Ron Paul Mega-Thread (Mergeness)

[MrRezister]

I must say, that's impressive.

Do you mean "impressive that anyone anywhere knows what 'seperation of powers' actually means", or "impressive for an elected official" in general, or "impressive for someone who can't possibly win the Presidency"?

Because personally, I'm impressed with his values, knowledge of the Constitution, and his consistency on pretty much every issue that I care about.

 

[samtechlan]

Paul puts principles above political expediency every time. The gun lawsuit bill was just one example. Another is his opposition to trade agreements like NAFTA. Of course the man is in favor of free trade, what he is not in favor of is a brand new bureaucracy overseeing "managed" free trade.

 

[Marshall]

Do you mean "impressive that anyone anywhere knows what 'seperation of powers' actually means", or "impressive for an elected official" in general, or "impressive for someone who can't possibly win the Presidency"?

Because personally, I'm impressed with his values, knowledge of the Constitution, and his consistency on pretty much every issue that I care about.

Impressive that he stayed true. Wasn't that the point being made by D.S. when posting it? I would have sworn it was.

Sorry to interrupt all the stroking with a compliment. Go ahead and take this post of mine and use it as an opportunity to post 27 more reasons why your impressed by Ron Paul. I don't know if there's enough uncertainty in what I said though to warrant doing it, as there must have been in my complimentary post. I even quoted you so you can read it again and again and again. You're welcome. Maybe there will be a new one in there somewhere we haven't already read 5 times before. Stroke away.

 

[MrRezister]

Well, I guess it's my turn to be impressed. I believe that may have been one of the most condescending and sarcasm-laced posts I've come across all day. Clearly I was out of line in daring to ask you to declare any positive traits you might find in a candidate you've said you most likely won't vote for. I apologize and withdraw the question.

Meanwhile, back to topic. Here's an interesting article that pretty well sums up the difference between Paul's ideas on foriegn policy and those of the mainline GOP.

From the article:

Other members of the Republican establishment suggested that Paul was “blaming America” for the 9/11 attacks. That’s because they think that the federal government is America. In actuality, as our American ancestors understood, the federal government and the country are composed of two separate and distinct groups of people – those within the federal government and those within the private sector, a point reflected in the Bill of Rights, which expressly protects the country from the federal government.

What’s going on here? Why the enormous, almost panicky, overreaction to what is a rather simple point about U.S. foreign policy? Why the attempts to suppress, distort, and misrepresent? What are they so scared of?

The answer is very simple: The Republican establishment knows that if the American people conclude that Ron Paul is right, the jig is up with respect to the big-government, pro-empire, interventionist foreign policy that Republicans (and many Democrats) have supported for many years.

Paul would like to see a major change in the current foriegn policy, changing our current course toward a sort of "world police". I'm all for it, I don't think the gov should be seeking out and destroying the cities, countries, or cultures that might produce terrorists. I feel like they should just be keeping those people out of the country.

 

[Marshall]

Well, I guess it's my turn to be impressed. I believe that may have been one of the most condescending and sarcasm-laced posts I've come across all day.

Thank you, sarcasm was my intention.

Clearly I was out of line in daring to ask you to declare any positive traits you might find in a candidate you've said you most likely won't vote for.

LOL,

You didn't ask me that nor, did you do that. You asked me what I meant by "impressed", then defined all of the possibilities, in your words and sarcastically I might add and, making a RP commercial out of a question to the simplest compliment to him. I know, I know, it was kind of a sarcastic/suspecting post you made only because you know I'm not likely to vote for him.

Complimenting an opponent isn't foreign to you, you're a fair minded person, I've seen that. I also know you're smart, you display that all the time, and if your intentions were really wanting me to declare any positive traits about Ron Paul, you would just ask me to do so. You wouldn't lay out my only possibilities, in your own words, and limit me to boot.

So yes, I was sarcastic about you using a question that you really didn't ask, in order to be sarcastic yourself and make a commercial for Ron Paul both, especially after I was being genuinely complimentary toward your candidates action.

Anyway, no harm meant, I promise you that. Hell, I was in a sarcastic mood at work today anyway so it came out more easily than it normally would have.

 

[MrRezister]

Fair play. I'll keep the snarkiness to the barest minimum from now on.

(Two Pieces)

 

[Marshall]

Now by gum, that's good! I can respect that!

