Ron Paul Mega-Thread (Mergeness)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting fact about Ron Paul:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/06/15/ron-paul-and-the-nba/

"Similarly, Ron Paul is the only current member of Congress to have been elected three times as a non-incumbent. Given the 98 percent reelection rates for House members, it’s no great shakes to win three terms — or 10 terms — in a row. It’s winning that first one that’s the challenge. And Ron Paul has done that three times.

He first won in a special election for an open seat. He then lost his seat and won it back two years later, defeating the incumbent. After two more terms he left his seat to run unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate (and thereby did his greatest disservice to the American Republic, as his seat was won by Tom DeLay). Twelve years later, in 1996, after some redistricting, he ran again for Congress, again defeating an incumbent, this time in the Republican primary. Some political scientist should study the political skills it takes to win election to Congress without the benefit of incumbency — three times."
 
I see your intriguing fact and raise you eleven:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Click to expand...

Source:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/
 
I see your intriguing fact and raise you eleven:


Quote:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Source:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/
Click to expand...

Heck I already knew about the other eleven. Those are the reasons I'm supporting him with my vote and my money. Well that and the fact that he puts the interest of America first.
 
Your idea of "self defense" is to shoot your attacker--and everyone else on the street, just for good measure. That's not just immoral; it's sociopathic.
Click to expand...

budney,

Come on man, Again. you're putting down,"what YOU believe our troops are doing in Iraq", and telling me that's my idea of self defense. First of all, I can't believe YOU think our troops are shooting "anyone else on the ground" not just our attacker, like we're rogue savages coming in to murder anyone in our way. If that was true this Iraq war would have been over for a long time now. You've stooped lower than low now.



Hey again Marshall. You're doing an admirable job here taking on all comers, but I'm afraid you're intentionally skewing the argument. There are a lot of people who are really fed up with the idea of America sending it's young men and women out to kill anyone who might someday try to hurt us.
Click to expand...

MrRezister,

I appreciate that. And, what you say about a lot of people being fed up, is obviously correct. Fact. However, I'm not really trying to argue anything here. I was just pointing out my opinion as to why a lot of people are "fearful" of terror attacks, which was a question asked. And, I think my answer was pretty dang true as to what folks are afraid of. I've never argued or brought up Bush, Ron Paul, US policy, etc. I'm just answering a question that was asked to the best of my ability. Here was the meat of it again............

To try to answer your question without going into 7 other avenues of discussion, it's not the fear of terrorists, at least for me. It's wanting to do what we can to lessen the odds of a major city or town experiencing a catastrophic event that could kill 10's of thousands, by people that would love to do, and are trying and planning to do just that, or something similar. Heck, even a shopping mall full of women and kids. Once one happens, many might start happening.

Not only would it be tragic as hell, but it would have far reaching consequences that go from economic, clear to more rights and freedoms that we all love, possibly becoming more compromised than anything you see today.
Click to expand...

I think that's pretty descriptively accurate as to why a lot of folks don't want to see more terror attack on US soil. Do you not?
 
Your idea of "self defense" is to shoot your attacker--and everyone else on the street, just for good measure. That's not just immoral; it's sociopathic.

budney,

Come on man, Again. you're putting down,"what YOU believe our troops are doing in Iraq", and telling me that's my idea of self defense. First of all, I can't believe YOU think our troops are shooting "anyone else on the ground" not just our attacker, like we're rogue savages coming in to murder anyone in our way. If that was true this Iraq war would have been over for a long time now. You've stooped lower than low now.
Click to expand...

Marshall,

To be fair I understood his answer to be attacking not only Al Queda in Afghanistan (the actual culprits of the attacks on 9/11) but also attacking folks that had absolutely nothing to do with like 9/11 (Saddam and Iraq). I did not take is as an attack on our troops at all.
 
However, I'm not really trying to argue anything here. I was just pointing out my opinion as to why a lot of people are "fearful" of terror attacks, which was a question asked. snip I think that's pretty descriptively accurate as to why a lot of folks don't want to see more terror attack on US soil. Do you not?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I think you are spot-on. As for myself, and I would assume quite a few others, we're a bit impatient to get past "why we're doing it" and get to that part about "does it work". It just seems to me that Iraq is in a terrible state right now, and it's going to take a LONG time to fix it. Assuming that it can be fixed, that is. Then even if it gets fixed, it seems reasonable to me that the people there are going to be looking back at those years of turmoil and they will likely be pretty angry about the wholesale destruction of their country.

A lot of innocent people are getting caught in the crossfire over there, and it's easy for me to sit here and say "yeah, well that's the fault of those damn terrorists!" but the friends and family of those killed might just see it a different way. That's where the argument that "we're making things worse for ourselves" comes from, or at least that's my take on it.

budney,
Come on man, Again. you're putting down,"what YOU believe our troops are doing in Iraq", and telling me that's my idea of self defense. First of all, I can't believe YOU think our troops are shooting "anyone else on the ground" not just our attacker, like we're rogue savages coming in to murder anyone in our way.
Click to expand...

