ron Paul's motives aren't for his own personal profit. I don't know if you saw his recent interview on the Glen Beck show, but he stated that he wants to even out the market and allow alternative fuels to compete with oil. He mentioned hydrogen power and electric cars. We have the technology, but the oil companies are using government to destroy their competition, as you can see here. (http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com) Ron Paul will stop that and we will end up with a cleaner environment, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WILL DEMAND IN A TRULY FREE MARKETPLACE.
I don't need some president who would advocate offshore oil drilling. His environmental record is very disappointing. His record speaks for itself:


He would limit or try to repeal various environmental protection laws and regulations, including the Clean Air Act, the Soil and Water Conservation Act.

H.J.RES.104: To disapprove a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to proposed revisions to the national pollutant discharge elimination system program and Federal antidegradation policy and the proposed revisions to the water quality planning and management regulations concerning total maximum daily load.

H.R.3735: To disapprove a rule requiring the use of bycatch reduction devices in the shrimp fishery of the Gulf of Mexico.

H.R.4423: To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide that the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery shall be managed in accordance with such fishery management plans, regulations, and other conservation and management as applied to that fishery on April 13, 1998.

H.R.2504: A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to postpone for one year the application of certain restrictions to areas which have failed to attain national ambient air quality standards and to delay for one year the date required for adoption and submission of State implementation plans applicable to these areas, and for other purposes.

H.R.7079: A bill to repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977.

H.R.7245: A bill to amend section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters which are navigable and for other purposes.




He would promote offshore oil-drilling, the construction of more refineries, coal-mining on Federal lands, and block conservation measures. This would further threaten our coastal and internal environments, and further trap our economy in fossil-fuel dependency:

H.R.2415: To reduce the price of gasoline by allowing for offshore drilling, eliminating Federal obstacles to constructing refineries and providing incentives for investment in refineries, suspending Federal fuel taxes when gasoline prices reach a benchmark amount, and promoting free trade.

H.R.4004: To reduce the price of gasoline by allowing for offshore drilling, eliminating Federal obstacles to constructing refineries and providing incentives for investment in refineries, suspending Federal fuel taxes when gasoline prices reach a benchmark amount, and promoting free trade.

H.R.393: A bill to amend section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters which are navigable and for other purposes.

H.R.4639: A bill to repeal all Federal regulations and taxes on the production of fuel.

H.R.5293: A bill to prohibit the imposition of unreasonable severance taxes or fees on coal or lignite mined from Federal lands.

H.R.6936: A bill to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from promulgating any federal emergency energy conservation plan which would restrict recreational boating There's much more on the link showing his abysmal record on a woman's right to choose etc.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

[curefiend]

Ron Paul is a cult leader.

[heyjude]

We've had 7 years of unregulated business. Even though there are laws regulating businesses in this country, Bush has refused to enforce them. And we can all see how well it works. Poisoned toys anyone?