 

[samtechlan]

Books, videos, articles etc. by Ron Paul:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/rp-everything.html

 

[gengarnett]

nwilliams

I can't disagree with you more on this issue. The "war on terror" is real

because George W and the media makes it so. The fact is history has shown that you can't fight a war against an ideology and expect to win. Terrorism has been around for thousands of years and will probably always be with us.

As long as this country continues to press its beliefs and values into other parts of the world there will be terrorism. You can't stamp it out with bombs and troops because the root of the problem is in the heads of the enemy not behind the borders of some country.

I think Ron Paul knows this and I strongly believe he could find more diplomatic and realistic solutions the problems we face today. We need someone in the White House who actually "thinks" for a change. Someone who can solve problems without the words "war" and "bomb them" in their vocabulary.

First of all, I am tired of the idea that the term "War on Terror" is such a big danger. It may be catchy to some or have some meaning to others, but I just do not get it. We are fighting a multi-front war against Islamic fanactic terrorists who want us dead. Think about it, what was more important, the term "D-Day" or the fact that thousands of allied soldiers stormed the beaches at Normandy? Hell I don't care if they call it the War on Teradactyles as long as they fight the enemy.

Your post implies that the terrorists exist and attack us because we are doing something wrong. You imply that if WE changed OUR ways, they would stop wanting to murder us en masse. It is fine if you feel that way, but this is the problem, this is why the vast majority of Republicans can not and do not support Ron Paul.

Paul wants us to retreat and ignore friends and enemies? So if we simply "leave" the Middle East all will be rosy? I guess it is none of our business is fanatics take over the oil fields and destroy our economy and way of life? Certainly that is not our business right? Who cares about the billions of dollars American companies have invested in providing us with the oil we need from the Middle East and other international locales?

I am a libertarian conservative, I want a libertarian minded candidate. Yet we are in a time of crisis, we DO have enemies that want us dead. I think Paul is unfit to command in this dangerous time because he refuses to see the threat and seems to think it is we who are to blame.

 

[Marshall]

First of all, I am tired of the idea that the term "War on Terror" is such a big danger. It may be catchy to some or have some meaning to others, but I just do not get it. We are fighting a multi-front war against Islamic fanactic terrorists who want us dead. Think about it, what was more important, the term "D-Day" or the fact that thousands of allied soldiers stormed the beaches at Normandy? Hell I don't care if they call it the War on Teradactyles as long as they fight the enemy.

Your post implies that the terrorists exist and attack us because we are doing something wrong. You imply that if WE changed OUR ways, they would stop wanting to murder us en masse. It is fine if you feel that way, but this is the problem, this is why the vast majority of Republicans can not and do not support Ron Paul.

Paul wants us to retreat and ignore friends and enemies? So if we simply "leave" the Middle East all will be rosy? I guess it is none of our business is fanatics take over the oil fields and destroy our economy and way of life? Certainly that is not our business right? Who cares about the billions of dollars American companies have invested in providing us with the oil we need from the Middle East and other international locales?

I am a libertarian conservative, I want a libertarian minded candidate. Yet we are in a time of crisis, we DO have enemies that want us dead. I think Paul is unfit to command in this dangerous time because he refuses to see the threat and seems to think it is we who are to blame.

But those Al Qaeda young men, they're such nice, understanding fellows. They wouldn't show aggression at the sign of weakness. I bet they would just stop what they're doing, all retreat to their comfy cave and never plan to try to carry out attacks of mass destruction on innocent men, women and children of this country ever again.

They wouldn't try to gain control of the oil fields. I bet they would even tell Iran to back off and not provide any weapons to them since they wouldn't be requiring them. If we asked real nice, they might even talk Iran into stop development toward nuclear weapons since we wouldn't be around anymore. And you know what, I bet Iran would abide. They don't want confrontation either, being the peaceful type they are.

I bet if you listened real hard, on a clear, quite night, you could hear them singing Kum Ba Yah around the glow of a campfire while asking Allah for forgiveness of their sins. I bet they would even call home their terror cells in the USA since they wouldn't be making plans, freely and easily to kill us or, gathering and dealing for weapons to pass on to them here. I mean, where's the fun in it for them if we give up?

 

[budney]

But those Al Qaeda young men, they're such nice, understanding fellows. They wouldn't show aggression at the sign of weakness.

Straw man. If they "show aggression," they go down in a hail of gunfire. Sound like "weakness" to you?

You're claiming that it's "showing weakness" to be a decent human being who doesn't go around killing people who never did anything to him. That's scary.

