1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Ron Paul and the REVOlution

Discussion in 'Elections & Political Parties' started by Irishone21, Oct 18, 2007.

  1. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    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.
     
  2. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    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
     
  3. Truth-Bringer

    Truth-Bringer New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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

    Starting to get some positive coverage from mainstream media outlets. Me likey.
     
  4. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  5. Irishone21

    Irishone21 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kingsville
    US, who do you support???
     
  6. Truth-Bringer

    Truth-Bringer New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
  7. Coyote

    Coyote Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Coyote died for your sheep
    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.
     
  8. Truth-Bringer

    Truth-Bringer New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.

    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 Paul

    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. 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

    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.
     
  9. Coyote

    Coyote Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Coyote died for your sheep
    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.
     
  10. Truth-Bringer

    Truth-Bringer New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.

    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.


    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.

    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...
     
  11. Popeye

    Popeye Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Washington state
    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
     
  12. Truth-Bringer

    Truth-Bringer New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  13. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    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.
     
  14. Coyote

    Coyote Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Coyote died for your sheep
    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?

    When? After it became public?




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

    You certainly hate Clinton.
     
  15. Truth-Bringer

    Truth-Bringer New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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 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.

    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.


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

    Work on your reading comprehension

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

Share This Page