Let's try this again, this topic is about freedom

This topic is about Ron Paul for president in 2008!

This is not an advertisement, unlike the other attempt.

Google Ron Paul, or YouTube him and you will find amazing videos.

This topic is to discuss Ron Paul and his positions, and his strife for Presidency.

I'm going to post this for those unfamiliar with him, please don't take it again as an advertisement:

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist.

 

 

 

Ron has never voted to raise taxes.

 

Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

 

Ron has never voted for the Iraq War.

 

Ron has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

 

Ron has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

 

Ron has never voted to raise congressional pay.

 

Ron has never taken a government-paid junket.

 

Ron wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the IRS, the Department of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security.

 

 

 

Ron voted against the Patriot Act.

 

Ron votes against regulating the Internet.

 

Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.

 

Ron votes against the United Nations.

 

Ron votes against the welfare state.

 

Ron votes against reinstating a military draft.

 

 

 

Ron votes to preserve the constitution.

 

Ron votes to cut government spending.

 

Ron votes to lower healthcare costs.

 

Ron votes to end the war on drugs.

 

Ron votes to protect civil liberties.

 

Ron votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform.

 

Ron votes to eliminate tax funded abortions and to overturn Roe v Wade.

 

Ron votes to protect religious freedom.

I haven't completely made up my mind yet, but I think raising taxes might be a better idea for our country. More social programs to benefit the poor please? O:)

He's probably not a bad candidate, though.

Yeah, Ron Paul is pretty cool. I still think Kucinich(?) is up there too.

Did you expect something witty?

I haven't completely made up my mind yet, but I think raising taxes might be a better idea for our country. More social programs to benefit the poor please? O:)

 

 

 

He's probably not a bad candidate, though.

If we stopped supporting candidates who outsource American jobs overseas, and who let illegal immigrants take more American jobs, and began to slowly phase out our reliance on imported goods from China, there wouldn't be any need for social programs for the poor.

It's quite hard to believe Ron Paul is actually a republican, with the positive & humanistic values he advocates. I don't like any political party, but I'd register rep. just to vote for a candidate like him. :)

If we stopped supporting candidates who outsource American jobs overseas, and who let illegal immigrants take more American jobs, and began to slowly phase out our reliance on imported goods from China, there wouldn't be any need for social programs for the poor.

All those sound like the fix would require intervention into the economy. That is not too libertarian sounding to me.

If we stopped supporting candidates who outsource American jobs overseas, and who let illegal immigrants take more American jobs, and began to slowly phase out our reliance on imported goods from China, there wouldn't be any need for social programs for the poor.

 

 

 

All those sound like the fix would require intervention into the economy. That is not too libertarian sounding to me.

Not really. It's perfectly fine to import and export, commerce is great, but at the level it is now, it is not. We are allowing China to control our market by increasing our reliance off of them. It is Libertarian to fix the problems that the Neocons and Democrats caused to our economy, especially with our fiat currency.

Not really. It's perfectly fine to import and export, commerce is great, but at the level it is now, it is not. We are allowing China to control our market by increasing our reliance off of them. It is Libertarian to fix the problems that the Neocons and Democrats caused to our economy, especially with our fiat currency.

What's wrong with the level it's at now? And why does everyone always mention China as controlling our economy when more of our imports come from Canada?

I've been following Ron Paul for monnnnnths now but haven't gotten the guts to post something here. Good for you, my friend.

I'm already registered to vote for him :D

Hmm...How does Ron Paul intend to get rid of our dependence on China's goods, then?

I still think tax raising will benefit more than lowering taxes. That doesn't necessarily guarantee that the economy will be improved.

If we stopped supporting candidates who outsource American jobs overseas, and who let illegal immigrants take more American jobs, and began to slowly phase out our reliance on imported goods from China, there wouldn't be any need for social programs for the poor.

 

 

 

All those sound like the fix would require intervention into the economy. That is not too libertarian sounding to me.

 

 

 

Not really. It's perfectly fine to import and export, commerce is great, but at the level it is now, it is not. We are allowing China to control our market by increasing our reliance off of them. It is Libertarian to fix the problems that the Neocons and Democrats caused to our economy, especially with our fiat currency.

For the sake of fair argument... China already controls the US economy up to astronomic proportions. They have over $1.4 trillion US dollars in foreign reserve accounts, hundreds of billions in american real estate investments and companies...

If they ever decided to use their investments and american funds as a political weapon by withdrawing all of it/converting it into Euros/yens/etc... The american economy and dollar would cease to exist.

That's not a problem one man can solve.

Not really. It's perfectly fine to import and export, commerce is great, but at the level it is now, it is not. We are allowing China to control our market by increasing our reliance off of them. It is Libertarian to fix the problems that the Neocons and Democrats caused to our economy, especially with our fiat currency.

