Ron Paul, in his own words:

Ron Paul...............

Is no Andrew Jackson...the only thing comparable is that RP also wants the Federal Reserve dismantled and our monetary system returned to the Gold Standard...he is no populist or nationalist...he wants us to become like Switzerland...Neutral...this is no Andrew Jackson..who also believed in fighting all enemies within as well as without...!


You guys need a new man....RP is limp wristed and will put us all in jepardy!
 
Battleborne said:
Is no Andrew Jackson...the only thing comparable is that RP also wants the Federal Reserve dismantled and our monetary system returned to the Gold Standard...he is no populist or nationalist...he wants us to become like Switzerland...Neutral...this is no Andrew Jackson..who also believed in fighting all enemies within as well as without...!


You guys need a new man....RP is limp wristed and will put us all in jepardy!
Click to expand...

You have it backwards. Andrew Jackson was no Ron Paul.
 
RStringfield said:
You are so full of shit. If Ron Paul was such a big supporter of "corporate civil liberties" then tell us why the frontrunners of your party get far more of there money from corporations? Where is his corporate media support?

I am sure you will likely back whatever corporate whore your party does, meanwhile throwing meaningless insults at the one guy who will not be bought.
Click to expand...

My hope is to offer this opinion without offending you.

Ron Paul wants to remove all restrictions, limits, and regulations from corporations. One cannot claim to be anti-corporatist and have that view.

He believes that the "free market" can police itself, but there is a long history that demonstrates that is not true. Corporations will abuse whenever they can in the interest of the bottom line.

He doesn't believe in campaign finance limitations .. which will only allow corporations to buy more politicians .. which will only lead to more corporate wars like the invasion of Iraq.

These and other opinions and policies of Paul lead people to believe that he is not the answer to corporate control of America.
 
Beefy said:
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!!!
Click to expand...

ZOMG WORDS FROM THE MASTER!!!
 
Exactly..............

Kathianne said:
Ron Paul is no Andrew Jackson, at least for the good reasons. Certainly he'd be against the Bank, but on other actions, no contest.
Click to expand...


Andrew Jackson was a conservative Democrat...he was attacked by the Federal Reserve Bank...of old...he however had America as a first priorty...he and his wife were defamed by Historical BS!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top