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

Top Ten Reasons to Support Ron Paul

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by qwerty, Jul 19, 2007.

  1. qwerty

    qwerty New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've been "unofficially" supporting Ron Paul for a while now but I've decided to come out so to speak and announce my support. In reading up on the candidates I found more and more reasons to support Ron Paul while other candidates in either party have been demonstrating more and more reasons not to vote for them.

    What I'm also amazed at are those I've spoken to who are publicly supporting other candidates, most others seem very uninformed about who they are supporting or where their candidates actually stand on most issues. I would think if you were going to hold a sign for someone or march in a parade on their behalf you would take the time to read more then just the buzz words on a campaign site and know who it is your supporting and why.

    Without getting into the negativity I will focus on the top ten reasons I'm supporting Ron Paul in the Primaries.

    1) Ron Paul is fiscally responsible. The non-partisan group The National Taxpayers Union have voted him as a "Taxpayers Friend" multiple years and has their highest rating on over all political careers. Of those running in 2008 only three candidates even made their list in their last rating and they were Ron Paul at 84%, Tancredo 80% followed by John McCain rated 78%. In their most recent ratings only Congressman Flake 91% and Senators Sununu 91%, Kyl 87% and Demint 85% scored higher. So of those running you cannot find anyone more fiscally responsible then Ron Paul.

    2) He doesn't support debit spending. His record speaks for itself in that he has NEVER voted for an unbalanced budget. Every year Ron Paul has returned a portion of his own annual budget to the US treasury. How many other members of congress and senate can say that?

    3) He has integrity. While we see others in congress continue to vote themselves raises year after year, Ron Paul has NEVER voted to raise congressional pay.

    4) He's never flip-flopped on Iraq, he voted against it from the start. I will admit I supported the war to begin with as did most of America based on the belief that Iraq had WMDs. Once it was proven they didn't we lost any true justification for being there. Ron Paul believed from the start that they were of no threat to us based on the evidence he was given (which I would believe to be more than you or I would ever see) and has voted to keep us out from day one.

    5) He doesn't believe the Federal Government should put a corporation in charge of our money. The Federal Reserve is an outside corporation in charge of our nation's money which we pay them to borrow increasing our national debt. Our Constitution (Article 1 Section 8) gives the Federal government the exclusive power to coin our money so we have no reason to essentially indebt ourselves to a corporation as we currently do, not to mention it is unconstitutional. Ron Paul has proposed legislation to get us back to the gold standard and end this cycle of increasing debt to a corporation.

    6) He believes in states rights. On many issues our federal government has overstepped its bounds. Ron Paul believes in giving the power back to each individual state to allow the people (not the government) to have more control over issues they feel are important.

    7) Ron Paul supports the 2nd amendment and has never voted in support of unconstitutional gun restrictions.

    8) Ron Paul is a good honest person. He and his wife have been married for over 50 years and his personal life is very respectable.

    9) He doesn't walk the party line. Ron Paul ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988 against George HW Bush because he disagreed with the loose fiscal retraint of the Republican party at that time.

    10) He has mass crossover appeal with supporters coming from all types; male/female, black/white, young/old, straight/gay, rich/poor, Democrat, Republican and Independent alike. I was a little surprised showing up at a sign holding for Ron Paul when I saw someone I knew from Merrimack who is what I would consider a very left wing person. He's registered Democrat, works a government job etc. Yet, there he was holding a sign for Ron Paul. He, as I, sees Ron as a person of integrity who has true values and morals and he agreed that Ron would be a great choice to have as president.

    I would be interested in hearing the opinions of others, both positive and negative in regards to Ron Paul.



    Note: The views expressed here are my own and may not represent the views of Ron Paul or his campaign.

    http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-barnes/2007/7/16/top-ten-reasons-to-support-ron-paul.html
     
  2. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    11) But has absolutely no chance of even getting the Republican nomination let alone winning anything in the general election. The cold hard fact is it doesn't matter at all how good you look on paper. If you can't win you can't lead.