--Len.

 

[Jacka L Ope]

Slavery and freedom are opposites. I think that government and special interests have colluded to rig the economy so that wealth is continuously shifted out of the pockets of the majority into the pockets of the privileged. The distribution of wealth in this country is not a normal distribution that would result from a free economy. It looks more like we are just living on one big government run plantation and most of us are working for our masters.

This loaning of new money into existence and charging interest on it is a monopoly granted to the banking industry by government (Federal Reserve Act). This is a huge scam that transfers wealth from working people to the banks and Wall street, not to mention the price increases this inflation of the money supply causes; a huge link in our barely visible chain of slavery. Taxes are the next big transfer of wealth.

Ron Paul wants to end the Federal Reserve scam and the welfare state scam, and for this alone we should be clamoring to get him elected instead of calling him a wuss for not wanting to fight the world. Frankly I think he is very brave because his desire to take away the special interest privileges and end this system of control and plunder will likely bring on attempts to assassinate him if he gains much more popularity.

This is a position, allowing myself a bit of wiggle room , that can I agree with as I'm fed up with what seems to me to be a scam that is likely the greatest fraud ever perpetrated upon our society: the Federal Reserve, the IRS and the "voluntary" income tax.

If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power of money should be taken from banks and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs. I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies. ~ Thomas Jefferson

How right he was.

Not so long ago, a politician had the gall to say

You know, America is not like other countries. In America the government can only exercise those powers given to it in the Constitution. And in America, it is the government this is the servant of the people, and the people its master.

As Ronald Reagan said it, that is the way things are supposed to be. Sadly, that is not the way things are.

 

[Marshall]

Oh yea,

Hello again Mr "Al Qaeda is innocent and friendly and never did anything to us" guy. Nice to see you again. I wrote what I did especially for you Len. Somehow I knew you would come to Al Qaeda's defense. I must be Dianna Warwick tonight.

Ohhhhhhh and don't tell me you're not talking about Al Qaeda, Len. Because you replied to my post where I specifically mentioned them, on purpose, and never referred to anyone else. And yes, we are fighting them in Iraq.

Straw man. If they "show aggression," they go down in a hail of gunfire. Sound like "weakness" to you?

Damn right Al Qaeda Terrorists go down, as many as humanly possible. Because they're our enemy Len and they came to Iraq to fight us, unless you want to admit to them being there already? I wager that if Al Qaeda didn't come to Iraq to try to keep Iraq from forming and keeping a democratic government, we would be gone from there, for the most part. So yes, they were the aggressor in Iraq.

You're claiming that it's "showing weakness" to be a decent human being who doesn't go around killing people who never did anything to him. That's scary.

Nope, you are Len, because that's not what we're doing. I'm claiming it's showing weakness, and not only showing, but is weakness, to retreat from a war with the enemy, people that are killing us, want us dead and are a big instrument in why we are not home yet, Al Qaeda. History has already proven what they do to people and countries they see as weak, attack them and purposely kill their innocents in mass.

Funny, you didn't argue about what they would do if we leave. Because you know that's correct. You decided to show again, and point out again, that Al Qaeda terrorist are innocent and we're the bad guys. Like all other posts you make, you word and phrase your questions and statements to where we're the bad guys and then make a conclusive statement like, "that's scary".

Here, let me try it. Well.....Damn, I'm having trouble making up anything more scary than your current position on "us" verse "Al Qaeda". My bad again, I almost forgot, you choose not to be "us".

 

[samtechlan]

Your post implies that the terrorists exist and attack us because we are doing something wrong. You imply that if WE changed OUR ways, they would stop wanting to murder us en masse. It is fine if you feel that way, but this is the problem, this is why the vast majority of Republicans can not and do not support Ron Paul.

Paul wants us to retreat and ignore friends and enemies? So if we simply "leave" the Middle East all will be rosy? I guess it is none of our business is fanatics take over the oil fields and destroy our economy and way of life? Certainly that is not our business right? Who cares about the billions of dollars American companies have invested in providing us with the oil we need from the Middle East and other international locales?

Who is this "they" that want to murder us? Please be specific. Sunni Fundamentalists? Shi'ite Fundamentalists? the Wahhabbi (Sunni) fundamentalists who run Saudi Arabia and are the Bush's family best friends? Iranian Shi'ite fundamentalists? secular arab nationalists like the Ba'ath party of Syria? Perhaps you are not aware that we are supporting with treasure and blood a Shi'ite fundamentalist government in Iraq today that came to power through our enforced national elections. A govt. by the way with very close ties to the govt in Iran. More recently we've started to arm nationalist Sunni fundamentalist insurgents who we hope will continue to fight the foreign jihadists of Al Queda.

