Ron Paul Mega-Thread (Mergeness)

Status
Not open for further replies.
when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

who wrote such blasphemy!?

oh, we did...

i'm sure it will be mentioned that 'we dont have a despot', or 'what long train of abuses?'

but i still wonder why one of the first major documents leading to the nation we have today says 'it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off' an unjust government... hmmm

irrelevant i'm sure...
 
I don't see anybody here on THR volunteering not to pay their taxes.
Nor do I, but I do hear a lot of loose talk about "cold dead hands". I guess each individual's tolerance level for tyranny varies.
 
Civil disobedience is NOT a duty of the citizen. That's absurd. To say we must be vigilant and not let the government become overpowering is not to say we should be disobedient.

To NOT obey a government which we can change is ridiculous. We should obey, and if we find something we do not approve of, to change it. But obey till it is changed.

Without this sort of sheep-like world view, the Third Reich could never have existed.

This is the difference between an anarchy and the rule of law.

That's just nonsensical. As for volunteering not to pay our taxes, Dr. Paul makes it perfectly clear that you have to pay the consequences for civil disobedience, and rightly or wrongly that means prison time for refusing to pay taxes. When the price is that high, we have to be very selective about which fights we choose. Ultimately I believe the First and Second Amendments are critical to preserving what's left of the rest of the Constitution, so I put my efforts into and accept the consequences of supporting those for the time being.
 
Governments should be afraid of their people. does any one agree?

just because you have 'representation' doesn't mean they have to do anything they were voted in to accomplish, nor does it make them some instantly pro-constitution individual. they can violate our rights as fast or faster than any foreign invader ever could.
 
Government should be terrified of the citizenry, it is the only way to keep them in check

Jefferson
 
Article by Joe Sobran on Ron Paul.



Sobran: The Honor of Ron Paul

by Joe Sobran


I guess I’ve known Ron Paul for a quarter of a century now, and I don’t remember how we met. My first memory of him is a quiet dinner on Capitol Hill, during the Reagan years. He told me with dry humor of being the only member of Congress to vote against some bill Reagan wanted passed. For Ron it was a matter of principle, and he was under heavy pressure to change his vote.

What amused him was that the Democrats didn’t mind his voting against it; all the pressure came from his fellow Republicans, professed conservatives, who were embarrassed that anyone should actually stand up for their avowed principles when it was unpopular to do so.

That was Ron Paul for you. Still is. The whole country is getting to know him now, and the Republicans still want to get rid of him. The party’s hacks, led by Newt Gingrich, have even tried in vain to destroy him in his own Texas district.

They’re right, in a way. He doesn’t belong in a party that has made “conservative” a synonym for “destructive.” George Will calls him a “useful anachronism” because he actually believes, as literally as circumstances permit, in the U.S. Constitution. In his unassuming way, without priggery or histrionics, he stands alone.

He may have become at last what he has always deserved to be: the most respected member of the U.S. Congress. He is also the only Republican candidate for president who is truly what all the others pretend to be, namely, a conservative. His career shows that a patriotic, pacific conservatism isn’t a paradox.

If they can’t expel Ron Paul from the party, they can at least deny him the nomination. The GOP front-runner, Rudy Giuliani, who says he hates abortion more than any other constitutional right (or words to that effect), went into raptures of phony indignation during the first “debate” when Paul said simply that the 9/11 attacks were a natural result of U.S. foreign policy. The pundits applauded the demagogue, but millions of viewers were thrilled to find one honest man on that crowded stage. (By the way, Paul is a doctor who has delivered thousands of babies and never killed one.)

Ron — I’m very proud to call him my friend — fares well not only in comparison with the party’s sorry current candidates, but also with its legendary conservative giants, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. He lacks their charisma and of course Reagan’s matchless charm, but he excels them both in consistency, depth, historical awareness, courage, and honor. Heaven grant him some of Reagan’s luck!

Which brings us to the big question: does Ron Paul have a prayer? Well, he may have a prayer, but that’s about it. He doesn’t have a billion dollars; delivering babies, often free of charge, is not the way to amass a staggering fortune. He has nothing to offer the special and foreign interests who pour millions into Rudy’s and Hillary’s coffers. Sorry, this isn’t a Frank Capra movie.

