Ron Paul, in his own words:

Beefy

Worst gambler ever
Patriot Act and Domestic Spying:

The misnamed Patriot Act, presented to the public as an anti-terrorism measure, actually focuses on American citizens rather than foreign terrorists.

"Of course most governments, including our own, cannot resist the temptation to spy on their citizens when it suits government purposes. But America is supposed to be different. We have a mechanism called the Constitution that is supposed to place limits on the power of the federal government. Why does the Constitution have an enumerated powers clause, if the government can do things wildly beyond those powers-- such as establish a domestic spying program? Why have a 4th Amendment, if it does not prohibit government from eavesdropping on phone calls without telling anyone?"


America was founded by men who understood that the threat of domestic tyranny is as great as any threat from abroad. If we want to be worthy of their legacy, we must resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society. Otherwise, our own government will become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist.

The Middle East:

" The Saudis, unlike the Iraqis, have proven connections to al Qaeda. Saudi charities have funneled money to Islamic terrorist groups. Yet the administration insists on calling Saudi Arabia a “good partner in the war on terror.” Why? Because the U.S. has a longstanding relationship with the Saudi royal family, and a long history of commercial interests relating to Saudi oil."

The justification, given endlessly since September 11th, is that both support terrorism and thus pose a risk to the United States. Yet when we step back and examine the region as a whole, it’s obvious that these two impoverished countries, neither of which has any real military, pose very little threat to American national security when compared to other Middle Eastern nations. The decision to attack them, while treating some of region’s worst regimes as allies, shows the deadly hypocrisy of our foreign policy in the Middle East.

The "Conservative Revolution":

When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or “printing” new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. Like future generations and those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocation that this process causes. Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.


National ID Card:

Just as we must not allow terrorists to threaten our lives, we must not allow government to threaten our liberties. We should reject the notion of a national identification card.

The Draft:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose HR 163 in the strongest possible terms. The draft, whether for military purposes or some form of “national service,” violates the basic moral principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded. Furthermore, the military neither wants nor needs a draft

Department of Homeland Security:

Instead of a carefully-crafted product of meaningful deliberations, I fear we are once again about to pass a hastily-drafted bill in order to appear that we are "doing something." Over the past several months, Congress has passed a number of hastily crafted measures that do little, if anything, to enhance the security of the American people. Instead, these measures grow the size of the federal government, erode constitutional liberties, and endanger our economy by increasing the federal deficit and raiding the social security trust fund. The American people would be better severed if we gave the question of how to enhance security from international terrorism the serious consideration it deserves rather than blindly expanding the federal government. Congress should also consider whether our hyper-interventionist foreign policy really benefits the American people.


The War Against Terror (TWAT):

It is incumbent on a great nation to remain confident, if it wishes to remain free. We need not be ignorant to real threats to our safety, against which we must remain vigilant. We need only to banish to the ash heap of history the notion that we ought to be ruled by our fears and those who use them to enhance their own power.

There's endless gems here, check it out.

http://ronpaullibrary.org/index.php

Ron Paul '08!!!
 
He voted against the Patriot Act and I am sure all funding for it, extensions of it and other infringements, like the new domestic terrorism that Dems supported in overwhelming majorities. WTF have dems done? Large numbers if not clear majorities vote for this crap. Most of it was advanced by Dems under Clinton. And hell, you all cheer for the Peace Prize Winner that created extraordinary rendition.

Paul has consistently vioted against such things and spoken strongly against. What else do you expect him to do?
 
Words are easy. What has he done ?

Umm...he votes on principle and sticks by his word. Oh, and he's running for President as an underdog but has amassed a considerable following and has forced his way in among the "top" contenders as such. He's forced the issues of limited government, non-interventionist foreign policy, and individual liberty into the debate. That's what he's done.
 
He voted against the Patriot Act and I am sure all funding for it, extensions of it and other infringements, like the new domestic terrorism that Dems supported in overwhelming majorities. WTF have dems done? Large numbers if not clear majorities vote for this crap. Most of it was advanced by Dems under Clinton. And hell, you all cheer for the Peace Prize Winner that created extraordinary rendition.

Paul has consistently vioted against such things and spoken strongly against. What else do you expect him to do?

walk on water from what I hear.
 
He's alienated about 95 percent of voters. Thats about it. Cept in Texas and the internets.

You can win elections and peace prizes with wishy-washy pansies that trample on human rights, sure. But if that is not what you want to accomplish than winning seems a little hollow.
 
And all while usc and other Dems who claim to support civil liberties hurl invective at him.

Yep. He's the ONLY candidate in either party that is talking about truly protecting civil liberties, and the left somehow isn't interested.
 
I went to his website today and watched the 9 min. video on the main page. Its pretty good, and one of the pro-Paul quotes is from Reagan (and the irony that his name is Ronald Ernest Paul is not lost on me either). Considering the abundance of Reagan literature that has appeared on my university's College Republicans board, I'm thinking of putting that quote up there. :woot:
 
Umm...he votes on principle and sticks by his word. Oh, and he's running for President as an underdog but has amassed a considerable following and has forced his way in among the "top" contenders as such. He's forced the issues of limited government, non-interventionist foreign policy, and individual liberty into the debate. That's what he's done.

to a gentleman such as citizen partisanship for his party is what matters. party first, everything else second. So even if Ron Paul agrees with a lot of what citizen agrees with his loyalty to the Democratic party comes first, his prinicples come second. Hence citizen is a party hack and nothing else.
 
I'm not going to look that up for you. :rolleyes:

Don't worry, I already did and I've posted his record of what he's done.

What you have is an academic who doesn't understand government and who is devoid of any socio-ethical responsibility.

Nice words though.
 
Umm...he votes on principle and sticks by his word. Oh, and he's running for President as an underdog but has amassed a considerable following and has forced his way in among the "top" contenders as such. He's forced the issues of limited government, non-interventionist foreign policy, and individual liberty into the debate. That's what he's done.

A presidential candidate who polls nationally under 5% can hardly be considered among the top contenders.

As was stated in a recent article, his supporters don't understand that it's not the depth of his support that counts, it's the breadth of that support.

The only one talking about non-inteventionalist foreign policy and individual liberty at the debate was him.
 
Yep. He's the ONLY candidate in either party that is talking about truly protecting civil liberties, and the left somehow isn't interested.

As a member of that left, you are indeed correct. I'm not the slightest bit intrested in his perception of liberty or freedom
 
I really like some of Paul's ideas, but the kookie ideas disqualify him from my vote!
 
Yep RP has a few good ideas, but then so did Bush....
Both are Republicans, RP votes with Bush issues the majority of the time.
Whatsa difference ?
 
Back
Top