 

 

 

What's wrong with the level it's at now? And why does everyone always mention China as controlling our economy when more of our imports come from Canada?

Because Canada doesn't pose a potentially dangerous threat to the US. Ron Paul even said himself in an interview, that he talked to a man who moved away from California to China because he could start a buisness faster and cheaper there. Instead of Americans creating our products, we have low-paid Asians doing it instead, with a very unstable currency such as the Yuan. It's definitely Libertarian to want to have more American jobs. Why is Ron Paul the toughest on illegal immigration then huh?

But at the end of the day he's still a pro-life republican coot who tried to block the Supreme Court from adressing important human rights issues such as women's reproductive rights, equal rights for same-sex couples and the separation of church and state.

For the sake of fair argument... China already controls the US economy up to astronomic proportions. They have over $1.4 trillion US dollars in foreign reserve accounts, hundreds of billions in american real estate investments and companies...

 

 

 

If they ever decided to use their investments and american funds as a political weapon by withdrawing all of it/converting it into Euros/yens/etc... The american economy and dollar would cease to exist.

 

 

 

That's not a problem one man can solve.

You are right my friend, and Ron Paul doesn't intend to solve it, but he definitely wants to do more than Giuliani, Romney, or any of the other candidates.

But at the end of the day he's still a pro-life republican coot who tried to block the Supreme Court from adressing important human rights issues such as women's reproductive rights, equal rights for same-sex couples and the separation of church and state.

He didn't sign the Federal Marriage Amendment, and he doesn't support a federal ban on abortion. According to the Ninth and Tenth amendments, those rights belong to the states. He was doing it because that's what the Constitution says.

Trust me, I don't agree with his social standings that much either, but compared to the rest, at least he's not willing to let his personal opinion become his political opinion.

PS: The separation of Church and State does not exist. It was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, but it's not in the Constitution. Actually, the Constitution only forbids Congress from implementing a national church, states actually can, but it would obviously be ill-advised. Look up the Establishment Clause and First Amendment.

But at the end of the day he's still a pro-life republican coot who tried to block the Supreme Court from adressing important human rights issues such as women's reproductive rights, equal rights for same-sex couples and the separation of church and state.

That was one of the reason's I was a little hesitant about voting for him. I still think he is the best candidate though.

But at the end of the day he's still a pro-life republican coot who tried to block the Supreme Court from adressing important human rights issues such as women's reproductive rights, equal rights for same-sex couples and the separation of church and state.

 

 

 

That was one of the reason's I was a little hesitant about voting for him. I still think he is the best candidate though.

My thoughts exactly. But I delved into his positions a bit more, and I could understand where he was coming from, and I respect that, even if I am pro-choice, and pro-same sex marriage and rights.

I'd say putting religious symbols in federal and state government building is pretty damn close to establishing a state religion, or at the very least promoting one. The We The People Act is based on a misguided constructionistic view of the American Constitution that leaves very little room for important civil rights issues to be properly addressed and only serves an outdated form of religious conservatism.

If we stopped supporting candidates who outsource American jobs overseas, and who let illegal immigrants take more American jobs, and began to slowly phase out our reliance on imported goods from China, there wouldn't be any need for social programs for the poor.

 

 

 

All those sound like the fix would require intervention into the economy. That is not too libertarian sounding to me.

 

 

 

Not really. It's perfectly fine to import and export, commerce is great, but at the level it is now, it is not. We are allowing China to control our market by increasing our reliance off of them. It is Libertarian to fix the problems that the Neocons and Democrats caused to our economy, especially with our fiat currency.

 

 

 

For the sake of fair argument... China already controls the US economy up to astronomic proportions. They have over $1.4 trillion US dollars in foreign reserve accounts, hundreds of billions in american real estate investments and companies...

 

 

 

If they ever decided to use their investments and american funds as a political weapon by withdrawing all of it/converting it into Euros/yens/etc... The american economy and dollar would cease to exist.

 

 

 

That's not a problem one man can solve.

This is not even scratching the surface that the United states is in national debt, and has gotten alot worse since George Bush has been in office. One reason we went into war which most people don't think about is the money we make. From previous wars, the development sky-rockets in America because everyone wants to see America win, and the civilians start at a pro-war attitude, and it did work slightly in the current "war on terror" yet most people now do not feel the war was necessary, and no trace of nuclear weapons were found, which also takes people away from the thought that the war was actually necessary.

I'm going to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries. I think he has some of the most crossover appeal of any candidate in either party. I actually have a good friend that has been a Democrat his entire life that is going to register to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary.

On things I don't see eye to eye with him about he usually just says "Constitutionally states should vote on that issue." Constitutionally he is right so even though I disagree with him on the issue he is doing the right thing in referring it to the states to vote on.