But virtue — honor — is rare enough to be an asset, especially when the two big parties don’t have much of it. If both offer pro-war, pro-abortion New York liberals next year, there could be an urgent demand for a third option, especially since Giuliani could smash what’s left of the Bush-riddled GOP coalition while Hillary remains, well, Hillary.

What if Ron Paul runs for president on, say, the Constitution Party ticket? Who knows? I can only attest that to know him is to love him, and knowing him for many years has only deepened the esteem I felt for him when we were both much younger men. This is a man who strikes deep chords in people’s hearts.

Every attempt to portray him as an extremist, or even eccentric, founders on his palpable probity and wisdom. His words are the carefully measured words of one given to meditation. Ron Paul is a man you listen closely to.

The odds are heavily against his being elected president next year. But if he is on the ballot in November, the odds are far heavier against his candidacy’s being forgotten. He will say things worth pondering long after the votes are cast.

Until now, the GOP has been able to contain Paul by pretending he wasn’t there. But the silent treatment can no longer stifle this soft-spoken man. He has been proved right too often.

http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=787

www.ronpaul2008.com
 
good article

but obviously this is written by some pro-ron paul nutjob :rolleyes:

I'm still voting for him. i dont care what letter is next to his name, to be quite honest.
 
The Ron Paul Report?

Is it true he wrote a racist news letter in the 90's called the Ron Paul report or are all these links propaganda.( Please take note im not accusing him of anything I just wanted to know if the quotes from the following links are factual).
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740
Here is an excerpt from the dailykos

"The only complete article from the Ron Paul Political Report on the Internet that I am aware of is a 1992 piece titled "LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM," on the subject of the so-called Rodney King riots in South Central Los Angeles in 1991. It is available to us today because it was posted to the talk.politics.misc newsgroup on July 30, 1993 by Dan Gannon, a notorious white supremacist and Holocaust denier, and archived by the Nizkor Project, an anti-revisionism organization that was active in cataloging hate speech on the early public Internet. You can read Nizkor's copy of the article here, and see a reposted version on Google Groups here. Some relevant passages from the article (emphasis mine):"

"Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer. "
 
It is the only smear that has been going around.
The articles were not written by Ron Paul, but by some of his staffers in a news letter.
He took responsibility for them but those are not his positions.
 
This explains some.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822
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.

The writing is not in Ron Pauls style, nor are they his stated views.
Dr. Pauls views and positions are here.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
 
iwas joking actually, but there are people on this forum and others that as soon as someone puts out that Ron Paul has supporters, they jump all over it saying the same things, he cant win, he wants to support terror, crazy isolationsist, his economic policies will destroy us...

i just get a kick out of the fact every article i read about him he is saying the same, calm, cool-headed positions he's had since i heard about him, and the same posititions he touts on his interviews, whomever he maybe talking to.

RP For 2008
 
Ron stirs the pot

The very fact that they are trying to pull this kind of attack means he is gaining popularity and it is scaring them to dirty tactics, and I like it. The Lame stream media won't dwell on him. That means he is doing good. When the side in the wrong, has no facts to argue about the issues, they resort to personal attacks. Printable fliers and his sign can be downloaded at Republic Broadcasting Network. I just put his sign on my vehicle, and have handed out his info every day. We are going to see more and more dirty tricks to come. The path to freedom is never easy, if you aren't being persecuted, you aren't standing for what's right. :D
 
BAT1-

Ron Paul stirs the pot of Ron Paul supporters. Which amount to about 1% of likely Republican voters...

Sure polls can be wrong, somewhat biased, and have large margins of error. But when most polls have Thompson taking 30% of the Republican vote, and he isn't even officially running yet, I don't think Dr. Paul's hovering at ~1% is going to cause much more than a ripple in the Republican primary.

That certainly is a shame because the more I read about him, the more I like him and his adherence to his principles. (Even though I certainly have my disagreements with him about his Laissez-faire economic policies).

Maybe he can pull a Perot though...who knows.
 
OK so the articles are definitely not PC, but can anyone refute the spirit of the message, ie Blacks are mostly responsible for their lot in life?
 
People are responsible for their lot in life, but I think some times certain groups are oppressed due to racism, stereotyping etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top