It just so happens that the Shi'ite fundamentalists and the Sunni fundamentalists despise each other and massacre each other with much gusto, which is why you see all the mosques being blown up with such regularity. Different Christian denominations used to do the same to each other during the Reformation and Counter Reformation but thankfully Christianity outgrew such tendencies and today Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox Christians pretty much get along.

So what will they do if we leave? Well for many they'll continue to kill each other just like they did during the Iran/Iraq war, just like they are doing in Iraq today, just like they are doing in the Gaza Strip this very week. PERHAPS YOU THINK WE SHOULD INVADE THE GAZA STRIP TOO? You know today Gaza, tomm those Hamas boys could be in downtown Richmond, VA.

If the "THEY" you seem to fear so much is Al Queda I would agree with you, yes they do want to kill us and our civilization, although Osama and Zawahiri might be content if we just converted to their brand of Islam. Other groups have local concerns and feuds and we can work with them, hell, we do it every day with our allies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states as well as the Shi'ite govt in Iraq that we helped to install.

Paul does not want us to babysit anymore civil wars which is eminently sensible. If we withdraw as Paul urges it is understood that Iraq will be left in the hands of some THUG who will bring order BUT NOT DEMOCRACY TO this ancient land. Iraquis will basically have a NEW SADDAM; but one not foolish enough to invade his neighbors. That is why the invasion was so idiotic in the first place, it removed one of the truly SECULAR LEADERS in the region. Saddam was so secular that he even had a Christian in his cabinet, Tariq Aziz, an Iraqi catholic.

In retrospect it is clear that level headed leaders like Paul did not, in contrast to his many political colleagues, soil his underwear upon hearing about the 9/11 attacks and start ranting about going after "THEM". Don't go invading Italy and rounding up all the Italian Americans in this country just because you want to crush the Mafia and never, ever give in to simplistic scare mongering about "THEM". Unfortunately, our policies after 9/11 were made by those who walked away from that tragedy with yellow underwear and who've kept on soiling them every day since then.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I honestly don't understand why some people are so fearful of terrorists. The odds of getting killed by a terrorist are slim to none, provided you're not a soldier when some damned fool president starts a war of choice in some Middle Eastern country filled with fanatical Muslims. I'm much more likely to get Lyme disease than get killed by a terrorist, and I don't wet myself with fear every time I walk out into the woods. Frankly, I would rather be dead than live such a cowardly existence. But hey, if that's how you choose to live your life, stock up on disposable underpants and have at it. Just leave my Constitution alone or I'll give you something very real to fear.

 

[samtechlan]

Hey Hamas has the green flags we see waving in Gaza and Al Queda has those scary black flags, maybe this should be the symbol of the brave intervene evewhere tough guys: http://www.depend.com/?WT.srch=1&WT.mc_id=761014&IQ_ID=761014

 

[Marshall]

I honestly don't understand why some people are so fearful of terrorists.

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.

I can't think of a much worse scenario than having an event like that happen with a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama in the White House.

In my humble opinion, if you think homeland security measure that GWB has taken since 9-11 compromise your rights and freedoms, wait until you see what a Hillary or Obama would try to accomplish after a tragic terrorist attack here in the USA.

And, add a democratic congress in the mix on top of that and as BTO would say, You ain't seen nothin' yet. B-b-b-baby, you just ain't seen n-n-nothin' yet. Here's something that you never gonna forget. B-b-b-baby, you just ain't seen n-n-nothin' yet.

Grab your ankles.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

In my humble opinion, if you think homeland security measure that GWB has taken since 9-11 compromise your rights and freedoms, wait until you see what a Hillary or Obama would try to accomplish after a tragic terrorist attack here in the USA.

Better the tyrant you know than the tyrant you don't know, eh? Sorry, but that's like being given the choice of a refreshing mint before or after your cornholed. I'll leave that choice to others; I'm voting for Dr. Paul.

 

[Marshall]

Marshall

Quote:
In my humble opinion, if you think homeland security measure that GWB has taken since 9-11 compromise your rights and freedoms, wait until you see what a Hillary or Obama would try to accomplish after a tragic terrorist attack here in the USA.