He is also the only guy that seems to understand economics. He understands the Democrats want to spend a lot on social programs and then jack up the tax rate to pay for it. The Republicans(the neocons to be exact) on the other hand have thrown fiscal responsibility out the window lately and to cover their expenditures they lower the interest rate and start printing off massive amounts of money out of thin air and drive our inflation up which is just an indirect form of tax that really hurts the lower class and middle class.

What i like about him:

[ ] Ron Paul is a constitutionalist.

[ ] Ron has never voted to raise taxes.

[X] Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

[X] Ron has never voted for the Iraq War.

[ ] Ron has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

[ ] Ron has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

[X] Ron has never voted to raise congressional pay.

[X] Ron has never taken a government-paid junket.

[ ] Ron wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the IRS, the Department of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security.

[ ] Ron voted against the Patriot Act.

[X] Ron votes against regulating the Internet.

[ ] Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.

[ ] Ron votes against the United Nations.

[X] Ron votes against the welfare state.

[X] Ron votes against reinstating a military draft.

[ ] Ron votes to preserve the constitution.

[ ] Ron votes to cut government spending.

[X] Ron votes to lower healthcare costs.

[ ] Ron votes to end the war on drugs.

[X] Ron votes to protect civil liberties.

[X] Ron votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform.

[ ] Ron votes to eliminate tax funded abortions and to overturn Roe v Wade.

[ ] Ron votes to protect religious freedom.

Im sure he has nice intentions, but based on his records up there...

To me he sounds like someone who wants to please EVERYONE.

I mean, yeah I agree with him on a couple of fronts, but the guy is chuck-full of promises that 90% of will probably be never even fulfilled...

He's like... Ralph Nader... During the 2000 elections... Al Gore would have won...

He's gonna split the vote between people who can actually do something more meaningful...

Well maybe its a bit unfair to say that, but still.

I mean, yeah I agree with him on a couple of fronts, but the guy is chuck-full of promises that 90% of will probably be never even fulfilled.

He is one of these guys that you have to really listen to what he says. He stinks at giving a 10 second explanation of his position but if you can listen to him for ten minutes on an issue he makes a lot of sense.

For example he wants the Fed gone. Realistically can he abolish the Fed if he becomes President? I doubt it. He admits as much himself. What he says however is that this country was never meant to have an exclusive government run centralized bank in the first place. What he would be pushing for is allowing commercial banks or states to produce currency.

Some people may freak out at the initial thought of that happening but it does several key things.

1. Provides people an alternative to having their money inflated away by the current spend and then print to cover the spending policy of the Fed.

2. Creates some competition for the Fed which would make them more and force them to do a better job.

3. Allows people to use hard currencies if they so choose(this country is all about freedom right?)

4. Allows a smoother transition to a no Fed system in the future if the country chooses that course.

Historically banks and states have produced their own money in the United States so it's not a new idea. The Fed wasn't even created until the 1930's so our country ran fine for 150 years without it using a gold standard. If you also notice our government didn't start running up massive debts until they created the Fed to allow them the capability to do so.

Our government is acting like a shop-a-holic and the Fed is their Credit Card. What's the best thing to do for someone that can't control their credit spending? Cut up their card.

But at the end of the day he's still a pro-life republican coot who tried to block the Supreme Court from addressing important human rights issues such as women's reproductive rights, equal rights for same-sex couples and the separation of church and state.

Thanks, you saved me some time so i didn't have to type out my commonsense opinion.

[X] Ron Paul is a constitutionalist.

[ ] Ron has never voted to raise taxes.

[ ] Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

[ ] Ron has never voted for the Iraq War.

[ ] Ron has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

[X] Ron has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

[ ] Ron has never voted to raise congressional pay.

[ ] Ron has never taken a government-paid junket.

[ ] Ron wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the IRS, the Department of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security.

[ ] Ron voted against the Patriot Act.

[X] Ron votes against regulating the Internet.

[ ] Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.

[ ] Ron votes against the United Nations.

[ ] Ron votes against the welfare state.

[X] Ron votes against reinstating a military draft.

[X] Ron votes to preserve the constitution.

[ ] Ron votes to cut government spending.

[ ] Ron votes to lower healthcare costs.

[ ] Ron votes to end the war on drugs.

[X] Ron votes to protect civil liberties.

[ ] Ron votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform.

[ ] Ron votes to eliminate tax funded abortions and to overturn Roe v Wade.

[ ] Ron votes to protect religious freedom.

What I don;t like about him. But hey, what does it matter? Not like I'll vote anyways...

I haven't completely made up my mind yet, but I think raising taxes might be a better idea for our country. More social programs to benefit the poor please? O:.

I disagree. It's not the taxes that are the problems, it's where the government puts the tax revenue. (ie: cut military funding if you want to see other programs benefit)

I'm Canadian, I don't know enough about Ron Paul to make any comments.

I just have a question for you, Ron Paul supporters. If he's planning/wants to abolish income tax, where is he going to take all the money the state needs from? (for example, for the humongous military)