    Hey, if Ron Paul were pro-choice and I were for some unknown reason going to vote for a Republican I'd probably vote for Ron Paul. But he's not even going to be close to getting that nomination and all the other Republicans are just some quasi form of Bush. Got to go Democrat in 08!
     
  3. Truth-Bringer

    Truth-Bringer New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And so top gun's answer is to vote for the lesser of two evils that will place us further and further into debt, and further deepen our involvement in the Middle East which will continue to make us a terrorist target. (Yes, Hillary has said we need to stay in Iraq another 10 years or so.)

    Sorry, but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I've had enough of the Bush's and the Clinton's.
     
  4. Burning Giraffe

    Burning Giraffe New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The only Democrat worth supporting is Mike Gravel. The rest appear to be even worse than Bush (I'm surprised thats possible).
     
  5. Truth-Bringer

    Truth-Bringer New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Another reason to support Ron Paul, he has the integrity to do the following:

    Paul refuses to participate in "immoral" pension system

    Says fewer perks for congress will limit terms of politicians, save taxpayers money

    Thursday, January 30, 1997

    WASHINGTON, DC - US Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) today reaffirmed his opposition to what he calls the "immoral" congressional pension system by refusing to participate in it. While serving in Congress from 1976 to 1984, Paul chose not to participate in the system, despite a taxpayer-funded pay-out which is more lucrative than any private system. He said high-dollar perks like the pension are areas that could be safely cut immediately, without hurting a single American taxpayer.

    "The situation is even worse today than it was before," Paul said. "When I served in the late '70s and early '80s, the congressman had to actually write a letter to enter the program, I simply chose not to sign-up. Today, however, everyone is automatically placed in the system and house members are required to write a letter requesting that they not be included in the program."

    After five years of service, a Member of Congress becomes vested in the system, with pay-off beginning at age 62, or pay-off begins at any age after 25 years of service. The five years can be either all in Congress, or added with other federal service, such as time in the military. If someone had 26 years of service, and depending on which of two systems they were under, a Member of Congress leaving office in 1994 could expect a yearly pension of between $52,800 and $86,000.

    "This is one reason why so many politicians stay in Washington so long: they get a better retirement plan from the government than they could ever get from an honest job back home. We need to cut perks like this pension system completely; it is immoral that someone spend so much time in Congress that they even should think about getting retirement benefits. And then to expect those benefits to be paid by taxpayers at rates no citizen can ever hope to actually earn is even more unreasonable," said Paul. "There is a lot of talk about term limits, which I completely support, but if we are to seriously reform Congress, and return it to being a 'citizen-legislature,' then we must address these issues. Even the most strict term limits package currently being bandied about restricts members to six years in office, which of course vests them in the retirement system."

    The Sufside, Texas, physician said that during a time when Congress is discussing ways to balance the budget and cut taxes, "a good place to start is right here on Capitol Hill, where we can help the taxpayers by not enriching ourselves at their expense."

    "Members of Congress are elected by the people to handle the affairs of this nation in a responsible, efficient manner, not to enrich themselves for a lifetime," he said. "To participate in a pension plan at taxpayers expense would for me be hypocritical and immoral. I hope everyone in the 105th Congress will do as I have done: reject the pension and prepare for retirement without burdening the taxpayers for decades to come. To do any less is to perpetuate what is at it's most basic level an arrogant insult to the people we were elected to represent."

    Link
     
  6. heyjude

    heyjude New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, on the beach
    Why would he need the taxpayers money? He's got plenty of his own. The rest of the rich politicians don't need the taxpayers money either, but they are greedy. They could do what Ted Kennedy does and give the money to charity. Why take it? Because if the rich don't, they turn the Senate and the Congress into a means tested organization. And I don't think we need that. It is hard enough to find someone who isn't rich who can get to those high places.
     
Loading...

Share This Page