LobotomyBoy

Better the tyrant you know than the tyrant you don't know, eh? Sorry, but that's like being given the choice of a refreshing mint before or after your cornholed. I'll leave that choice to others; I'm voting for Dr. Paul.

LB,

If you think about it a little bit more, that doesn't make much sense. We already have GWB. His not on the ballot so, it's not a choice you're given. Maybe you're saying everyone but RP is a GWB, I dunno?

 

[budney]

Hello again Mr "Al Qaeda is innocent and friendly and never did anything to us" guy. Nice to see you again. I wrote what I did especially for you Len. Somehow I knew you would come to Al Qaeda's defense. I must be Dianna Warwick tonight.

What a joke. You can "specifically mention" Al Qaeda all you want. Very few of the tens of thousands of Iraqi dead were members of Al Qaeda. 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.

--Len.

 

[Autolycus]

Well I would rather see a Hillary or Obama in office during another attack than a Neo-Conservative who will attack a country that has nothing to do with the terrorist attack. Once there they overthrow the only stable leader these people have and allow thousands of terrorists to move in and start a civil war. The outcome has been to create a new enemy for us.

Needless to say I wont vote Republican again unless that Republican is Ron Paul.

 

[jselvy]

Hillary has got my vote in Ron Paul does not get the nod. I would rather go fast down the road to tyranny than the "death of a thousand cuts" we are suffering now.

Jefferson

 

[MrRezister]

Marshall says:
In my humble opinion, if you think homeland security measure that GWB has taken since 9-11 compromise your rights and freedoms, wait until you see what a Hillary or Obama would try to accomplish after a tragic terrorist attack here in the USA.

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.

I'm going to have to take a stand and point out that this is a legitimate concern, not just some wimpy liberal fearmongering. There are alternatives that don't include sitting around in a friendship circle waiting for "Mr. Al-Quaeda" to come and decapitate us.

Dissatisfaction with this policy isn't just coming from wild-eyed Democrats who claim Bush is the Devil. A lot of people on both sides think this strategy is going to make things worse for us in the long run and want a change.

I agree with what you said about Hillary and Obama, but that fear is not a good excuse to vote for more of the same if what's happening now isn't working. Personally I disagree with some of the above posters who have pledged their allegiance to Hillary if Paul doesn't make the cut, because I don't think that will work either. As of right now, my plan is to vote for Ron Paul in the primary, and if he doesn't get the nomination, then I would probably write him in if none of the candidates on the ticket really represent my views. I think voting for Hillary will send the wrong message to the GOP, and they will come back next cycle farther to the left than ever before. The only real way to get the message out is to vote for the person you actualy want in office, don't just vote against the other guy.

 

[xd9fan]

Hillary has got my vote in Ron Paul does not get the nod. I would rather go fast down the road to tyranny than the "death of a thousand cuts" we are suffering now.

yep why vote for socialism-lite(GOP) (except Ron Paul)
when you can get the full-blown full strength stuff??

 

[crashm1]

I honestly don't understand why some people are so fearful of terrorists. The odds of getting killed by a terrorist are slim to none, provided you're not a soldier when some damned fool president starts a war of choice in some Middle Eastern country filled with fanatical Muslims. I'm much more likely to get Lyme disease than get killed by a terrorist, and I don't wet myself with fear every time I walk out into the woods. Frankly, I would rather be dead than live such a cowardly existence. But hey, if that's how you choose to live your life, stock up on disposable underpants and have at it. Just leave my Constitution alone or I'll give you something very real to fear.

+eleventy billion
I am so tired of hearing I should be afraid of the evil Islamo-Fascists and that I am not supporting the troops because I disagree with attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. If we pack up and leave the middle east I think Al-Queada will go back to plotting to overthrow Saudi Arabia just like they were doing before we parked a bunch of troops there and in Kuwait.
I think a little more of an isolationist attitude might be good for us. The US is not the center of the universe.
As far as US corporations getting shafted if we don't prop up said regimes, too bad, part of being a capitalist is risking capital. I see no good reason to subsidize or protect them. If I want to make money at a poker table I need to put some money at risk, the dealer and the card room don't garrantee I'll win just that I can play in the game.
I voted against GWB both times and voted for the lesser of two evils (IMHO) for the first times in my voting history, I won't do that again. I'm voting for RP in the WI primary if he is still a presidential candidate at that point. If he isn't I'm voting for the next closest version of him I can find on the ballot.