I don't want to speak for bud here, but I think that he's not referring specifically to what the individual soldiers are doing in the street. When he says "Your idea of self defense is to shoot your attacker - and everyone else on the street" I believe he's referencing Bush's policy of pre-emptive attacks on nations that haven't threatened us. In this case it's Iraq, but when you think about the description of the Global War on Terror, can it leave any doubt that someone else will be next? Can you imagine trying to have another "sort-of" war in Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or North Korea - wherever the bad guys might be? Because our other option is to just leave our troops in Iraq and wait for the bad guys to show up like flies to flypaper.

It's tough for me to admit that I want the war ended now, because just a couple of years ago, I was all for it. And I hate changing my mind, it makes me feel like maybe I'm fickle or naieve. But I worry about the future - will this policy make me safer? If so, why? Because our enemies would never attack us here since they're so busy attacking us in Iraq? That didn't stop them from bombing London and Spain.
 
Hindsight is always 20/20 but in Ron Paul's case his foresight on Iraq was pretty darn close to 20/20 as well. Why won't the media give the man credit for being right from the beginning? There has been a lot of coverage when other pro-war figures became harsh critcs of the war (William F. Buckley for one said he regretted his earlier support) but little credit is given to those conservatives, like Paul, who were correct all along.
 
A lot of innocent people are getting caught in the crossfire over there, and it's easy for me to sit here and say "yeah, well that's the fault of those damn terrorists!" but the friends and family of those killed might just see it a different way. That's where the argument that "we're making things worse for ourselves" comes from, or at least that's my take on it.
Click to expand...

That's right, I'm sure that's happening. But the option was, let Al Qaeda take it over. In my opinion that would be no good for us and no good for the Iraqi people as well. So, we either leave after we dropped Saddam's murdering, terror sponsoring dictatorship, which the Iraqi people loved us for, and let Al Qaeda turn Iraq into a Taliban type regime. Or, try to help them and fend off the aggressors.

I mean, if you remember back, we didn't go into Iraq with the idea off all this happening and thinking we be there for any longer than it took to help them rebuild roads and infrastructure, help guide in setting up a democratic government and make some other things better for them like, schools, hospitals and human services. We were the good guys.

But if you listen to some on this forum, and elsewhere, they describe our actions as if we did a terrible thing for the people of Iraq. They describe our motives as immoral and bad. They speak as if we are the reason for civilian deaths and are the ones to blame. Namely budney. That's ridiculous and misguided and is just flat out spreading anti-US sentiment.

When you try to do good things, sometimes bad things happen. We didn't invite Al Qaeda into Iraq. But regardless, they sought to make it their business and to do whatever it takes to keep Iraq from becoming a free and democratic government. From beheading civilians and flat out murdering Iraqi's and US contractors and reporters to blowing up themselves and others with car bombs and IED's. Just ruthless evil acts.

So, as I said, we either say, screw the Iraqi's and leave, which would have done no good and had us and them in the same situation as before we arrived. Or, stay and try to help the best we can because of their interests and ours as well.

I'm not saying we have done nothing wrong and things shouldn't be better, they damn sure should be. However, I have a real tough time with those that take every opportunity to make us out to be the devil, calling us the enemy, and taking the terrorist side over ours.

Now, If Iraq is making things worse on ourselves, which I'm not convinced it is overall, (maybe it is politically) keep in mind how we got here. It's not as simple as saying, it's our fault. Not by a long shot. And by the way, if we didn't think they had WMD's, we damn sure could put some there to make the critics shup. But we didn't.


I got to run, kids are taking me out for Fathers day. Anyway, that's how I see part of this and to be fair to you guys, it's not as simple as I am pointing out either. This is an extremely complex issue and one I'm glad I don't have to be in charge of, guide and makes the calls that effect the populous of this nation today and for the future both.

Happy Fathers Day to the Dad's out there. :)
 
First of all, I can't believe YOU think our troops are shooting "anyone else on the ground" not just our attacker, like we're rogue savages coming in to murder anyone in our way.
Click to expand...
Everyone? No. But you don't honestly believe that Iraq had 30,000 Al Qaeda members, do you? That's how many Bush admitted the war had killed. The current number is at least double that.

It's simply ludicrous to deny that tens of thousands of non-terrorists were killed.

MrRezister: yes, well said.

--Len.
 
The practice of using earmarks -- federal grants for projects in congressional districts -- to secure support on certain bills never worked for Paul. His opposition to most federal funding was so uniform that he refused to use federal grants to help pay for the college educations of his five children. Despite representing one of the most hurricane-prone areas in the nation, Paul opposes the National Flood Insurance Program.

"It's amazing to me" that voters keep re-electing Paul, said Dude Payne, a Democratic county commissioner in Brazoria County, where Paul lives. Paul's biggest asset -- besides his slogan, "The Taxpayer's Best Friend" -- probably is his consistency, said Payne, who pointed out that even after the controversial 2003 Texas redistricting added more Democratic voters to Paul's district, he beat a Democrat with about 60 percent of the vote.

"I don't think anybody can beat him," Payne said. "He pretty much votes no on any kind of pork."
Click to expand...

Source:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_513029.html

Too bad he's so unelectable, right?
 
Given the current low ratings of the Republican Party in general, Ron Paul is the only one among them that could win in the general election. He doesn't look like the rest.

Bob
 
There are a couple of stories on drudge.com that people are equally repulsed by the Democratic party and the non-choice of our B.S. two-party system. Common wisdom has it that third parties are non-viable in the U.S. system, but our current Republican administration has thrown all wisdom out the window, common or otherwise. The Democrats don't have a lick of wisdom in their entire party so instead of capitalizing on this opportunity, they are flopping around like carp on a riverbank. The timing might be perfect for Dr. Paul's brand of wisdom.
 
Ron Paul not invited to next debate.....

E-mail I just recieved from Dr. Paul's campaign.

June 19, 2007


Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance will host a presidential candidates forum on Saturday, June 30th in Des Moines. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, and Tom Tancredo will participate.

Ron Paul, however, will not participate. Why? Because he wasn’t invited.

We heard about this forum from numerous supporters in Iowa who asked why Dr. Paul was not going to participate. Those supporters assumed that Dr. Paul was invited.

The campaign office had not received an invitation so we called this morning; thinking we might have misplaced the invitation or simply overlooked it. Lew Moore, our campaign manager, called Mr. Edward Failor, an officer of Iowans for Tax Relief, to ask about it. To our shock, Mr. Failor told us Dr. Paul was not invited; he was not going to be invited; and he would not be allowed to participate. And when asked why, Mr. Failor refused to explain. The call ended.

Lew then called Mr. Steve Sheffler, president of the Iowa Christian Alliance, to talk with him. Mr. Sheffler did not answer so Lew left a message. He has yet to respond.

Why are the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance excluding the one Republican candidate who scored at the top of every online poll taken after the MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN debates? Why are they denying Iowans the opportunity to hear from the Republican presidential candidate whose popularity is growing by the day?

We couldn’t get answers to these questions from Messrs. Failor and Sheffler. Maybe you’ll have better luck. Their contact information is below.

It's ironic that on the same day we learned the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance excluded Dr. Paul from their candidates forum, we received a call from ABC News confirming Dr. Paul’s participation in its nationally broadcast August 5th debate to be held in Des Moines.

Kent Snyder, Chairman
Ron Paul 2008


Contact Information

Edward Failor
Iowans for Tax Relief
2610 Park Avenue
Muscatine, Iowa 52761
Phone: 563-288-3600 or 877-913-3600
Fax: 563-264-2413
E-mail: [email protected]

Steve Sheffler, President
Iowa Christian Alliance
939 Office Park Road, Suite 115
West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
Phone: 515-225-1515
Fax: 515-225-1826
E-mail: [email protected]
Click to expand...
 
Now that's NOT COOL.

Tommy Thompson, Tancredo, and Jim Gilmore aren't scoring any higher in polls. Huckabee and Brownback are faring little better.

If they're going to keep the debate big, as they should at this early stage, then Paul should definitely be there.

If not, then why those other guys?
 
Ron Paul, as great as he is, is a fringe candidate who isn't going to get anywhere close to a nomination.

Fred Thompson is the one who ought to be there. He's our best bet.
 
Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance
Click to expand...

May I ask why we do not have these debates in a completely public forum? And everyone should be involved not excluded, and do not think I am just for Ron Paul but I would be upset even if they excluded Rudy, the American people have the right to hear from all parties not just the ones the venue they will be at wants them to hear from. That is called censorship. ^ regarless of his ability or possibility of nomination what he has to say is something people need to be reminded of.
 
Ron Paul, as great as he is, is a fringe candidate who isn't going to get anywhere close to a nomination.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the rest of the list are no different. At least Paul helped make things a bit more interesting.
 
It is a Forum, not a debate.
It could be that the sponsors have an agenda.
Sponsored by: Iowa Christian Alliance & Iowans for Tax Relief
Co-Sponsored by: Coldwell Banker Mid America Group, Realtors, FairTax.org,
Krishna Engineering Consultants, Inc, & Light Expressions by Shaw
Click to expand...
 
May I ask why we do not have these debates in a completely public forum? And everyone should be involved not excluded, and do not think I am just for Ron Paul but I would be upset even if they excluded Rudy, the American people have the right to hear from all parties not just the ones the venue they will be at wants them to hear from. That is called censorship. ^ regarless of his ability or possibility of nomination what he has to say is something people need to be reminded of.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

This is what a "libertarian" thinks?

The Iowa Christian Alliance can invite whomever it bloody well pleases.

If you want a debate that's open to all, then go to Iowa, set one up, and invite everyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Ron Paul v.s. Fred Thompson
Replies
12
Views
742
Biker
Biker
S
  • Locked
Key GOP Group Endorses Ron Paul
Replies
17
Views
691
obxned
O
O
  • Locked
Question about Ron Paul.
Replies
10
Views
525
ArfinGreebly
ArfinGreebly
A
  • Locked
who suffers the view that Ron Paul has more than a 1% chance?
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
A
  • Locked
A Reason to vote for Ron Paul...
Replies
8
Views
370
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top